don't buy games!

[Testin da Cable]

just read a bit of a strange article on the reg. the gist of it is that a group of games are setting up a campaign for lower pricing on games. they hope to bring some pressure to bear by creating a don't-buy-a-game week that runs the first week of december.

all well and good, but as I read a smidgin of doubt grew in my mind. to me the pricing of games have always been 'set' to certain standards. console games have their respective niches of price, pc class games have always been a certain price. is it really too high? do we really pay too much? what do you think?

article here
website here

 

[Sir Frizz]

I don't understand why console games cost more for less. Oh wait, PC's can cost anything up to 2K...

 

[Mophead]

Dunno the truth behind it, but someone once told me that console sales (as in the hardware) dont generate that much of a profit - and have been known to be sold at a loss. The revenue comes from selling game licenses.

 

[legendario]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable
the gist of it is that a group of games are setting up a campaign for lower pricing on games]

Pff Mutinous games rebelling against their fellow games .

No seriously, we do pay a little too much for games.

Console games are digracefully priced imo (on the highstreet).

Although you can weigh the amount of hours entertainment Vs price, it does seem a little better, but still too much.

The thing is, despite all that, I still buy games. They are mainly PC games though as I get more more gameplay hours from them.

I do own a ps2 (which gathers dust more than anything), but i've only bought 5 games for it over the last year and all have been from online retailers as i refuse to play 45 quid for an arcade game.


SO what my point? ... er..

Despite being overpriced, I and millions of others still buy them.

 

[urz]

That is indeed the case, when you buy a console game from, say, EA - EA have to pay a sum from each game to Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo for the 'key' that works the console. This is effect the license, and prevents the games from being copied on a PC.

That gives the manufacturer more control on who can manufacture the games, how much they charge, and is where the money is made. The console's are pretty much sold @ cost or less.

BTW the same applies to Inkjet printers, the money is made on the cartridges.

 

[granny]

Well, I'd be the first to say games are overpriced from my personal perspective, especially when compared to the prices of CD's and DVD's for instance. I also think there's a strong case to be made arguing that reducing prices of games would reduce piracy.

But on the other side of the coin I also know that the PC games industry is hardly a massive money spinner for many and that lots of game companies have been going bust in recent years so surely the argument there is that if prices (and therefore profits) were reduced then more game developers would go under and we'd and up with less choice?

Thing is that for any product there is a price that the market will bear - set it too high and you won't sell enough and go bust, set it too low and you won't make enough money and go bust, it's a fine line to tread.

 

[Testin da Cable]

well I could live with the games_companies_needing_money_to_live() argument because, while unhindered by any knowledge of the gaming industry, I can imagine that they aren't generating any income while still in 'development mode'. once a game is on the market, only then, to my mind, will a return on the initial investment be made. you'd have to recoup debt, production costs and manage to make a profit within the timeframe of your game being 'new and cool'. once again stressing that I have no idea how the industry works, I can imagine that many companies fail to get out of development.

I don't really like the costs_spread_over_gameplay thing tbh. Sure, it's true enough, but I think that the initial purchasing cost should be taken as an argument on it's own.

 

[prime1]

Pc games are good value, if you look at a cd its on average £13 for 50 minutes of material, a DVD is £15 for 2 hours, a proper pc game is at least 10 hours worth for 35.

DVDs are the least value for money, EURO DVDs cost £5 more than US (on average) and are actually lower quality because "all the languages take up the space necassaryfor high resolution images" or some bollox like that.

Music CDs can be played over an over qite easily so they arnt too bad value for money.

Its £6 for cinema tho.. 2 hours no replay :/

For me halife, I bought for £20 quid, downloaded CS, have played that for probably hundreds of hours, bargain if you ask me.

*although i didnt think much of the singleplayer game of halflife*

Console games are seriosuly overpriced, but then again the consoles are cheap :/

 

[wolfeeh]

cough

what's all this key bollocks?

of course you can copy consoles games on a pc....

i would imagine that the development costs for a console game are usually higher than a pc game also; take into account the fact that the developers are working with limited hardware, they have to optimise shit etc... there's typically more CG in console games.. FF anyone? there's a sodding hour or two of it in most of them...

and also console games tend to have more time and attention lavished on them, especially the japanese ones...

 

[granny]

Originally posted by prime1
Pc games are good value, if you look at a cd its on average £13 for 50 minutes of material, a DVD is £15 for 2 hours, a proper pc game is at least 10 hours worth for 35.

Hmm, I disagree, I tend to listen to CD's over and over and over again, 100's of hours of entertainment (unless they're crap). Most PC games I tend to play once...

DVDs are the least value for money, EURO DVDs cost £5 more than US (on average) and are actually lower quality because "all the languages take up the space necassaryfor high resolution images" or some bollox like that.

I thought Euro DVD's were *better* quality than US ones because of the PAL/NSTC thingy, the European standard being slightly higher resolution than US ones?

Music CDs can be played over an over qite easily so they arnt too bad value for money.

Oh, ignore that first bit I wrote then, you addressed it

Its £6 for cinema tho.. 2 hours no replay :/

True but worth it for the huge screen and whole cinema experience

For me halife, I bought for £20 quid, downloaded CS, have played that for probably hundreds of hours, bargain if you ask me.

That's very true - some PC games have longevity that makes them fantastic value for money.

*although i didnt think much of the singleplayer game of halflife*

Aww, I loved it, one of the best singleplayer games ever.

Console games are seriosuly overpriced, but then again the consoles are cheap :/

Yeah, I'm not a big convert to consoles, bought an X-Box last month and starting to wonder if it was a waste of money - the games are just too expensive to buy unless you know they're going to be rock solid, so I have 2 games so far, Halo and Buffy, neither of which has been played overly much yet :/

 

[S-Gray]

Why buy em when you can get em for free?

 

[granny]

Originally posted by Super_Gray[SG]
Why buy em when you can get em for free?

Because I like to support companies/developers who make good games so that they don't go bust so that I get more good games to play in the future

 

[kanonfodda]

I have to admit, in the past, I always thought games were over priced, leading to me purchasing very few (or waiting for them to come out on white label).

I have notices, in the last couple of years, that I am more willing to pay for the games, I don't know if this is because I earn more, or because the games have improved so much over that time.

I do know that lower prices would be prefereable, even £25 would be Ok (high street prices). I also think that reducing the price would reduce pirating, but the same goes for DVD's and CD's.

AFAIK, the publishers pay for the development of the games, then recoup the money on sales, not sure on that though, I could be wrong.

my two peneth

 

[Sir Frizz]

Originally posted by Super_Gray[SG]
Why buy em when you can get em for free?

Isn't it this kind of thing that drives prices upwards?

*stab*

 

[prime1]

It should be cheaper to make console games, cause there is very little need for after game support, they know EXACTLY what hardware and software they are writing for as well.

Less bugs, less development time, no need to provide after support for bugs etc.

When a pc game is released there are ALWAYS some bugs, althought usually minor, they all require some degree of after sales support. This dosnt happen on consoles. Although with the new online services they may be able to justify their cost to an extent. possibly.

The DVD thing, yes PAL is higher quality. Its one of those weird things, the US discs are higher quality supposedly because they have more spare space on them to hold the higher quality data.
The euro discs are lower quality altho their viewing system actually allows for higher quality viewing. Its supposedly because the extra sound files or editing carries more space and they have to make room on the discs by reducing the quality. Although its probably not realistically noticeable unless you *really* look.

I read this somewhere, possibly bbc website or a newspaper, but it came out because of the lobby trying to get all region discs produced, or US discs available over ere. The £5 extra takes the piss though.

 

[urz]

The question is, would you buy more games if they were cheaper?

Assuming that the unit cost of a game is no more than a £1 (mass produced box, booklet a couple of CD's and the cost of getting it to the retailer), then all other costs other than retailers margin are fixed. i.e, it doesn't matter if you sell 10k, 100k or 1m.

So if sales were to increase threefold for halving the cost, you would return more profit.

I am not sure if this would be the case.

 

[dysfunction]

I would buy more games if they were cheaper...

If they were only a £1 I would most games that were released

 

[Ono]

I pay full price for games from the High Street.

I do not copy or download games because it is n0rty.

I think £40 is a fair price to pay for Tetris and Fifa 2003.

I like you.

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by Ono
I pay full price for games from the High Street.

I do not copy or download games because it is n0rty.

I think £40 is a fair price to pay for Tetris and Fifa 2003.

I like you.

 

[legendario]

I buy more games now because i'm earning, yet i have less time to play them

Bloody jobs.

I may have to ditch meh bird

The thing is, most games are aimed at adults and i'm not talking about content. It is the people with spare cash that can afford to have gaming as a past time.

There are the exceptions of course but this is mostly the case.

 

[~YuckFou~]

Typically I d/l the free demo, or read a couple of reviews. If It really looks good and the cost is less than £40ish I buy it.
I bought HL 3 years ago, cost me £35 or so? I've certainly had the value out of it just in CS, but I enjoyed the sp game too.
Its a lot less than the cost of a night out so I don't mind paying the price.

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by urz
The question is, would you buy more games if they were cheaper?

I would. I do hasten to add that they would be my 'second' and 'third' choices off the rack. I'm willing to pay full price for what I regard as a 'first' choice.I

 

[ECA]

A good music album can take a year or longer to create and can cost MORE than a game, yet they are available for a tenner or fifteen quid.

I would be prepared to buy MORE games if they were priced at say 20 quid, the thing is, although this may be better for us, the game publishers would not get a 30% increase in sales, so quite simply their profits would suffer.

 

[legendario]

Originally posted by ECA
A good music album can take a year or longer to create and can cost MORE than a game, yet they are available for a tenner or fifteen quid.

A game takes significantly longer to develop that a year.

 

[nath]

Originally posted by prime1
The DVD thing, yes PAL is higher quality. Its one of those weird things, the US discs are higher quality supposedly because they have more spare space on them to hold the higher quality data.
The euro discs are lower quality altho their viewing system actually allows for higher quality viewing. Its supposedly because the extra sound files or editing carries more space and they have to make room on the discs by reducing the quality. Although its probably not realistically noticeable unless you *really* look.

Well, I'm not sure on the tech specs, but as I've recently bought a nice widescreen tele and a lovely new dvd player, I *do* really look. What I've noticed is that my american dvd's (such as Traffic, Crouching Tiger, Gladiator and a few others) are noticeably lower quality than some UK ones. Training Day, for example, has awesome picture quality.

As for prices, well (I've had this discussion with ono before :] ) I don't really have a problem with UK prices now. They're getting cheaper, imo the quality improvement is worth it, and delivery times and possibility of being taxed is enough of a drawback.

Oh, release dates are pretty much the same now. Infact, just checked Star Wars, ep 2 is out a day before the states here

 

[ECA]

Originally posted by legendario


A game takes significantly longer to develop that a year.

my somewhat understated point was that if an album takes a year to create and the average game takes 2, then a price of 20 quid if about right.

Put into perspective dev costs - probably around 1-2 million for a decent game, compared to an albums costs - ok some cost more - eg michael jacksons latest, but you get my point.

 

[whipped]

The main thing that gets my goat up is the difference between web and retail price.

I hate the fact that I can't pre-order the new game I want at £30 from GAME because they don't accept vouchers online. Then I go to the shop with my vouchers and the damn thing is £35.

I know they want to drive business to their website. But surely they are just cheating kids without credit/debit cards (Or those of us that like a bit of exercise each Friday afternoon) out of a fiver.

 

[tris-]

euro DVD

euro DVD 'should' be better quality because Europe has higher standards than the US on just about everything, probably because here, if you buy something not upto scratch, your most likely gonna moan your arse off till you get it decent standard where as in the US, they cant be arsed.

 

[nath]

Actually, Britons are known for not complaining.

 

[tris-]

Originally posted by nath
Actually, Britons are known for not complaining.