Should games adapt to a more "cost is cost" scheme?

[old.Tohtori]

I was thinking about this today;

If i had bought 4 add-ons from live, with 3400 ms points, it would be around 35e for all.

I bought 2 2-set boxes from a sale(3 for 2) and got bioshock. So essentially one add-on cost me 3e or so and bioshock 6-7e.

Bit of a difference in price.

Anyway, it got me thinking, since gamestudios poop out 2,3,4,5 and the add-ons on a yearly basis, would it be great if the cost of the game in the market would be correlated to the cost of development?

So for example, fallout 3 has oblivion engine on it. It would lower the costs and as such, cost less then oblivion did.

Add-ons ofcourse would cost even less, mere pennies(well, 3-5e as said) since the dev costs also would be minimal compared.

Now something like Super Destroyer XX(X) (option for PG18) with all bells and whistles would cost the consumer mroe, since they had to make an engine, new tech, long time to make etc. But then, the price of future releases would be lower again.

This would also bring more money towards the starting up companies, while still bringing income to the already established gamegiants.

Starting companies could also choose to make a budget game, with lower price to the consumer, but most likely need to raise the cost for sequels and ofcourse it wouldn't be so pretty.

As far as questions go;

Would you be willing to pay more for a game that is quaranteed quality, due to knowing that the price correlates the production costs?

Would you be willing to pay more for that shining gem of a game, if you knew that future releases and DLC for it would be cheaper?

Regarding question 2; this ofcourse would mean that the base engine of the game is sold with the 1st installation and needed for future installations. Maybe sell different packs even, such as; Game 1(75e), Game 2(addon 35e), Game 2 + engine abse (75e). Or some such.

(This ofcourse does not count for shitty production, like 12 years of duke nukem , unless it's a shining gem from the arse of odin himself!)

 

[Thorwyn]

So for example, fallout 3 has oblivion engine on it. It would lower the costs and as such, cost less then oblivion did.

Why?
Just because the developer didn´t spend money on developing their own engine doesn´t mean that the game is less fun to play. In fact: if they didn´t need the resources to build an engine, they could have spend more ressources into the gamedesign process.

When I buy a game, I dont´care what engine it´s using or what the total development cost was. All I care about is the fun I have playing the game.

A price model like the one you´re suggesting will never see any practical use, simply because it means that
a. the developing studio would have to reveal their development costs and
b. this informations would have to be correct

Also:
Many high level projects are designed around an add-on system. The development costs for the core game are much higher than the actual revenue, so making add-ons are part of the calculation. Add-ons are not always "milking the cow".

 

[old.Tohtori]

Why did you associate cost with fun? It doesn't affect the fun factor of games.

If they spent more resources on developing the game, ofcourse it would prop the price up accordingly.

Neither did i say that add-ons are milking the cow, but calculations can be adjusted to any system really.

About reporting costs, this is ofcourse given and it's not like it's a top secret info.

 

[Thorwyn]

I didn´t associate cost with fun.

You say that the price for a game should reflect the money it took to make it, i.e. the more expensive the development was, the better it must be (otherwise there would be no point buying it).
I say that the development costs are irrelevant for the final result and all that matters is fun playing the game. If I´m having fun, then I´m willing to pay for the game. If not, I won´t buy it.

Example:
I bought "Plants vs. Zombies" for a budget price on Steam and had loads of fun playing it.
I bought Warhammer Online and got bored after a few weeks.

In both cases, neither the actual price I payed, nor the development costs were reflecting the true value for me, the customer. Hence my statement: development costs are irrelevant.

Compare it to the movie industry. It doesn´t matter whether or not a movie is a 20 mio $ production or a budget movie, you´re still paying your 8€ at the cinemas to watch it (more or less).

About reporting costs, this is ofcourse given and it's not like it's a top secret info.

And you really believe that companies like EA or Ubisoft would give out the real numbers? ??

 

[old.Tohtori]

If they had to, yes.

Don't compare the current system to what i'm proposing, think of it as a regulated thing like the ESRB, where you would know for a fact that the spenditure of a game is in correlation with the quality(not withstanding taste of genre etc).

The spenditure would need to be linked to actual production, not just time used to make it and if that is not the case, then it could still be released with whatever price they want, but without an ESRB style "approval".

So you would have approved and non approved games and like with any game, if you cheat the system, you can kiss your company goodbye as everyone would know you're not on the ball.

I'm not talking about some little tweak on the system, as you might have noticed

Ofcourse one could say; Reviews give us that already", but as you very well know, reviews are mostly based on payment and no review(outside independent ones(if even those)) can be trusted.

 

[Thorwyn]

Goes against the laws of free pricing. If someone creates a product, he is entitled to sell it for whatever he wants to. And he would be stupid to comply to some sort of external rating board that tells him to sell his crap for no more than 20€.
And like I said, development cost doesn´t play a role in the evaluation process of any gamer.

Simple question to you:
If you consider buying a game.. what are your key factors in the decision process?

edit: or let´s make it even more simple:
What are the defining values for the quality of a game.

 

[ST^]

I don't think the cost of production is a big deal. It should reflect in the quality of the game and you'll get your money back through sales quantity rather than price.

I do, however, think that it's a bit silly when there is a huge gap in quality between games (lets say Uncharted 2 compared to Fracture, which was utter shite) and they cost the same.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Goes against the laws of free pricing. If someone creates a product, he is entitled to sell it for whatever he wants to. And he would be stupid to comply to some sort of external rating board that tells him to sell his crap for no more than 20€.
And like I said, development cost doesn´t play a role in the evaluation process of any gamer.

Simple question to you:
If you consider buying a game.. what are your key factors in the decision process?

Wouldn't interfere with the free pricing if they don't want the approval

I never said the dev cost plays a role in the gamers evaluation process either.

I'll answer that, but i'd prefer you answer my questions too

When i buy a game, i tend to look at several things(quickbuys excluded) in no particular order.;

- Word to mouth (is it supposed to be good etc)
- Developer (past products say a lot, like something from bliz will no doubt be bliz quality). That is not to say i shun developers on past products, it's just a plus.
- If it's something like fallout series, fan and all.
- Cost.
- Lifespan.
- Multiplayer options.

To name a few.

Fun doesn't come into it as i won't know before i play it.

 

[Thorwyn]

I do, however, think that it's a bit silly when there is a huge gap in quality between games (lets say Uncharted 2 compared to Fracture, which was utter shite) and they cost the same.

But that´s the same with everything... games, books, music, movies. The customer is responsible to gather some informations before he decides to buy a product. It´s not like there are no informations available.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But that´s the same with everything... games, books, music, movies. The customer is responsible to gather some informations before he decides to buy a product. It´s not like there are no informations available.

And what i'm suggesting helps that.

If something was "cost approved" by a board, you'd know already that the cost of the game should reflect to some modecum the quality.

What ST said is exactly the kind of problem this would remove; sh*t games being sold as quality.

The board wouldn't even have to be that extensive because any set of gamers/devs could tell you that "No, this is not worth the same as Balllicker 2000".

And there's really no way for a customer to really know that something isn't rated by reviews as quality simply due to them getting paid to say so.

As said; this doesn't apply to taste of genre and other things like that, but overall quality. You would know that by paying 10e for a fresh release, you should expect some shit product in there etc.

 

[Thorwyn]

OK... here we go then:

Would you be willing to pay more for a game that is quaranteed quality, due to knowing that the price correlates the production costs?

No, because I don´t believe that production costs correlates the quality.

Would you be willing to pay more for that shining gem of a game, if you knew that future releases and DLC for it would be cheaper?

No, because I prefer to have a simple price system that doesn´t depend on any "if´s" and "when´s". It might be worth a shot in complex games like MMOs though.

If something was "cost approved" by a board, you'd know already that the cost of the game should reflect to some modecum the quality.

That means that a. there is an ultimate truth about the evaluation of a game and b. there is a 100% trustworthy board that you can rely on. I guarrantee you that - in such a scenario - we would see LOTS of people with black briefcases walking around at the board hq.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Although interesting arguments, the basic premise is flawed.

A product will cost whatever the associated market is willing to pay for it. In any arena it always comes down to this. It has nothing to do with whatever awesomeness went into that product. This applies whether it is a computer game, a car or flea powder.

Influencing the market to believe its worth what you want to sell at is another matter. See Apple on how to do this.

 

[old.Tohtori]

OK... here we go then:

No, because I don´t believe that production costs correlates the quality.

No, because I prefer to have a simple price system that doesn´t depend on any "if´s" and "when´s". It might be worth a shot in complex games like MMOs though.

That means that a. there is an ultimate truth about the evaluation of a game and b. there is a 100% trustworthy board that you can rely on. I guarrantee you that - in such a scenario - we would see LOTS of people with black briefcases walking around at the board hq.

Now, the cost doesn't correlate quality now. But if there was such a stamp, all if's and but's out of the way, if there was a approved stamp that people know is trustworthy(without corruption), would you think the system is plausible?

There is a modecum of degree in saying if a game is quality, at the moment there is no such measure in place.

Roo; but there are things in place already that show that a product has quality, in finland for example we have a "swan mark" in food products. This mark indicates that you can expect a certain degree of quality from it.

 

[ileks]

Although interesting arguments, the basic premise is flawed.

A product will cost whatever the associated market is willing to pay for it. In any arena it always comes down to this. It has nothing to do with whatever awesomeness went into that product. This applies whether it is a computer game, a car or flea powder.

Influencing the market to believe its worth what you want to sell at is another matter. See Apple on how to do this.

Exactly. It's the same with anything you buy.

DLC's (I think that's what you mean by add-ons?) are bulshit tho imo. Especially when they develop a game, then clearly remove features from the retail version and release them a short time later as extra DLC content. I seem to remember dragon age doing this and I think they did it with the console version of CoD- making maps available that came standard with the PC version etc.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah i don't like to call 'em DLC 'cause i usually get the dvd

Add-on is old schools yo

Funny note; don't know if thorwyn feels like this is work, cause this whole discussion is like a meeting with the marketing department

 

[Thorwyn]

Now, the cost doesn't correlate quality now. But if there was such a stamp, all if's and but's out of the way, if there was a approved stamp that people know is trustworthy(without corruption), would you think the system is plausible?

I don´t think it would be plausible, because there is no absolute and objective measurement of quality, just like there is no measurement for the quality of music or books. I like Pink Floyd and Primus, while other people prefer Andre Rieu. Who scores higher? Different people have different focuses. For some, story is all important. Others may think, that a game needs to be bugfree and stable. Multiplayer options are very important for the core players, while nice graphics are all that matters for the casual gamer. Don´t get me started about the female gamer marketing strategies. Simply speaking: I don´t want anyone or anything to make decisions or evaluations for me. If something is shit, I want to find out by myself. If something is great, I´d like to find out too.

Fanboyism and lobbyism is another factor that would definitely spoil your system. Take the "millions of flies can´t be wrong" approach of the Blizzard community. I don´t like World of Warcraft. Doesn´t fit my style, doesn´t fit my idea of gameplay. By your system, it would be a must-buy (lots of dev costs, decent gameplay), so what does that mean?

Now, let´s assume your system is in place. And there is one company... small one.. and it´s their first release. They score high in your rating system, but not too high. What are the consequences? Don´t you think that - in your system - people would *always* go for the highest rated games? Sure, they´re paying more, but they can be sure to get the highest quality for their money.

Another metaphor... if someone invented chess today. Would that score high on your suggested rating system?

And on a related note...
One of the biggest problems the gaming industry has to deal with is the lifecycle of games these days. We expect them to pay 50€ for a full price game and 3 months later, the game is available in a sellout or for free on some PC magazine. How can we expect people to acknowledge the real value of a computer game?

 

[ST^]

Take the "millions of flies can´t be wrong" approach of the Blizzard community. I don´t like World of Warcraft. Doesn´t fit my style, doesn´t fit my idea of gameplay. By your system, it would be a must-buy (lots of dev costs, decent gameplay), so what does that mean?

There is obviously a difference between not liking a game because it isn't your kinda thing, and not liking it because it's a steaming pile of shit. If you don't like a Blizzard game, quality is certainly not the issue.