It's not that most games are bad...they just aren't worth $59.99

i had this epiphany when i picked up used copy of viking which is dropping like a stone. it was for 26.99 (in delaware) with 10% coupon plus a 10% edge card discount i paid $21. my sweet spot is 17.99 and below but i made an exception with viking

it's not really that good but i actually had fun playing it. sometimes i don't want to think i just want to hack and slash and viking fit the bill....however there is no way i would have paid $59.99 for this game. i still think i over paid but at 19.99 and below i'm hard pressed to find any game that i wouldn't buy.

I agree completely, games are not worth more than $50.00. But it seems that $60 will be a trend, especially with the growing cost of game and console production. There are certain games I would pay $60 for, but those standards can't really be set. What is worth $50 and what is worth $60? That question is not fair, $50 across the board would be preferable. We won't see that, unfortunately. I doubt it will rise to $70, though I would put money down on it not falling from $60.

Sucks, right?

No, they aren't. For the most part, games that aren't worth their weight in gold, I tend to avoid. I have a few games that I do feel are worth the investment for my wii and when I'm shopping for pc games. I just bought the orange box for 40 bucks. I'd call that pretty much a bargain (Unfortunately I just realized my power source is shot so I can't play it. :().

I'm more then willing to shell out a couple bucks for some absolute classics on the VC, and if I owned an Xbox360 or PS3, there are a few titles that I feel are certainly worth 60 dollars.

This is just who I am. I invest in games that I know for a fact I'll love, and generally avoid 99% of the others. I can wait for them to go down in price.

I usually wait for a price drop to $20-30 before buying a game, but there are a few exeptions (Nintendo's main franchises for instance) where I'll pay more. The absolute max I'll pay for a game is $50+tax unless it has some sort of extra hardware packed in with it (i.e. Guitar Hero, Wii Fit). I also rent often. That's how I played Gears of War, Stranglehold, and Halo 3. BTW, thanks goes to those developers for making their expensive games short enough to finish during a weekend rental! :)

I agree completely, games are not worth more than $50.00. But it seems that $60 will be a trend, especially with the growing cost of game and console production. There are certain games I would pay $60 for, but those standards can't really be set. What is worth $50 and what is worth $60? That question is not fair, $50 across the board would be preferable. We won't see that, unfortunately. I doubt it will rise to $70, though I would put money down on it not falling from $60.

Sucks, right?

GSU28

You'd be surprised. Last gen publishers found out they could charge $60 instead of $50 for a game when they saw that "collector's edition"/"limited edition" games (that usually only had a cheaply made "making of DVD" and different box art) sold well despite being 20% more expensive. To my knowledge LEs/CEs are still selling just as well, if not better, than last gen at $70-80 a pop now. And publishers know that all they have to say is "these games are so awesome that their dev costs are forcing us to sell them at $XX.XX". Remember that line back before this generation started? And remember how obviously bs it was when it took two years to finally get a game that didn't look like it could have been done on a PS2/GC/Xbox? Or how pubs automatically priced any X360/PS3 game at $60 even if it was just a port of a previous generation game? Don't even get me started on micropurchases.

Point being, don't be surprised if we have to pay $70 for games next gen. On the brightside at least we don't live in the UK or Australia. Those poor bastards have to pay about double what we do. And in the case of Australia they not only have to pay $85-115 USD for their games but they get them long after every other market has seen release.

your a cheap skate :Padam0926

:D i prefer cheapass but i'll take skate.....

Well thats why we have rental places. If you aren't sure about a game you can try it first.

And the reason why games cost $60 is due to increased production costs, inflation, etc. If that's too much then you can rent the game and/or wait till the price drops.

The U.S dollar is worth peanuts and in countries like Australia, where the dollar is about 96c to the dollar, they pay twice as much. Fair, much?

Quit complaining and if desperate, rent and check otu cheapassgamer.com

The U.S dollar is worth peanuts and in countries like Australia, where the dollar is about 96c to the dollar, they pay twice as much. Fair, much?

Quit complaining and if desperate, rent and check otu cheapassgamer.com

Sagacious_Tien

Why do Australians need to pay twice as much?

Yeah i agree, but unfortunally the only way the price would lower name would be if people stopped buying games, and the market for games is speeding up not slowing down.

[QUOTE="Sagacious_Tien"]

The U.S dollar is worth peanuts and in countries like Australia, where the dollar is about 96c to the dollar, they pay twice as much. Fair, much?

Quit complaining and if desperate, rent and check otu cheapassgamer.com

DeathScape666

Why do Australians need to pay twice as much?

60% of games today are not worth $59.99 so I just wait for some sucker to buy it and trade it in if I have doubts about it. Or i just rent the game if I know I will beat it in a day or two. I don't know how movie games can cost $60 when we all know they suck.

you should feel lucky, we have to pay a minimum of $90 and up to $120 in Australia, its ridiculousNemesis4747

Wow..how come?

[QUOTE="GSU28"]

I agree completely, games are not worth more than $50.00. But it seems that $60 will be a trend, especially with the growing cost of game and console production. There are certain games I would pay $60 for, but those standards can't really be set. What is worth $50 and what is worth $60? That question is not fair, $50 across the board would be preferable. We won't see that, unfortunately. I doubt it will rise to $70, though I would put money down on it not falling from $60.

Sucks, right?

gameguy6700

You'd be surprised. Last gen publishers found out they could charge $60 instead of $50 for a game when they saw that "collector's edition"/"limited edition" games (that usually only had a cheaply made "making of DVD" and different box art) sold well despite being 20% more expensive. To my knowledge LEs/CEs are still selling just as well, if not better, than last gen at $70-80 a pop now. And publishers know that all they have to say is "these games are so awesome that their dev costs are forcing us to sell them at $XX.XX". Remember that line back before this generation started? And remember how obviously bs it was when it took two years to finally get a game that didn't look like it could have been done on a PS2/GC/Xbox? Or how pubs automatically priced any X360/PS3 game at $60 even if it was just a port of a previous generation game? Don't even get me started on micropurchases.

Point being, don't be surprised if we have to pay $70 for games next gen. On the brightside at least we don't live in the UK or Australia. Those poor bastards have to pay about double what we do. And in the case of Australia they not only have to pay $85-115 USD for their games but they get them long after every other market has seen release.

We won't have to pay $70. While the limited editions/collector editions (usually priced at $80 or higher) do sell, they do not sell nearly as well as the $60 regular editions. There would be a sharp decline in sales if the price hit $70 or higher, especially with the economic crisis at hand. Devs won't risk it, I will sleep soundly knowing that.

I really wouldn't buy GTA 4, Halo 3, GH 3, COD 4, Bioshock for anything over $35 and even thats pushing it a little far.

I agree, few if any games are worth $60.

Honestly though, I don't see why people pay that much. Do they just have to have a game the day it comes out? Have you played every game already out there? Wait a year to buy the game and it's going to be alot cheaper. There are enough games to keep you busy in the mean time.

Goozex is great too.....you get alot more for trading back old games, and it's easier than eBay. I highly, highly recommend it....

Corporate rule #1: Try to sell 1 unit of something to some moron for 1000$ before you ever try to sell 1000 units for 1$.

They dont care if the size of the consumer base DECLINES as long as their profits stay the same or INCREASE. _AbBaNdOn

Of course not - business is business. It might not be cost effective to sell more units at a lower price, though - that or they don't think they can sell enough additional copies to compensate for the increased cost of production.

I mean, it costs the same to manufacture a disc, stick it in a case and ship it to retail whether the sticker says $60 or $30, so even if they sell twice as many copies they won't be making as much money as they would at $60.

I'd like to think they would sell more copies and make more money at lower price points because I'd love that, but the way retail prices are going makes it kind of obvious that it doesn't work in practice.

And I'm not really surprised. People buy all sorts of crap on release day over and over again, so we just bring it on ourselves.

I don't get your reasoning. What is the "worth" of video games? I'd say: Hours of Entertainment per Dollar. (HE/$)

In HE/$, Most video Games are much cheaper than movies (dvd or cinema), theatre, concerts or even fastfood.

Also, quit friggin complaining, US-citizens. People in Europe pay 39.99€, thats $62 for a DS GAME. And it's even worse in Australia.

I find that most games should have a price tag around $29.99, imo that would be a reasonable price.RenegadePatriot

People have short memories. I remember shelling out 50 dollars for Super Mario Brothers and Donkey Kong for the NES. I remember paying 60 dollars for Goldeneye, and Shadows of the Empire. Also, I'm fairly sure that most SNES games' price point was $60. So, instead of complaining about how game prices have remained, more or less, a constant, try praising the fact that they haven't skyrocketed like everything else.

Some games are worth $60, some aren't. It just teaches you to be a far more shrewed consumer. I don't mind supporting the industry that has kept me entertained since the mid-eighties.

People have short memories. I remember shelling out 50 dollars for Super Mario Brothers and Donkey Kong for the NES. I remember paying 60 dollars for Goldeneye, and Shadows of the Empire. Also, I'm fairly sure that most SNES games' price point was $60. So, instead of complaining about how game prices have remained, more or less, a constant, try praising the fact that they haven't skyrocketed like everything else.

Some games are worth $60, some aren't. It just teaches you to be a far more shrewed consumer. I don't mind supporting the industry that has kept me entertained since the mid-eighties.

Canvas_Of_Flesh

Indeed. Hell I remember paying $100 for Street Fighter II and $115 for Chrono Trigger on the SNES when they first came out and that was before sales taxes. Those are Canadian prices btw.

It's entertainment and like any form of entertainment some is worth it some isn't and whether it's worth it or not has alot to do with personal preferences.

You might not think the game is worth $60, but other people do. I won't ever pay full price for something like Warriors Orochi, but theres around 1.5 million others who obviously will.

Personally, I don't think $60 is too much, you just have to be smart about which games you buy, which games you pick up used, and which games you rent.

I will agree that some of the microtransactions are getting out of hand.

i had this epiphany when i picked up used copy of viking which is dropping like a stone. it was for 26.99 (in delaware) with 10% coupon plus a 10% edge card discount i paid $21. my sweet spot is 17.99 and below but i made an exception with viking

it's not really that good but i actually had fun playing it. sometimes i don't want to think i just want to hack and slash and viking fit the bill....however there is no way i would have paid $59.99 for this game. i still think i over paid but at 19.99 and below i'm hard pressed to find any game that i wouldn't buy.

gshell

We are all working on different budgets, and you have the right to be a "budget conscious". However, I find that $60 for a game isn't too much to ask. Would it be nice if they were all $30 brand new? Yes, but we'd still find a reason to complain. $60 really isn't that bad, if you think about it. Movies cost $12.50 here in San Diego, and I only like half the movies I see, regardless of reviews. And that's only 1.5 hours. A game like Gears Of War, while fairly short (10 hours), was well worth my money, just for the campaign alone (I don't like online mutiplayer). Those were quality hours. $6/Hour isn't bad for a great experience.

I'd probably feel dumb if I paid $21 for Viking too. I wouldn't have even paid that game a rental.

People have short memories. I remember shelling out 50 dollars for Super Mario Brothers and Donkey Kong for the NES. I remember paying 60 dollars for Goldeneye, and Shadows of the Empire. Also, I'm fairly sure that most SNES games' price point was $60. So, instead of complaining about how game prices have remained, more or less, a constant, try praising the fact that they haven't skyrocketed like everything else.

Some games are worth $60, some aren't. It just teaches you to be a far more shrewed consumer. I don't mind supporting the industry that has kept me entertained since the mid-eighties.

Canvas_Of_Flesh

True. Sometimes games 15 years ago were more expensive than they are now. I still have my copy of FF3 with the price tag on it: $79.99.

There are enough games out there that I can wait for price drops, and games that don't sell well tend to drop in price until they hit a threshold where consumers want them.

The thing I'm personally a bit worried about is this talk of direct-download as the new form of distribution. The primary driver for price drops is to clear out inventory and shelf space for newer product. The longer you hold onto something, the more it costs you. However, if shelf space is traded for a few gigs on a hard drive somewhere, the cost to carry it is much lower; hence, not as much pressure to lower prices. It's extremely rare to see the price of anything on XBL drop, probably because the sellers aren't losing money by just keeping it out there at the original price forever. That's fine for microtransactions, but I'd be bummed if that becomes the practice for games, too.

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"]

People have short memories. I remember shelling out 50 dollars for Super Mario Brothers and Donkey Kong for the NES. I remember paying 60 dollars for Goldeneye, and Shadows of the Empire. Also, I'm fairly sure that most SNES games' price point was $60. So, instead of complaining about how game prices have remained, more or less, a constant, try praising the fact that they haven't skyrocketed like everything else.

Some games are worth $60, some aren't. It just teaches you to be a far more shrewed consumer. I don't mind supporting the industry that has kept me entertained since the mid-eighties.

Jbul

True. Sometimes games 15 years ago were more expensive than they are now. I still have my copy of FF3 with the price tag on it: $79.99.

Thank you! I remember SNES games on the whole being as expensive or more expensive than the current gen games. We ought to be a little more thankful that prices went down for a while after the end of the cartridge era.

The thing I'm personally a bit worried about is this talk of direct-download as the new form of distribution. The primary driver for price drops is to clear out inventory and shelf space for newer product. The longer you hold onto something, the more it costs you. However, if shelf space is traded for a few gigs on a hard drive somewhere, the cost to carry it is much lower; hence, not as much pressure to lower prices. It's extremely rare to see the price of anything on XBL drop, probably because the sellers aren't losing money by just keeping it out there at the original price forever. That's fine for microtransactions, but I'd be bummed if that becomes the practice for games, too.

FordFairlane

Me too, for the reasons you mentioned. But also one more- no resale value. I bought Warhawk, and when I can get online to play it, it's a ton of fun, sure. But that's the problem- I can't get into games almost ever! I spend 30 minutes or more just trying to log in to a game. That's every time, minimum, and sometimes I can't get in if my life depended on it. So I'd love to dump the game...but I can't.

Anyway, I agree that most games are worth $60. In fact, the only game that's releasing this year that I'd be willing to pay that price for is LittleBigPlanet. That's not to say there aren't other games I'm interested in...but none that I'm THAT interested in. In fact, right now I'm mostly just revisiting some of my favorites over the years. Sixty-bucks is just too much to risk on a game that I don't know if I will even like.

There are enough games out there that I can wait for price drops, and games that don't sell well tend to drop in price until they hit a threshold where consumers want them.

The thing I'm personally a bit worried about is this talk of direct-download as the new form of distribution. The primary driver for price drops is to clear out inventory and shelf space for newer product. The longer you hold onto something, the more it costs you. However, if shelf space is traded for a few gigs on a hard drive somewhere, the cost to carry it is much lower; hence, not as much pressure to lower prices. It's extremely rare to see the price of anything on XBL drop, probably because the sellers aren't losing money by just keeping it out there at the original price forever. That's fine for microtransactions, but I'd be bummed if that becomes the practice for games, too.

FordFairlane

I don't think that would happen. While there isn't any direct cost to keeping a game at full price on a server indefinitely this is a large opportunity cost. The thing about games is that after a month or two the people who are willing to buy a given game at full price have already done so. After that publishers must lower prices in order to keep sales up. Granted there are exceptions (mostly with mega-hit titles) but even those games eventually get their prices lowered to the $20 mark (usually in the form of a Player's Choice, Platnium Hits, Greatest Hits, etc. re-release). Put another way: While a publisher could keep selling a game for $60 to, say, 500 people per month without incurring any production costs they're still better off selling a $30 game to 2000 people per month.

While there is a disturbing trend with XBLA titles and XBO titles to resist price changes thus far one has to keep in mind that those games are only $5-10 which doesn't leave much room for further price cuts. Chances are that the same trend would not hold true for direct download releases that exceed $20. In fact, I believe that Steam's downloadable games see price cuts on a regular basis (though I don't use steam for buying games so I can't say how true of an observation that is) though granted said games are almost always available in hardcopy as well.

You may think that Games cost too much but people keep paying the Prices to it's rally not going to stop.

As someone else pointed out in the long run this makes you a smarter buyer and you're more willing to research a game before you buy it.

People are willing to spend that kind of cash for these games. This is the ONLY reason they are this price. If people would simply refuse to pay this staggering price, the market would dwindle the price until it sold.

Companies understand money. When you speak with your dollar, you're telling them right to their face how they feel about the price-tag. If you don't buy games at that price, they won't sell them at that price.

Masses will continue to do it and that's a shame, but it's capitalism. If you don't like it, tough. All you have to do is wait for a price drop or buy it used. Or just don't buy it at all and that will give the game publishers a little more to think about.

I'm more then willing to shell out a couple bucks for some absolute classics on the VC

starfox15

Sure, but is there a single game that costs this low? VC games are almost equally overpriced, it's just the "micro" in "microtransactions" that's easy to swallow.

People are willing to spend that kind of cash for these games. This is the ONLY reason they are this price. If people would simply refuse to pay this staggering price, the market would dwindle the price until it sold.

Companies understand money. When you speak with your dollar, you're telling them right to their face how they feel about the price-tag. If you don't buy games at that price, they won't sell them at that price.

Masses will continue to do it and that's a shame, but it's capitalism. If you don't like it, tough. All you have to do is wait for a price drop or buy it used. Or just don't buy it at all and that will give the game publishers a little more to think about.

starfox15

well done for writing my thoughts, though i was so lazy to post same things over and over again...