Is $60 expensive for a new game these days?

I don't care, I buy them new on cheap websites.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]

[QUOTE="Bikouchu35"]

Remember the 90s? 1dollar gas, $40 for a ps1 game with 50 hours of gameplay or more vs $60 for 6hour campaign and $4+ gas... as of today, what a life we live in now huh?

Bikouchu35

Don't give me that back in my day bullsh*t, it's all a lie, other games were short you just died a lot and sucked.

Lol if that feeds your internetz ego than ahead stuff yourself to obesity. Yes Im talking bout rpgs a good portion of which arent hard but of course filled with storylines. Its a common thing back then but of course you cherry picked a game like Skyrim out of the few which is more a sandbox thus the lengthy hours and still cost $60, not $40 bite meh. Seriously I dont fancy this whole bro-gamer era of bs, I dont believe in console fps bs, and I refuse to freely forkover $60 for crappy singleplayer that most seem so thrilled about but thats just my 2 cents.

Games back in the 90's were short except for RPG's, other games maybe felt longer because you died a lot. Sunset Riders must be the longest game I have ever played if we look at it that way, and I'm sure gameplay wise it probably would be 1 or 2 hours max. So I compared an RPG to RPG this gen, and they're still long. Lost Odyssey, Tales of Vesperia, Xenoblade, Fallout, and more which all last 50+ hours.

At least these modern 6 - 8 hour games you get 6 - 8 hours of gameplay, not 2 hours of gameplay with 20 hours of repeating levels. Let's get real, bro. Games were shorter back in the 90's.

No, I do not consider 60$ expensive, especially when you think about all the effort put into the games, and the average hours of entertaniment you get out of it.

To be honest 60$ is a very low amount of money for what it often brings.

I think there be tiers of prices tho, so there were releases at 60-40-20-10$ giving both devs, and buyers the ability to buy a wider range of games (note that 20-10 range, pretty much exists as is, its basicly the dd games)

I think there be tiers of prices tho, so there were releases at 60-40-20-10$ giving both devs, and buyers the ability to buy a wider range of gamesMaddie_Larkin

While they may gain some sales by having it at a lower price they will probably also lose sales by having it at a lower price. A lot of times it is best to get 20k sales at $60 then maybe 25k sales at $40.

I think $40 is good, id buy a lot of games if they were only $40,

hadoken

I pay around $40 to $51 for new released PC games e.g. ME3 PC cost around $44.95 AUD (from an international website).

It is but the cost of games when down quite a bit in the 90's. They are returning to what they use to cost, but still have a long way to go. Example SMB 2 was $75 when it came out that would be about $125 now

Paying full price for a game doesnt really bother me...since i can afford it.

/hipthrust.

I think $59.99+tax USD is a bit much for most new games these days. Some games are worth it, but many are not.

I am much more comfortable spending $29.99 or $34.99 for a new handheld console game than I am spending $59.99 for a new home console game (handheld games are getting fairly close in quality and content to home console games, while maintaining much better prices).

Though, the majoprity of my games are purchased used for $2.99-$19.99. That seems to be my impulse buy price range; usually, I buy 5+ retail games at a time when they hit these price points.

Eventally, prices go back up after the game is out of print for a very long time. So that does encourages me to hop on those deals on good low priced used games.

I mostly game on DS/PSP/3DS/Vita now days, I love the convience of sleep mode waaay to much to play too many games on home consoles (though a really good exclusive game will convience me other wise).

I hope the Wii U and/or the PS4 improve my personal gaming experience (though given current trends, I am becoming ever more doubtful...).

I don't think so. Games like Gears of War 3, Halo Reach, Skyrim, Forza 4, Any call of duty game minus the $60 for a expansion pack argument, Just Cause 2 more than deserve the price tag. You get tons of value for your money for these titles plus many others I haven't mentioned.

Now $60 for a 5 hour campaign like Vanquish on the other hand, is a little hard to justify.

People who pay 70€ or 60$ for a game is either rich or really stupid.

Games should be at the most 30$ new, specially DD.

sneslover

if games shipped on durable storage format like n64 cartridges id pay 80$

n64 was the last console that mattered pretty much.

I think $40 is good, id buy a lot of games if they were only $40,

hadoken

Are you serious? Games are $110 AUD here and our dollar is even higher than the USD. We are getting ramrodded so bad and you guys think $60 is bad?JasonDarksavior

Yeah but that's not the market.

That's your own government pounding you in the ass.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

7. Bottom line you need to make gaming accessable, with easy hardware requiements and low prices. The day when games are $5-$10 is the day piracy becomes irrelevant, and you grow your fanbase to be able to support the industry at those prices, just like movies.

R4gn4r0k

Nope, indie games that only cost 5-10 dollars get pirated too and movies get pirated too.

At this point in time, Piracy is more convenient and comfortable regardless of price.

It's the only way to get a clean executable.

No. When you factor in inflation NES games were more back in the 80s and early 90s.

Inflation Calculation

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="hadoken"] ive been gaming longer than you kidhadoken

Well done? :?

Remind me, and i'll give you a medal, you old fart.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="hadoken"]you dumb ass shiiits, im talking about games like final fantasy xiii 2, UFC undisputed 3, im not going to pay $60 because they arent a halo or a gears or an uncharted for u ps3 kids, and they suffer more because of that, if they charged $40 more people would buy games like thosehadoken

I doubt they'll care all that much if they lost your business.

Gaming is an expensive hobby. It always has been.

N64 games used to be ridiculously expensive in the UK.

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

7. Bottom line you need to make gaming accessable, with easy hardware requiements and low prices. The day when games are $5-$10 is the day piracy becomes irrelevant, and you grow your fanbase to be able to support the industry at those prices, just like movies.

ZombieKiller7

Nope, indie games that only cost 5-10 dollars get pirated too and movies get pirated too.

At this point in time, Piracy is more convenient and comfortable regardless of price.

It's the only way to get a clean executable.

So super cheap games and no more DRM = no more piracy ? I doubt it. But it would decrease piracy I'm sure. I know some people that pirate games that they have bought legally just so they can get around intrusive and frustrating DRM (Ubisoft games mostly)

Other people will always pirate, regardless of price or DRM, just because there is an 'option' to pirate. They will even pirate games they don't even care about just because they can.

[QUOTE="hadoken"]

I think $40 is good, id buy a lot of games if they were only $40,

Shielder7

I strongly believe so. You pay a lot for games that aren't worth anywhere near that much. And if it's just to cover the costs of creating the games, then I blame no one but the developers and whoever decides their budget because they obviously wasted a lot of money on a boring game unworthy of what they needed to sell it for in order to break even or make a profit. They should learn to do more with less and quit dumbing down games, and actually give us something interesting instead of the same tired, boring console shooters all the time. Of course that trite garbage isn't worth $60. It's not even worth $40. And they're idiots for spending so much on making their cookie cutter experiences, and they have only themselves to blame when they don't break even. So don't feel sorry for them due to their own incompetence with handling their money, which could be avoided if they'd get their own egotistical heads out of their asses.LovePotionNo9

I agree.

Average game development budgets have increased by a factor of 20, while the average quality of play experience (NOT production quality) has gone down.

When I was buying new PS2 games for $39.99 and $49.99 a few years back, I felt the gaming experiences available were much more varied and fulfilling to play.

The push towards cinematic events, quick time button sequences, reduced depth of gameplay/challenge, metrics/marketing driven design, etc. has led many new PS3/Xbox360 games to be less fulfilling experiences than PS2/GC/Xbox/DC/etc. games were.

In previous generations of gaming, games would more commonly focused on a niche or unique experience (fulfilling a specific taste on a game-by-game basis); now days it is much more common for games to focus on being approachable, to be consumed by the largest market possible, trying to fulfill tastes that are very general (often leaving the game with a bland feel, similar to many other games taking this same approach).

It is a shame that the overall focus shifted away from improving consumers' gaming experience, to extracting maximum number of dollars per game produced to cover Hollywood development budgets that were never necessary.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

7. Bottom line you need to make gaming accessable, with easy hardware requiements and low prices. The day when games are $5-$10 is the day piracy becomes irrelevant, and you grow your fanbase to be able to support the industry at those prices, just like movies.

Nope, indie games that only cost 5-10 dollars get pirated too and movies get pirated too.

these days games are to multiplayer based and i pay 60$ for a 4 hour single player and most games have multiplayers i dont even want to touch so yes i do think 60$ is overpriced

[QUOTE="hadoken"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Cool. Resorting to name-calling. Very mature.

lundy86_4

I'm aware. I didn't dispute that. It shows a severe lac k of maturity on your end, though.

[QUOTE="Bikouchu35"]

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"] What 50 hour games were you playing? Oh wait, RPG's. Today you have games like Skyrim, hundreds of hours.

Don't give me that back in my day bullsh*t, it's all a lie, other games were short you just died a lot and sucked.

SaltyMeatballs

Lol if that feeds your internetz ego than ahead stuff yourself to obesity. Yes Im talking bout rpgs a good portion of which arent hard but of course filled with storylines. Its a common thing back then but of course you cherry picked a game like Skyrim out of the few which is more a sandbox thus the lengthy hours and still cost $60, not $40 bite meh. Seriously I dont fancy this whole bro-gamer era of bs, I dont believe in console fps bs, and I refuse to freely forkover $60 for crappy singleplayer that most seem so thrilled about but thats just my 2 cents.

Games back in the 90's were short except for RPG's, other games maybe felt longer because you died a lot. Sunset Riders must be the longest game I have ever played if we look at it that way, and I'm sure gameplay wise it probably would be 1 or 2 hours max. So I compared an RPG to RPG this gen, and they're still long. Lost Odyssey, Tales of Vesperia, Xenoblade, Fallout, and more which all last 50+ hours.

At least these modern 6 - 8 hour games you get 6 - 8 hours of gameplay, not 2 hours of gameplay with 20 hours of repeating levels. Let's get real, bro. Games were shorter back in the 90's.

Lol you die a lot -.- you must get all the ladies by showing off your skill and telling others dont have any, maybe I missed out on a lot of those short games thus skewing my view but ignorance is bliss. I guess your insisting that I can falloff a cliff on ff7 now b.c I lack skill idk how is that possible but I am just returning the favor on assumption, assuming thats what you meant. The mainstream games had quality for $40 with some good story going on, not some mindless sandbox bs.

Since my statement was very vague to begin with I dont know how you drew conclusions on my statement anyway. I was simply poking fun of current times with the popular games being fps costing $60 plus dlc $15+ a pop (content already on disc!! that is locked) for 6 hours campaign vs then rpgs the then go-to genre for popular games. You have get real bro the value sucks for new games for todays world and they even come with jewel cases anymore let alone manuals. Go ahead make your oh b.c you suck reply but idc if internet is business and you loove your call of duty than go right on. I wont reply lol.

I think $40 is good, id buy a lot of games if they were only $40,

hadoken

I just think developers need a better business model. Certain games shouldn't be selling at $60. Nonstop-Madness

Luv your sig. sooo true.

It's better than back then, that's for sure...

there is this thing called, price drop, their is this thing called used games, their is this thing called steam.

Compared to the 8 bit gaming dayzzz; they are a steal !! :P

10 dollar XBLA and 2 dollar indie games ... Just Wow !! :D

Quit complaining you yanks have it easy. Us NZr's and Aussies have real rip-off prices

OB-47

I only buy a handfull of new games priced at 60 or more per year. The rest - i have eBay for, which gives me the opportunity of a great deal!

Yeah, it is. I realised this once I started PC gaming. The standard price of new games is about 40-45, but can even be 30 when it's a more obscure game (such as STALKER: Call of Pripyat, which is terrific by the way). With the quick price drops (games can go down to 10 or even 5 well inside a year) and Steam sales, I rarely pay the full monty for video games anymore. Last game I did that for was Skyrim.

Depends on the game.

A game that last only 8 hours and has terrible/no MP would be a bargin bin purchase for me.

A game like Skyrim or COD sure I will pay it.

But I think we forget the times where games were more expensive in 80/90s and were only 5 hours long TOPS