$60 games standard??

[-Luna-]

So, many new games set their price to $60 at launch, where is that standard come from? and seriously many many many developers need to get over themself because their game are not really worth $60 tag. It's true that their game maybe look more "polish" than average but it still not an excuse for bump up their price.

[Start_Running]

Ryan님이 먼저 게시:

Elly님이 먼저 게시:

Is it truly easier to change how the entire industry works rather than simply not buy games priced $60?

The fact that Elon Musk is changing infrastructure and standard about space exploration, electric cars and solar house/city that many people think impossible for such a short time then it make me think why not with the game industry?

Because Musk is looking to open new revenue markets. As said. You basically have to start change from the bottom. Take it from the business side. Is there ever a good reason to voluntarily make less money?

And before you answer that, ask yourself, when was the last time you went to your boss and asked for a lower salary/wage.

[Kali (MM)]

In the 1980s, games cost around $50.

If inflation is calculated, $60 is considered a good deal.

[Tito Shivan]

Naota님이 먼저 게시:

H ah ha , some little kid trying to tell me what it was like in the 80s because he read it on the internet.

Like I said - I bought games back then - and I DID NOT pay 60 dollars - PERIOD.

As far as "standard AAA pricing" - that just started a few years ago . Standard triple AAA pricing was $49.99 for a LONNGGG time but because everyone went along $60 , it became normal .

And I remember my family being able to buy one, or two games a year. And buying a console was THE gift.
You didn't pay $60 but your $49.99 back then weren't the same as nowadays $49.99

A game on the 80s could cost me here around 60€ those 60€ could buy you way more than the 60€ I carry right now on my wallet.

Naota님이 먼저 게시:

In fact - I remember when devs used to say that when they started selling games "digitally", that games would cost a LOT LESS.

CDs & DVDs will make games cheaper because no more cartridges with electronics.
DD will make games cheaper because no more CDs or DVDs to print and distribute (those who would make gaming cheaper over cartridges)

At the end of the day all of that was just marginal cost changes. Games did become cheaper, but they also become way more complex, abundant and competitive, which also made them more expensive to make. What studios saved for one side, they had to spend it on the other. Gaming business is orders of magnitude more complex than back on the 80s.

[Start_Running]

Ryan님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Because Musk is looking to open new revenue markets. As said. You basically have to start change from the bottom. Take it from the business side. Is there ever a good reason to voluntarily make less money?

And before you answer that, ask yourself, when was the last time you went to your boss and asked for a lower salary/wage.

Doesn't make sense to me, each studio create game as their will so how and price when released base on them, not as "other put it that high and so do we". Otherwise, the game is ready/completed or not is total in their awareness so if the studio put out poor product they can't make excuse for that except some issue (related to graphic driver mostly) from 3rd party which should be easy to fix. And this isn't competition between people under 1 company but the market management which should consider more like honesty of developer if they being greedy or not so i think your point of lower salary/wage is not really valid here

And you failed to answer the question. Why make less money? Why should you charge $30 when your nearest competitor is charging $50 for what amounts to the same thing? You could easily charge $45 and still be cheaper.

Or to flip the question, when was the last time you requested to be paid less than your co-workers? It's not Greed. It's business.

[Fly Guy]

$59.99 is fairly cheap considering you'll get at least 50 hours of entertainment which comes out to be $1.20 per hour. I never purchase games fulll price, so it's even cheaper.

[shiel]

NFL 2K5 sold for $29.99 brand new and 2K got forced out of the NFL brand for it. As people have already said, gaming is a business, as such, it's in a publishers best interest to maintain the status quo.

[Start_Running]

Ryan님이 먼저 게시:

It's not the matter of less money, it's the matter of your game not worth the price but you still charge that way.

A buyer will never pay more than they believe something is worth. You should know this if you had any knowledge of economics. So if it was purchased, it was because the buyer considered the game worth more than or equal to what was being asked.

Not all developer is like that but if everyone have logic like you said then do we never have good game that standout and worth the money.

And yet we have no shortage of standout games. It's like your reasoning and the real world have no relation to each other. Doesn't it. As said. The system is that way simply because that's what has evolved from the market,.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

The economics arguments are tending to ignore some important factors: -

1) Markets are not necessarily rational. The Dutch tulip market in the 18th century, the dot com boom and bust. Things can get grossly over valued before they then crash.
2) Experience. If people pay out a lot of money and have a bad experience they are less likely to pay out so much in future.
3) Competing economic interests. Many companies act in the short term financial interests of their executives rather than the long term goals of the company.

Maybe the market will support the $60 AAA PC game. E.A. must be selling some games. What may be severely damaging to the industry as a whole as well as individual publishers is a perception that significant price increases are being accompanied by deteriorating quality standards as even $60 AAA games have material withheld as DLC.

What about the $75 game ? The $100 dollar game ? Inconceivable ? Wrong. All the parts of Sims 3 and Sims 4 come in at far more than $100.

You're then getting to multiples of ten times the cost or more of a book, C.D. or film.

I think the best of the best would be able to bring in some customers at that pay point. But it's a dangerous gamble. Any perception that the game is flawed will bring that price point crashing down.

Evole came in at less the $60 (for the base game) at launch did it not ?

S.x.

[Start_Running]

gallifrey님이 먼저 게시:

The economics arguments are tending to ignore some important factors: -

1) Markets are not necessarily rational. The Dutch tulip market in the 18th century, the dot com boom and bust. Things can get grossly over valued before they then crash.
2) Experience. If people pay out a lot of money and have a bad experience they are less likely to pay out so much in future.
3) Competing economic interests. Many companies act in the short term financial interests of their executives rather than the long term goals of the company.

Actually the markets do behave rationally. Tulips were a fad that everyone tried to cash in on. IT's perfectly rational. You hear about a fguy who made mega bucks doing X you're going to try doing X too.

True

3. This is however mitigated by the fact that the execurtives usually plan to have a long term tenure at the company. So in suiting their short term interests they generally wind up securing the company's long term interest. Business works in funny ways.

Maybe the market will support the $60 AAA PC game. E.A. must be selling some games. What may be severely damaging to the industry as a whole as well as individual publishers is a perception that significant price increases are being accompanied by deteriorating quality standards as even $60 AAA games have material withheld as DLC.

Significant price increase? that is funny since what we're looking at is a price decrease if nothing else. COnsider what a brand new PS1 game cost back in the game. $30 - $50 and look at the games. Now consider what a $30 game looks like now and you get that for the same relative amouint you are getting considerably more content. Or to put it another waty Doom3 was $60 at launch So is the new Doom. Are the games equal? Of course not. Doom is waaay better in just about every way and yet it costs no more than Doom3.

What about the $75 game ? The $100 dollar game ? Inconceivable ? Wrong. All the parts of Sims 3 and Sims 4 come in at far more than $100.

You're then getting to multiples of ten times the cost or more of a book, C.D. or film.

I think the best of the best would be able to bring in some customers at that pay point. But it's a dangerous gamble. Any perception that the game is flawed will bring that price point crashing down.

Evole came in at less the $60 (for the base game) at launch did it not ?

S.x.

And so the price point lowers overtime. The system works both ways . Better to overprice your game than underprice it. You can get away with lowering the price overtime but you will be crucified if you dare raise the price so much as a dollar.

[Xite >X< 👁️👁 🇦🇺]

I decided to not buy anything over $30 and will continue to do so until Valve release games over that price, then I might get tempted....Half-Life.3....

Until then I will finish playing the games I alreaady own and buy old AAA games at the sales.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Naota님이 먼저 게시:

H ah ha , some little kid trying to tell me what it was like in the 80s because he read it on the internet.

Like I said - I bought games back then - and I DID NOT pay 60 dollars - PERIOD.

As far as "standard AAA pricing" - that just started a few years ago . Standard triple AAA pricing was $49.99 for a LONNGGG time but because everyone went along $60 , it became normal .

Not going along with it would change it back again..

In fact - I remember when devs used to say that when they started selling games "digitally", that games would cost a LOT LESS.

I don't know about you, but I remember when the standard price for a JRPG on the SNES was US$69.99 to $89.99.

And that was back in the 1990s, so it doesn't even account for inflation.

[Aspin]

Ryan님이 먼저 게시:

So, many new games set their price to $60 at launch, where is that standard come from? and seriously many many many developers need to get over themself because their game are not really worth $60 tag. It's true that their game maybe look more "polish" than average but it still not an excuse for bump up their price.

Stop complaining we are the "PC USERS" not a "CONSOLE PEASANTS" 60 bucks is nothing for us, and I think the devs deserve more than that as well. ;-D

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

1. See a game that out of your price range.
   
2. Goes to forum to complain about the price.
   
3. ???
   
4. Profits?

[76561198001062896]

Simply put: market changes and companies are trying to adapt their strategies in accordance to that.

As much as people love to make the argument that "just because there is no shipping and whatsnot cost with DD it should be automatically oh so cheaper"

Sadly developing and licensing is still a bucketload of money.

Want triple A titles? Because those wont be sold under 50-60 bucks right after release and the state of mobile gaming should be a good example as to why the race to the bottom ultimately ends up hurting both devs and customers.

As the old adagio says: be careful what you wish for.

[♠ ︻デ═一 ☭ sniper ♠]

good wtf? noobs