$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.

[76561198001062896]

Цитата допису Ryan:

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.

because

developing games cost a lot of money and they also need to pay the devs and employees.

[Lathrim]

Цитата допису Ryan:

Цитата допису Zetikla:

because

developing games cost a lot of money and they also need to pay the devs and employees.

still doesn't add up why $60, it could be higher price than normal (like $30- $40 maybe) but if let say $60 is for high end stuff then many developers are overdestimate their products

How are you able to tell? Do you know how much money they need to turn in a good profit from their products after covering what was spent with wages, development, marketing and licensing? Or how much money they tend to spend on those areas?

If you're going to say games are overpriced, the least you can do is back that statement up.

[Start_Running]

Why does concession food cost so much more? because people buy it. See it takes advantage of human psyche. Even if you don't like paying $60 for uit, what youy like even less is the idea that someone else will pay $60 for it and have fun that you won't be having.

[Start_Running]

Цитата допису Ryan:

Цитата допису Start_Running:

Why does concession food cost so much more? because people buy it. See it takes advantage of human psyche. Even if you don't like paying $60 for uit, what youy like even less is the idea that someone else will pay $60 for it and have fun that you won't be having.

Interesting, but in long term it will have bad effect with the studio's name isn't it? And beside player have ways around to test the products b4 buying right? So assume you are making a game, would you risk your studio name like that or you gonna give players the best experience? (EA doesn't count, it's long dead to me ==")

EA doesn't count to you but the fact is.. they are one of these major game publishers and not surprisingly, they got that way because people be buying their games. Hence what I said. They charge $60 because irt is an optimal starting point. They know the game will bey like $50 in a year. and maybe $40 two years after that. It only makes sense to capitalize on the big spenders and then gradually scale down to catch other markets.

When 60% of the gaming population worldwide stops paying $60, then they will stop charging $60

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

The $60 US mark has been industry standard (or higher) for AAA console releases for some time. But there's no doubt that there have been substantial increases recently in release prices of AAA PC games.

The reasons I'd suspect are: -

1) Inflation. Not the highest recently but compound so the factor does increase over time.
2) Increased costs. Partly it's because some of the more blatant tax avoidance on digital downloading has been deemed unlawful or curtailed. Partly because AAA games are using acting talent from approaching the upper tiers of the film and television industries who can charge highly for their services.
3) The complexity of the larger AAA games requires large teams of artists and programmers.
4) Better anti-piracy protection.
5) Corporate ethos. E.A. DELIBERATELY charges sky high (it has the largest profit margin in the industry) and hates Steam for its sales.
6) Because they can. If enough people will buy at the higher prices it justifies selling at the higher prices.


The gaming industry may be facing a near perfect storm however.

1) Poor economy. The masses in Europe and North America are getting poorer and only the 1% richest are seeing increases in their pay packets. As a discretionary purchase gaming will suffer if the economy slides more for their main customer base.
2) Above inflation price increases. Customers can see prices rising and aren't happy about it.
3) DLC greed/ abuse. Too many AAA games are now released effectively only part completed with the remainder of the game sold piecemeal as DLC.

Public opinion is volatile. It can react with lightning impact or it can slowly drift over a period of time.

But if the perception becomes widespread that publishers at launch are releasing half finished product at inflated prices the lustre will go from being an early adopter. And If that happens the industry will be in trouble. Very few people will pre order or be an early adopter. By the time the games start getting into the black as GOTY editions go on sale three to five years later they may have been pushed into insolvency due to delayed recovery of development costs.

Even if Steam doesn't kill the golden goose the industry might.

S.x.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Цитата допису Start_Running:

Цитата допису Ryan:

Interesting, but in long term it will have bad effect with the studio's name isn't it? And beside player have ways around to test the products b4 buying right? So assume you are making a game, would you risk your studio name like that or you gonna give players the best experience? (EA doesn't count, it's long dead to me ==")

EA doesn't count to you but the fact is.. they are one of these major game publishers and not surprisingly, they got that way because people be buying their games. Hence what I said. They charge $60 because irt is an optimal starting point. They know the game will bey like $50 in a year. and maybe $40 two years after that. It only makes sense to capitalize on the big spenders and then gradually scale down to catch other markets.

When 60% of the gaming population worldwide stops paying $60, then they will stop charging $60

With E.A. they are rarely (in the UK) breaking the £15.00 barrier for AAA games even years after launch. Fifa is an exception but E.A. hasn't been discounting Sims 3 at all. They'd definitely prefer to avoid Steam's "race to the bottom" where Skyrim can be bought for under $5.00 US in the sales. If E.A. ever had the 70% share of the PC download market that Steam has you could kiss meaningful and affordable sales goodbye.

S.x.

[Narcoleptic Marshmallow]

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

[Naota]

I've been playing games since the 1980s.

I've never paid 60 dollars for a game, and I never will.

Цитата допису Elly:

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

Considering it didn't used to be that way - then yeah - it's possible to get them to stop charging 60 dollars, if enough people refuse to pay it.

[shiel]

Цитата допису Naota:

I've been playing games since the 1980s.

I've never paid 60 dollars for a game, and I never will.

Цитата допису Elly:

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

Considering it didn't used to be that way - then yeah - it's possible to get them to stop charging 60 dollars.

What are you talking about? Game prices used to be far higher back in the nes/snes days. When you add in inflation it's even crazier.
http://m.ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power

I know, I know, it's ign...the facts remain.

[Narcoleptic Marshmallow]

Цитата допису Naota:

Considering it didn't used to be that way - then yeah - it's possible to get them to stop charging 60 dollars.

Sure, by making people stop paying $60 for games, or making developers not spend so much time and effort into a product that it only becomes profitable with a $60 price tag.

Until you convince everyone else ever to stop paying the full $60 price for new releases, or provide every game developer ever with tools and resources enough to make new releases take less work and therefore earn a smaller price tag, it's not happening.

[klogw]

apart from game development costs we all know that many AAA console publishers spend money on advertising. They catch the attention they need and sell the game at what is now considered a standard AAA game pricing. These are still console games even when ported to PC. The market relies on physical console video game sales. very few console games are successful on pc anyway.
wait a couple of years and get the game for 5 dollars. that would be an appropriate pricing without too much advertising.

[Naota]

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.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Цитата допису Ryan:

Цитата допису gallifrey:

The $60 US mark has been industry standard (or higher) for AAA console releases for some time. But there's no doubt that there have been substantial increases recently in release prices of AAA PC games.

The reasons I'd suspect are: -

1) Inflation. Not the highest recently but compound so the factor does increase over time.
2) Increased costs. Partly it's because some of the more blatant tax avoidance on digital downloading has been deemed unlawful or curtailed. Partly because AAA games are using acting talent from approaching the upper tiers of the film and television industries who can charge highly for their services.
3) The complexity of the larger AAA games requires large teams of artists and programmers.
4) Better anti-piracy protection.
5) Corporate ethos. E.A. DELIBERATELY charges sky high (it has the largest profit margin in the industry) and hates Steam for its sales.
6) Because they can. If enough people will buy at the higher prices it justifies selling at the higher prices.


The gaming industry may be facing a near perfect storm however.

1) Poor economy. The masses in Europe and North America are getting poorer and only the 1% richest are seeing increases in their pay packets. As a discretionary purchase gaming will suffer if the economy slides more for their main customer base.
2) Above inflation price increases. Customers can see prices rising and aren't happy about it.
3) DLC greed/ abuse. Too many AAA games are now released effectively only part completed with the remainder of the game sold piecemeal as DLC.

Public opinion is volatile. It can react with lightning impact or it can slowly drift over a period of time.

But if the perception becomes widespread that publishers at launch are releasing half finished product at inflated prices the lustre will go from being an early adopter. And If that happens the industry will be in trouble. Very few people will pre order or be an early adopter. By the time the games start getting into the black as GOTY editions go on sale three to five years later they may have been pushed into insolvency due to delayed recovery of development costs.

Even if Steam doesn't kill the golden goose the industry might.

S.x.

So at some level they know their product is not ready but due to the need of recover the cost so that they gonna released anyway? That's bad move, if they prepare good then they should not worry about launch. Only reason i can think of is they put profit too high that they may kill the game eventhough the game is the starting point to begin their job with

That has been an issue historically where there has been physical product to move. Being solely electronic download gives publishers more flexibility on delaying launch.

Unfortunately at the moment it's more about marketing. It's "The Sims" that was primarily responsible where publishers saw that gamers COULD be persuaded to pay several times or more the base game price for expansions. Also CS:GO where people have been prepared to pay more for a game "skin" than the real life item would cost.

Looking at the launch prices and structures (Just Cause 3 being VERY noteworthy) this means that games have GOTY editions at launch whereas in days previous expansions would be released as add ons to successful games and GOTY editions were complete packs sold far after launch. Now the impression is more and more that the publishers are holding back content that would/ should have been present at launch to sell as DLC. Particularly notorious in this regard is Civilsation Beyond Earth which launched with its faction personalities totally unaltered from Civ 5. For players of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri which had carefully thought out and well acted personalities for its space Civ, videos for Special Projects (Wonders), voiceovers for each tech advance, and virtually infinitely customisable troops this was viewed as a tragedy and a betrayal.

S.x.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Цитата допису Elly:

Цитата допису Naota:

Considering it didn't used to be that way - then yeah - it's possible to get them to stop charging 60 dollars.

Sure, by making people stop paying $60 for games, or making developers not spend so much time and effort into a product that it only becomes profitable with a $60 price tag.

Until you convince everyone else ever to stop paying the full $60 price for new releases, or provide every game developer ever with tools and resources enough to make new releases take less work and therefore earn a smaller price tag, it's not happening.

You have to think about the economics Elly.

With say - apples - development costs tend to be small, but production costs are high.

With computer games development costs are extremely high but production costs on PC download are minimal.

So with apples the price variability tends to be low.

But with computer games you have a huge choice of how to recoup your costs.

You can go like Orion Prelude (there's a backstory to that one) and sell your game for a dollar in the hope that you'll get hundreds of thousands of sales.

Or you can go like E.A. some of whose "luxury" editions must be coming at the $100 mark and sacrifice sales for a very high profit margin.

Either can work although super low pricing rarely works for products with high devlopment costs.

So if the usual release price of a game is $60 E.A. will sell it for $90 and the price will never drop below $45.

On Steam games may come in as $60, the be discounted to $50, then $40, then $30, then $20, then $10 etc over a period of years.

S.x.

[Wh1ppet]

Not sure you get this, OP, but Steam nor any standard authority set that price. Each dev and publisher sets their own prices and has their own reasons for setting the prices they do. To really get an answer to the question, you'd have to ask each of them independently.. Steam would not know.