Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Large Publishers Pointing to High Prices

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the because-we-aren't-spending-enough-money dept.

Businesses 138

Despite Mark Rein's recent statements to the contrary, has word that Activision, THQ, and Take Two are all indicating that they may be charging $59.99 for next gen titles. From the article: "This strategy is likely to see a two-tier structure emerging for game pricing, where premium titles command a premium price point of $59.99 or more, while less important games are sold for between $39.99 and $49.99 - much closer to the current price point."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

gouging? (2, Insightful)

opposume (600667) | more than 9 years ago | (#11967918)

You know, they can charge anything they want and still get it. $60 a game is quite expensive. But I guess if you really want it, you'll figure out how to afford it. *shrugs* I think it sucks because not one system is better off than the other being at the mercy of the developers...

Re:gouging? (3, Insightful)

kniLnamiJ-neB (754894) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968142)

It's sad, but you're right. And it's probably going to keep going up. The worst part is, IMO, the games are getting to be less fun than they used to... I still play my original NES and SNES games (emulated on my PC) almost as much as I do the few new games I've got (eg Call of Duty). I probably won't be buying a lot of new games, even though I could afford it with little hassle... just don't WANT them that much.

Re:gouging? (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968555)

How very true. I still play Darklands more than any other game, and not just because I'm a cheap bastard with a lousy 3D card. Outside of niche games like the Patrician series, very very few games are doing anything interesting these days. Have there been any decent RPGs in the past decade? Morrowind was a bit of a disappointment, but I have high hopes for Oblivion.

Re:gouging? (1)

DeanMeister (868655) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970161)

There have been ALOT of decent RPGs. You just have to look for them.

Re:gouging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11970402)

Offtopic, but Darklands has to be about the best game ever made. Furthermore, I think a system using most of the same mechanics would solve all of the complaints most people have with MMOGs.

Re:gouging? (2, Interesting)

DeanMeister (868655) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970140)

Games aren't getting less fun, your just not interested in the kind of games they're offering. If your still playing your SNES games(and dont get me wrong they're great) and not enjoying alot of newer games thats because the gaming medium is a completley different beast than it was 10 even 5 years ago. Your going to have to expect a different type of game and a different experiance.

Re:gouging? (2, Insightful)

Jicksta (760596) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968245)

I guess if you really want it, you'll figure out how to afford it

Or figure out how to pirate it...

Re:gouging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11971177)

Of course. And once they figure out how to do this efficiently, and conveniently for most people, the game studios will start to bleed. Then they will try to drop the prices to compete, but won't be able to. The black market will be too robust and resist efforts to shut it down, and the game studios won't be able to compete on price.

You can see a similar situation developing right now with the movie studios and DVD sales in Hong Kong. See this story [] . The problem with their effort is that even at 22-28 yuan, they are still more than twice as expensive as what you pay for a pirated movie.

Re:gouging? (1)

PhotoJim (813785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968448)

It's called demand inelasticity. Apparently they think that demand won't decrease appreciably if the game gets that pricey. It's kind of like gas prices - they can go up 20% and people don't really drive less. If we decide we don't like the prices, we can choose not to buy... maybe a nice Commodore DTV ... oooh, Winter Games...! :)

Re:gouging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11970044)

Exept that the price of games has actually gone down since the Playstation Era pulled them down.

Games for the NES were 50-60 originally and SNES games went as high as $80 with price points all over the place.

Re:gouging? (1)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970606)

I, for one, held off with with buying Doom III when it was initially launched at 60 Euros (almost an equivalent of 60 dollars) ;

The other day I saw it in the bargain bin ; 25 good ol' euros : Nice :)

Note : I would have bought it immediately if it would have been launched at the 'normal' price (which was 50).

Re:gouging? (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970646)

FYI 60 Euros is about 85 Dollars. Quite shocking when you go to buy something in an EU country. Not as shocking as in the UK where $2 = 1 Pound Sterling (and everything costs more in pounds than it does in dollars at home, enjoy $4 cokes!).

Epic called BS on this: (4, Insightful)

Drakino (10965) | more than 9 years ago | (#11967962)

Slashdot already covered this from the other point of view, where Mark Rein of Epic found no reason games should be jumping to $60. [] / 1759251

All it means for me is a longer wait. I've already been getting tired of buying games at $50 and watching the publisher suck up most of that money. Usually I only buy games at $40 or less. I have such a backlog of games anyhow that by the time I can play something new, it is already $20-$30.

Re:Epic called BS on this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11968254)

It's a good thing Zonk already linked to the same story you just tried to link to, since your link is broken. Despite your jumping of the gun, however, you have a point. I have unopened games lying around just waiting for me to get to them. Meanwhile, I still want to replay some others to find things I missed. While all that's happening, games that I'd like to play aren't just moving to the discount rack, they're going out of print.

There's such a glut of good games right now that I can't understand how anyone could expect to compete by actually raising prices instead of lowering them.

Re:Epic called BS on this: (2, Interesting)

Meagermanx (768421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11972051)

My problem is when you have top quality RPGs and other games for fractions of the cost of new games (THPS2 used on PS1 is $1.50 at ebgames. You can get FFT for like, $11.00, so I don't see why people would pay $40 for FFTA. I recently purchased a DVD case copy of Max Payne with slightly scuffed up packaging for $5.00) why would I spend $60 on an inferrior new game? Why spend money on a new RPG which COULD be okay, or even good, when you can play Diablo 2, which some crazy people say is better than Diablo, Baldur's Gate, or the Best Game Ever, IMHO, Fallout, for a small fraction of the cost? I don't see why anyone would buy DOOM 3 if they haven't played Quake 2, Half-Life, or any of the other truly great shooters out there. $20 is the most I will pay for any game. If it's higher than that, I will watch garage sales, bargain bins, and eBay. I pretty much shop directly out of the bargain bins (I'm a cheap bastard ;)). If I see a game cheap, I buy it. If it's too expensive, forget it. If you want cheaper games, speak with your wallets. Don't buy the $60 games. Buy the $30 games. Buy lots of $30 games. The companies will think "If we sell this game at $30, we sell four times the copies than if we sold it at $60." That's the ONLY way you can lower the prices.

Re:Epic called BS on this: (1)

Drakino (10965) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968380)

Weird, I could swear the article didn't initially have the counter point. Oh well.

And one of these days I'll remember when I am posting on slashdot that the posting methods that work fine on most of the web boards fail here.

Phony marketing people (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968004)

Phony marketing people like to talk about "price points", instead of prices.

Re:Phony marketing people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11971599)

Price points are where you set a price. It refers to the where and not the what. Yes, people often say "price point" when they mean "price", but this was a valid use.

Jesus, it's not like he used "architect" as a verb.

Two words: (3, Interesting)

TheRealJFM (671978) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968038)

Price fixing.

Costs of distribution are far lower today than they were maybe 10 years ago, and systems like steam and perhaps bittorrent mean its possible to launch a game on very little revenue - these consoles have broadband adaptors after all. Why the price hike?

Well the fact that three publishers have announced it at the same time makes me wonder if there is something dodgy here.

Any refutements or evidence in this one?

Can't see it turning out well though: Nintendo were previously thrashed on price for the N64, and they were only able to return to somewhere close to their previous revenue by producing an incredibly cheap console.

Re:Two words: (3, Insightful)

Jicksta (760596) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968359)

Well, the justification supposedly is that games are getting more expensive to produce [] with rendering technologies becoming more advanced and the gradual migration of television owners to high-definition.

I don't feel sympathetic for the game industry. Games are turning too pop-culture for me. The Halo 2 hype we still hear about? Sorry, but that's just too fucking creepy for me.

I'll just stick to writing [] and playing FOSS games [] .

Re:Two words: (2, Insightful)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11971899)

That's complete bullshit.

Madden 05 is Madden 04 with updated names.

Same for just about any other EA sports title.

Most of your FPS titles on the PC will be Doom3 or HL2 engine revamps.

Basicly, I see very little *new* code to justify the cost hike.

On top of all that, putting a game on a shelf is SO 2004! Steam is the future; get onboard or get left behind.

No more CDs, copy protection, printed materials, etc means lower distribution costs. Add bittorrent to the mix and your costs bottom out.

On a side note, we had a LAN party last weekend. Even though Steam is suposed to be torrent-based, a fresh install of HL2 was gonna take like 6 hours to complete. This was at a 30+ person party with everyone running Steam. Valve needs to reassess their protocol system and figure out how to make LAN-2-LAN downloads more effective.

Re:Two words: (1)

Meagermanx (768421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11972089)

Didn't Steam have a friggin' miserable HL2 launch? I still like the boxed copy. I can install it on any PC, I can resell the sucka, I can buy them cheap, and I get cool stuff like the manual and the box to, well, look at on the way home.

Re:Two words: (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969318)

well, pc games have pretty much always been priced as high as someone is willing to buy them for - the price has had absolutely nothing to do with how much it cost to make and how many games they are going to sell.

the price hike is because they have deduced from market research that they'd sell about the same amount even with a 20$ higher price(and that they can sell the game at 20% off or something similar, making it seem like a great deal when in reality you're paying the normal amount for a game).

of course, then there's gems like live for speed [] that are sold for 12£ (no, i don't really care for paper manuals).

Re:Two words: (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970010)

It's illegal only if they talk to each other about it, and if you can prove it.

A legal way to do price fixing is to follow the leader. Whoever changes their pricing first, all the others notice and change their pricing to match. Each figuring out that the other big players are following this strategy, they'll aim for monopoly prices, rather than price competitively. Vendors want to go along with this because they usually mark up by a %, so even if it'll still be profitable, they'll naturally aim to keep lower priced games off the shelves, with the exception of vendors like WalMart who just want volume.

Successful businesses don't compete.

Re:Two words: (1)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970050)

"Any refutements or evidence in this one?"

How about designing games with large amounts of detailed, high-definition content is a lot more expensive then it was in the days when textures and models just couldn't be very detailed? Or the added cost of developing, testing, and supporting online multiplayer content? Not to mention that American corporations now have to actually make money instead of just cooking their books and going into stupid amounts of debt to keep the SEC off their backs. And don't forget payouts to superstar developers, movies, sports franchises/organizations, etc. that eat into game profits.

Gamers demand more, the games are going to cost more. That's life.

Remember the Playstation 1. (2)

Omni Magnus (645067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968075)

When the first Playstation came out, most games were $40, but a few premium games demanded $50. Now you can hardly find a new game for $40 on the PS2 and the XBOX. Looks like its back to the cartridge days and the $60 games.

Re:Remember the Playstation 1. (2, Insightful)

Jicksta (760596) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968446)

When Serious Sam and Serious Sam 2: The Second Encounter each came out for PC, they were only $19.99 brand new.

To say that releasing affordable, quality games for retail is impossible is, well, just blatantly wrong.

Re:Remember the Playstation 1. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11969197)

Not true at all. I still find many games, brand new, for $40 on both PS2 and (a little less often) the XBox.

Re:Remember the Playstation 1. (1)

Omni Magnus (645067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969901)

I didn't mean to say that you could not find them, just that almost all of the good games are $50. Yeah sure you can see a bunch of $40 games, but most of those really aren't worth playing.

$39.99 Was Too Much (4, Insightful)

EngineeringMarvel (783720) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968095)

I have only purchased one game that was at or over the $40 mark, and that was HL2. I have over thirty games and only maybe two or three of them I would say is worth $50. I do however own 2-3 games that were worth $50 at retail, but I recieved them as gifts. By no stretch do I consider a static game to be worth $60, that's just ridiculious, especially with the overall lack of gameplay quality in games nowadays. I believe $60 is too much and any game put at that price will see a reduction in overall profit of that title. I would like to add that I can easily afford a $60 game a month if I wanted. I don't buy them at that price because I can buy other entertainment equal in value for half the cost.

Re:$39.99 Was Too Much (2, Insightful)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968724)

I'll second that - and add that I waited for HL2 until I saw it go on sale for $30 and Doom 3 for $20! Had they not been at the $50+ mark, it would have been opening week. $60 (even $50) breaks the threshold for me of 'impulse buy'. I'm a sucker to pick up a game - newer titles in the $20-30 mark, older titles for under $10 - adding up quickly to good chunks of money. $60 puts it right in the category of requiring due diligence in reviews, fan sites then customers, perhaps one or two people who played it, and even waiting for the first round (or two) of patches. More often then not, I just don't buy anymore until it heads to the bargain shelf. Dropping the price from $60 to $45 is not the bargain shelf either...

Re:$39.99 Was Too Much (4, Insightful)

Evro (18923) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969043)

"What the market will bear." If the quality of the games increases along with the price then it sort of makes sense, but somehow I don't see that happening.

I expect them to come back with the piracy argument, which is totally backwards. "We're competing with a cheaper alternative (the same game for free) so we... raised prices... to... compensate."

Re:$39.99 Was Too Much (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970411)

I don't buy them at that price because I can buy other entertainment equal in value for half the cost.

I agreed with you up until this, at this point it turns into a lie.

A good choice of game gives the best return on investment...

Just the anticipation should show you something, do you anticipate reading a really good book with baited breath? Most people don't

But when you buy a game warm expectation creeps over you... until you put it in the drive and get hit with DRM, and then you realize it's DiKatana :(

But you know The Anticipation.

Re:$39.99 Was Too Much (2, Insightful)

ahbi (796025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970802)


The $50 & $60 price points are supported by a tons of high school and college kids that have large amounts of discretionary income AND time. Even the first 2 years post-college I was able to pony up the high end prices.

Now, 33 with a kid on the way, I just don't have the time and energy for too many video games. I can easily wait for the $30 or $20 price point. And, I don't have cable/sat TV. My PC is my primary form of entertainment.

Yeah, I have the money for the $50/60 price point. I just don't have the time. Plus, I am old enough to remember when the premium price point was $40. (The problem of being "not cheap, just old" comes up with car buying too. "What do you mean a mid-level car costs $25k? I should be able to get it for $15k, max.") Recently when I purchase a game past the $40 price point, I feel ripped off.

Also, waiting has the benefit of making sure the game works. NWN was non-functional when it first came out (for me, YMMV), but 6 months of bug fixes later it was a fine. KOTOR2 is another example. If I had had the time I'd have gotten that day 1 due to KOTOR. Now that more reviews have come in from fans (as opposed to magazines) I feel that waiting till the $30/20 price point is a good move.

By the time I NEED a 6800 the price will have dropped to the low $200s.

If I wait the worst thing that happens is I finally finish Planescape: Torment and GTA3:VC.

Sounds about right (5, Informative)

vasqzr (619165) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968122)

Compare $50 of todays dollars with $50 in 1990!

Anyone remember paying $60 or $70 for a NES/SNES new release? Granted, you were paying for larger ROM chips...

Look at the budgets of some of todays games. Millions of dollars. How much of a budget do you think Megan Man or Castlevania had?

They have to make the costs up somewhere.

Re:Sounds about right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11968480)

How much of a budget do you think Megan Man or Castlevania had?

Megan Man? Probably not much, considering I've never heard of it. The publisher probably worried about putting a game starring a crossdressing heroine in the spotlight.

Re:Sounds about right (1)

AsbestosRush (111196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968826)

I thought that was metroid?

Re:Sounds about right (1)

evilmousse (798341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968662)

>They have to make the costs up somewhere.

hooookay, how about on the order of magnitude more sales they make nowadays.

Re:Sounds about right (2, Interesting)

badasscat (563442) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969854)

>They have to make the costs up somewhere.

hooookay, how about on the order of magnitude more sales they make nowadays.

Atari 2600 units sold worldwide: 29 million.

Nintendo 64 units sold worldwide: 36 million.

Xbox units sold worldwide: Under 20 million.

Console sales have hardly changed at all in the last 25 years. Game sales have increased, but so has the number of game developers. (Remember, in the early Atari days, there was no such thing as a third-party developer. In fact, Atari sued Activision - the first-ever third party developer - to try to kill that entire industry.) So there is more competition, the rate of inflation has far and away outpaced game prices (look up $29.99 - the standard price for a new Atari 2600 game - in inflation-adjusted dollars from 1977 to now), and development teams have increased in size from in many cases one person to in some cases more than one thousand. Many more games are coming out - a greater percentage increase than the increase in sales - and costs have skyrocketed.

I'd say publishers are justified in a $10 price increase. Does that mean I'll pay it? Maybe not - there are literally hundreds of current, great games out right now for all systems at $20 or less, and I'm sure the same will be true for next-gen consoles after the initial rush wears off. But if they feel they need to make an extra $10 per new game in order to hire a few more coders to get the workload down to a reasonable level (remember how we've all been talking about how overworked everyone is in the game industry?), then more power to them.

Of course, that's assuming they don't just pocket the money as extra profit, but honestly, the gaming industry is running at bare minimum right now in terms of manpower, so at some point a price increase was pretty inevitable.

Re:Sounds about right (3, Interesting)

evilmousse (798341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969975)

Aren't game sales what we were discussing? Aren't the console statistics a little slanted since each has been in the market for different amounts of time?

I've honestly been having a hard time finding satisfactory data for this.. I do see that many of the all-time-sellers aren't necessarily modern-generation-games, but what I'd really like to see is the AVERAGE number of sales for a game on each console. Plus I'd like to see a cost-breakdown for then and now. I fully concede that development costs are higher now, but material and distribution costs are much lower, sales (as near as i can figure) much higher. I'm not sure just what those vectors would add up to.

Re:Sounds about right (4, Insightful)

PoderOmega (677170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968886)

I posted about this is a similar slashdot posting... but here we go. I'm not sure where you got the NES games costing $60/$70, but I do remember Genesis and SNES games costing that much. I would say that $70 for Street Fighter II for SNES was worth the price. $70 for Strider for Genesis was fair, and it is a matter of opinion if $80 for Phatasy Star 4 was reasonable. Yes, the argument was for the ROMs being larger, but I don't know if that is the real reason why. Anyway, compared to other games at the when SF2 for SNES came out, it was amazing. An almost perfect translation from the arcade. If they can release games that blew me away as much as SF2 for SNES back in the day, they can charge $70 for a game today. Unfortuantely, I don't think that will be the case.

Re:Sounds about right (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11969294)

Compare $50 of todays dollars with $50 in 1990!

$50 in 1990 is now $74.

Look at the budgets of some of todays games. Millions of dollars. They have to make the costs up somewhere.

They make it up in sales. The market has grow a lot faster than inflation since 1990.

Re:Sounds about right (1)

celseven (723395) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970618)

I'm not so certain. I think, with today's technology and mass-marketing of games, $50 is more than reasonable...

Think about it... the SNES or Genesis game was a piece of hardware in itself. The game today is about $.10 of pressed plastic and some (terse and uninformative) manuals. Also, call me a fogie, but quality of many games (Half-Life 2 and others excluded) are ... eh...

Asking for more that $50 is like saying "find me on bittorrent, Buccaneer-Americans [] "... seriously.

Saying the "typical" (yet ever-shifting) demographic of games ranges from 12 year olds to 27 year olds. Say they on average make $10-$20 an hour. So after taxes, etc. they have to put down about 3-6 hours of blood sweat and tears for a game... Reasonable for something they will enjoy, but not really a compulsive buy at the $50 price point. Raising it to $60 or $70 puts a little bit of a twist and a flick in turning that particular blade.

The economics is clearly linked to how broad of a market base you have. Jacking the price up 20% may push people away.

I am still impressed with cheap, but wonderful games [] that are still available, some from indie firms, others not. Either way... I can't see myself (as a respectible, employed person in his mid-twenties) forking down more than $50 for a game unless I knew it was brilliant. I often wait a few months (egad) or pick up older titles I know are good that I never got a chance to play.

Just my 2 cents.

In other news, the fun is back oh yesiree, its the 2600 from A-atari [] .

Re:Sounds about right (1)

ElVaquero (867318) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969376)

I'm fairly sure the market right now for video games is a wee bit bigger than for the SNES.

Re:Sounds about right (3, Insightful)

17028 (122384) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970021)

You're assuming the publishers use a "cost plus" method of pricing. I.e. this game cost us 1 million to make, and we expect to sell 100,000 copies, so we can sell it for 15 dollars a make a 50% profit. That's not how it works. They say; at which price point will we make the most money? If that happens to be 50 dollars, they sell it for 50 dollars. The only reason they don't sell games for 100 dollars right now is that they expect they'll lose too many sales and therefore make less money overall.

So the obvious question is, what happens if the price customers are willing to pay is too low to pay for the cost of the game? First you decide whether it is worth putting it out to recoup some of the investment, or just can it and eat the cost. Then it is time to either look over your cost structure, or to look for another business to be in. It happens all the time in all kinds of industries.

I'm not a fashion snob (4, Insightful)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968152)

I can wait until next year and pay $20! Even less! HAHAHAHA!

Re:I'm not a fashion snob (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968647)

You could do even better by becoming a Nethack snob! It's free and every time there's a story here about a new graphics card, FPS or peripheral you can brag "Ha! I only play Nethack! It's the bestest game in the world so why would I play anything but Nethack?"

The downside, of course, is Nethack...

Re:I'm not a fashion snob (1)

Whyte Panther (868438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970027)

Except then you miss out on opportunities to get games by smaller developers that don't get a second print run as greatest hits. Things like Disgaea. Mmm. Disgaea. (Still never got that blasted Yoshitsuna)

Life Sucking Boredom (1)

white1827 (848173) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968155)

To be honest, most video games only interest me for a few hours. Either game quality needs to come up or prices need to come down. There have been extremely few games that I've felt were worth $50 in the last few years.

Re:Life Sucking Boredom (2, Informative)

chromaphobic (764362) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969551)

I feel the exact same way. I'll pay $60 for a game if I feel I'm going to get $60 worth of entertainment out of it.

Half-Life 2 is a perfect example, according to X-Fire I've played HL2 for a total of 67 hours! Well worth the money I paid for it, and more.

On the other hand, there's a game like Call Of Duty. I paid $50 for it back in the day, and as great as the game is, I finished the SP campaign in FIVE hours. I'm not much into online multiplayer, and I've only found it worth one re-play, so I only got 10 hours (at best) of entertainment for my money. NOT worth it.

More and more, I just wait for the games to hit the bargain bin and buy them for $20-$30 instead. As games continue to rise in price I'm sure more and more people will do they same. Enough to make a difference? Probably not. :-(

Re:Life Sucking Boredom (1)

DaveJay (133437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969794)

You know, if you look for games that entertain you instead of just grabbing the latest greatest, you get a lot of fun for very little money.

Case in point: I bought Locomotion when it came out, at $30. Now you can get it for $20 or less. The thing is, I've had it for a long time, and I still play it at least once a week, because it's a terrific game (I also played the living daylights out of the rollercoaster tycoon series).

Similar: My wife and I still blow each other up in Worms Armageddon every so often. I barely paid anything for it.

Also: WarioWare, same deal, was $30 when released, and worth $50. We still play that, too.

Heck, I just picked up an old copy of Test Drive LeMans for my old Dreamcast (lost my old copy) for $9, and I -still- enjoy it immensely.

But: in my backpack is a copy of UT2004 that I purchased and have barely played.

So yeah, they might charge $60, but that doesn't mean people will buy it. My local healthy snack shop used to charge $1.39 for a product I liked, and I bought one every weekday with my lunch. Then they raised it to $1.49, and I bought one every weekday with my lunch. Then they raised it to $1.99, and I haven't bought one since -- and it's been at least six months.

Somebody will always drop off the curve after a certain price has been surpassed, and it's a matter of hitting it so that the additional income from your price hike isn't eaten right back up by the number of people who might have purchased your product, but now will not.

Re:Life Sucking Boredom (1)

thesuperav (780685) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970168)

Well, consider this: a movie ticket sells in the vicinity of $10 for ~2hrs of entertainment. A game that sells for $50 and you play for 10hrs is then equivalent in terms of dollar per hour of entertainment. Although purchasing a game is a bigger outlay at the beginning, comparatively, in the long run it is quite reasonable.

We get rippped off over here already (2, Informative)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968199)

Here in Britain, $60 US would practically be a price drop.

Gran Turismo 4 for PS2 has a recommended price of UKP39.99 ($76.9219 US) and the lowest shop price I found on launch day was £29.99 ($57.6761 US).

Re:We get rippped off over here already (1)

Jicksta (760596) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968508)

Heh, no wonder Britain holds world records for its amount of piracy.

Re:We get rippped off over here already (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968721)

Keep in mind that in the US prices are frequently quoted pre-sales tax, and while they vary considerably from state to state sales taxes usually add at least 5% to the final selling price. My understanding is that European price quotes generally include VAT. Pure greed (and less local competition) does play a role, as US based game manufacturers can hold off cutting prices when currencies swing favorably in foreign countries that do not have local competition. Eventually, arbitrage will close the gap, I read about plenty of people who came across the pond to do their Christmas shopping last year (and usually saved enough to pay for the trip).

Re:We get rippped off over here already (1)

unixbob (523657) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969842)

Also worth bearing in mind that instead of doing the price conversion companies will frequently just port the numbers. Wouldn't be surprised to see UK prices get hiked to £59.99 for premium games under this extortionate policy.

Bring on the indie games. Outpost Kaloki [] is ace fun and only cost me $10 ish.

Re:We get rippped off over here already (1)

easychord (671421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970190)

So without VAT the price would be more like 34 GBP / 65 USD. People in the UK can get new games for around 30 pounds by buying from sites that avoid tax and add a bit of a discount to the RRP so this price is valid enough.

It's also worth saying that the GBP to USD exchange rate used to be more like 1.6 than 1.9. Even taking this into account we Brits still had to pay more than Americans.

Re:We get rippped off over here already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11970335)

People in the UK can get new games for around 30 pounds by buying from sites that avoid tax

which is illegal (the site may not owe the VAT, but YOU damn sure do), so you'd better hope HM Customs & Excise don't read Slashdot or you're screwed.

Re:We get rippped off over here already (1)

easychord (671421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970783)

Happened to me before when importing from the USA. They keep the package at the post office and you have to pay the tax before you can get it.

The company selling the game may get in more trouble for not declaring the value or paying tax. Dunno.

Re:We get rippped off over here already (1)

thezapper77 (842213) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970237)

Over here in Australia, most games RRP $AU89.95 to $AU99.95. Mostly the latter... In $US, it becomes $US71.35 to $US78.52... We get seriously ripped up over here... Dont even get me started about console prices... Seems it's similar to Britain though

Re:We get rippped off over here already (1)

real_smiff (611054) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970992)

yup, in New Zealand games cost $100, which due to their lower average earning is like £100 to us Brits.. so no one can afford computer games, and you know what, the kids are outside playing sport, or driving around like lunatics.

Why not buy from US & ship? (1)

ahbi (796025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11972020)

I was stunned when I went to AU/NZ how much games & books cost. You appear to import books from the UK. I don't understnad why you don't just import from the US. LA is closer than London, and the books start off cheaper.

In AU my paperback cost AU $20 (US $15), and in NZ it cost NZ $28 (US $21). Compare this to the US prices of US $8 for either book. Plus, Amazon usually offers a discount of 0-30% (0% & 10% on these 2 items). Granted the UK covers are cooler, but they aren't $7-13 cooler.

I was wondering how many books/games I'd have to order from (US version) to make up for the shipping cost to AU/NZ. I already wait till my Amazon order hits the "Free Shipping" limit (US $25) anyhow. What would my limit rise too before I hit the break even point?

Has anyone tried this?

Sorry, Mr. Retail Gamemaker (1)

Jicksta (760596) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968211)

With the rising inclination of gamers to resort to piracy, you'd think game developers would resort to raising game prices last.

*sigh* The economics of game-making is getting so fucked up. Pretty soon, all we'll have will be a plethora of FOSS games.

Sounds good to me.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Retail Gamemaker (1)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970537)

Yeah, I dream of that day.

Move left: J
Move right: K
Jump: <META>-J
Shoot: <META>-<CTRL>-K
Save: <META>-F2, type 'cp metashoot.dat', where # is the slot in which you want to save, <META>-F1 to return to your game.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Retail Gamemaker (1)

Jicksta (760596) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970795)

Is that honestly what you think of when someone mentions FOSS games?

affordable (2, Insightful)

Nivoset (607957) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968212)

i think this will lead to allot more copied games, cause im starting to have problems affording (or saying i can afford, other things have more importaint ques on my money) that are 44$ slightly cause i dont have tons of cash to spend on frivolas things at times, and mostly, cause very few games end up worth nearly that amount. and this price hike isn't going to help there cause i think. oh well. maybe once they get very old game si might be able to afford them (and hopefully that will coincide with the console dropping price too!)

good and bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11968352)

and they think piracy is bad now.

as sales drop publishers will have to be more selective about what they put on the shelves and developers wont be able to get away with the 1/2 assed unpolished crap we see soo much of now.

I wish I could get 'em that cheap here (2, Informative)

siljeal (841276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968379)

In Germany you pay roughly 55 Euros for new games, and even 59 Euros is not completely unheard of. That's $71.50 to $76 at the current rate. That's why I usually don't buy 'less important' titles and go straight for the gems.

Re:I wish I could get 'em that cheap here (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968759)

Eh? 60 (59.95) seems more like the average from what I've seen.

Re:I wish I could get 'em that cheap here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11970333)

New Zealand we pay NZ$80 - 100. That's equivalent to US$57 - 72 dollars.

We get ripped off too...

Price of Entry (2, Insightful)

Kamalot (674654) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968540)

I recently blogged about this... []

This pricing is going to have a detrimental effect on the industry as a whole. With higher-priced games and consoles, people will be willing to buy fewer titles. The pressure will be put on game companies to produce the "next big thing" to ensure that their game is the one that gamers purchase. Publishers will only seek to fund development teams that can create tried-and-true games, ones that have a history of financial success or a recognizable tie-in to other media. As a result, there will be fewer innovative and new titles. More games will be rehashes with a new coat of paint or based on movie/comic licenses.

This is a terrible future for gaming. Gaming was once a bastion of creativity. As prices become so high, it is going to be relegated to 2nd hand status with more re-hashes than Hollywood. The evidence of this is already present.

How many games are TRULY worth the $50 we pay for them?

High prices like these also discourage more casual gamers from picking up a console and getting into video gaming. This reduces the potential audience for video gaming, making it even more of an inaccessible niche market. With the proliferation of gaming on mobile phones, and the rabid success of affordable handheld platforms, it should come as no shock that many people like to play games, if it is easy and affordable.

Re:Price of Entry (1)

r_benchley (658776) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968871)

I'm not worried about the price increases hurting the games industry in the long run. It's very similar to the movie industry, where a few bonehead execs decide that it's best to put all of their eggs in one basket and invest $200 million in one summer blockbuster. Enough of these "can't miss" movies have flopped, that all of the major fil studios have set up divisions that concetrate on small indie pictures or foriegn films. They relaized that even though the big $100 -$200 million dollar flicks might bring in a lot of money, they can also lose their shirts if they flop. It's better to make a bunch of cheap (relatively), well-written, well-acted movies which will turn a modest profit, or a modest loss. Donnie Darko cost four million to make, grossed less than a million in the theater, but it has taken off on video. Blair Witch cost fifty grand, but it grossed over $100 million. It's probably not a perfect analogy, but I think there will always be room for cool little games that don't have huge budgets, but are lots of fun and reasonably priced.

Re:Price of Entry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11969122)

How many games are TRULY worth the $50 we pay for them?

The question cannot be answered because it is based on incorrect assumptions: first, that anyone would purchase a game at a higher price than he deemed it worth; second, that there is an objective way to measure a game's worth.

Re:Price of Entry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11969492)

On the other hand, if all the major publishers charge $60 for every game they put out, that makes cheaper, independent games more competitive.

If your choices are coughing up $60 for Halo 3/HL3/GTA4, or buying an independent, innovative game for $30, lots more people will consider independent games, than if you get the next blockbuster for just $10 more.

Re:Price of Entry (1)

harrkev (623093) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970073)

There was already one video game crash in the early 80's. I wonder how much the current situation looks like the one back then? The "Great Game Crash of 2006?" Maybe!

I finally picked up a GameCube for my children last weekend - my first console since the original PS. I snagged a deal at Worst Buy of two classic games for $25. If all games were $50, then I would not have purchased anything! Lower prices make me buy more! I like to buy when I can get a deal. I do NOT buy when I feel like I am being ripped off. It is not just about price, it is also about perceptions.

Keep It (0)

Snodgrass (446409) | more than 9 years ago | (#11968777)

I'm not going to pay $60 for a game that requires a $300 video card and a new computer (I've got a 1.4GHz Athlon) to be playable. I used to be a big time FPS player, but the inability (and unwillingness) of me to upgrade my machine has turned me to MUDs and free games (I'm loving simutrans [] these days) that I am perfectly contented with.

There is no shortage of free entertainment for me to spend my time on. That isn't to say, however, that somebody else isn't perfectly justified in paying 60 bones for a game if that's what they want. Just count me out.

Re:Keep It (1)

tim256 (855256) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969388)

There are plenty of games that are less than 4 years old and more than one year old that are very good and inexpensive. If you don't care too much about graphics, older games should be the way to go.

Re:Keep It (1)

JeffZakaib (802581) | more than 9 years ago | (#11971549)

StarCraft is almost 7 years old, and I'm still enjoyin it with many of my friends.

It will cost them in the long run... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11969035)

I would imagine as prices increase along with demand, so will piracy.

Personally if I want a game bad enough, and cant afford it. I will be more than happy to pirate it.

The "they wouldn't have bought it anyway" statement will not hold true in this scenario. Because if they coul afford it they would have bought it.

But because of the ridiculous price hike they pirated it. This way the publishers dont get shit.

They wonder about piracy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11969116)

And they wonder why people "steal" stuff when the average person makes $10 USD/hr.

Okay... someone explain this to me. (2, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969148)

Please, someone explain to me how, less than 15 years ago, a *full-priced*, years-in-development, state-of-the-art game cost in the region of 10UKP ($20). That same game would take many WEEKS, if not MONTHS, of game-time to complete if you dedicated yourself to it, many of them much more than that.

[[[Me, my dad, and my older brother once spent night-after-night trying to complete Nonterraqueous and only managed it through sheer brute-force cooperative mapping of the game and many weeks of intense play... Typically, the next week someone else sent in the first ever map of Nonterraqueous to a computer magazine and had it published.]]]

That older game would be programmed by (sometimes) a single-person or at most a small team. That game would interface direct with the hardware (no OS) and take full advantage of the entire machine's capabilities. It would be programmed in the lowest-level language available and be massively MANUALLY optimised to make full use of the available speed and resources, both of which were available in only miniscule amounts.

That same game would be ported, without the aid of cross-platform tools, to numerous platforms (with similar optimisations) and sell for the same price on all platforms. That game would be fun, virtually bug-free, engaging and keep the average gamer with a large software library occupied for years and years.

So why do modern games now cost RIDICULOUS amounts (way above equivalent inflation and way out of pocket-money territory even for modern youth) when they can be completed in a few DAYS of playtime, be in development for the same amount of time as the older games and sometimes never even appear at all.

Admittedly, any game today usually have a larger team behind it and more of a PR push but that must be cancelled out by the comparatively ENORMOUS gaming market of today, the low cost of duplication, the ability to take advantage of massive libraries of pre-crafted code, audio, artwork, the proliferation of available programmers, computer artists etc.

Modern games are also now written in much higher-level languages than older titles, which are easily portable across many platforms, using a massive framework of standardised operating systems and hardware interfaces with well-established controlling libraries (DirectX) etc.

The modern games are buggy, boring, bloated and absent of decent gameplay. Processor power and resource availability has soared far beyond anything the older gamers could ever dream of, yet the games are sluggish and ugly even on the "recommended" hardware.

I haven't played a game in years that engaged me, 90% of them having a single, oft-repeated premise that has been done to death and they provide nothing new but eye-candy that gets in the way of the game.

I've actually got to the ideal point now... I have a massive library of older games and I do not buy modern games much anymore, maybe only once or twice a year, and even then usually from the budget range.

My computer is DELIBERATELY several years behind state-of-the-art so that the only games I can be tempted to run are ones which have been on the market for a long while, allowed me to weed out the chaff and buy the one, single, ground-breaking game of the era.

My last (impulsive and un-researched) game purchase was UT2003 and I installed it, completed several of the ladders and got bored and uninstalled it. Yet Counterstrike is on my hard disk (in fact, I have about 10Gb of installed Half-life games BUT NOT HL2 or CS:Source) and I'm currently engaged in a few games of OpenTTD. The best pieces of software I own are a Spectrum emulator and DOSBox.

I have often wandered into my local game store and walked out again after not being taken by any of the games, even after test-playing many of them.

Why do companies even THINK that people will pay for the rubbish they churn out, except possibly by mistake? Black & White was, for me, the last game purchase I made near it's release date... it was interesting for about twenty minutes, then dull, frustrating and just an anticlimax. It was uninstalled just a week afterwards, after having paid full-price, and has NEVER returned to my hard disk.

You want me to buy your game? Sell it at a reasonable price, make it fast, simple, pretty but not reliant on DirectX 46 with a 10GHz video card. Spend time on storyline, gameplay, playtesting, bugfixing. Skip the television advertising, skip the bribing/blackmail of computer magazines to give it a 10/10, keep it quiet until near it's release to avoid hype and having to live up to every player in the world's expectations.

Take suggestions from the world once it's released and IMPLEMENT THOSE SUGGESTIONS in your next release of the game, less than a year later. Merge game styles and abilities. Don't focus on having good physics, just license a physics library and slap it on, then add several OTHER new features that nobody's ever had before, allow your programmers complete freedom in their ideas.

Re:Okay... someone explain this to me. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11969980)

The modern games are buggy, boring, bloated and absent of decent gameplay.

Well, I'm going to argue right back at you on the same level:

Shut up

Diminishing returns (2, Interesting)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969261)

I have to wonder how much this will really help? Personally, I only buy a few games a year anymore, and I'm somewhat selective in doing so. Usually, I'll try to wait for games to hit the bargin rack, or I'll wait for a friend to buy it, finish it, and borrow it from him. I'll grant that there are some games that I will buy at full price, but those are getting to be fewer. This year, the only game I'm looking at paying full price for is Rainbow 6: 4. And that assumes that it hits this year, and doesn't have a ton of bugs at release. The sad part is, I'll probably only play through it in co-op mode with some friends, whom I've played through 3 with. We just enjoy that sort of thing, and we all need to have our own copies.
The other problem with the prices climbing higher, is going to be piracy. Let's face it, pirating a game is easy these days. And all of the silly key codes are doing nothing to slow it down. Do a quick google for "half life 2 cd key" and you'll see what I mean. Granted, this won't help people with online play, but if all they want is the single player version, then it'll get the job done.
At some point, higher prices are not going to result in higher returns. Too many people will wait for the price to drop or outright pirate the game. Are we there yet, who knows, but we'll probably get to find out soon when the companies start charging more.

$60 will bring the industry lower (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11969285)

This is complete bullshit. Look at the profits that these companies bring in already.

Go to your local fry's, and compare the sheer amount of today's titles in the bargin bin to bargin bins of the mid 90's.

Look at the sheer number of titles published today compared to the mid-90's.

Look at the growing lack of quality in today's games (though infrequent, I have console titles that crash regularly)

This industry will see another crash similar to the mid-1980's before these assholes are done. They're just scrambling to get thier money before it's over.
Don't get me wrong, because games will never disappear entirely, but they sure will be ridden into the dirt before a new market is resurrected by the same greed that killed it the first times, only to repeat it again.

Re:$60 will bring the industry lower (1)

Elranzer (851411) | more than 9 years ago | (#11972072)

Well it seem inevitable Sony is going to lead the way into the second video game crash of utter lack of quality in video games, with its "quantity over quality" business model. It started with PS1 and it seems PS2 games are generally lesser quality than most PS1 games at the time. But you can rest assured one name will always save us from lack of quality in the future, the same way they saved us in the 80s: Nintendo.

They can try (3, Insightful)

bluGill (862) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969382)

They can charge what they want. Standard economics, you don't even need to take the class to understand it. As price increases demand falls. At some point there is optimal profit. As you raise prices you are also loosing customers who would buy at a lower price, while lowering prices brings in less customers than the added profit.

They can try raising prices. However I personally consider $25 on a game too much, so already there are many games I personally do not buy. As price goes up more and more people will cross that line. I know many people who would buy more games, but their wife keeps saying that is too much.

Re:They can try (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969821)

However I personally consider $25 on a game too much, so already there are many games I personally do not buy. As price goes up more and more people will cross that line. I know many people who would buy more games, but their wife keeps saying that is too much.

Oh you got it in one. The only reason that I would spend $50-$60 on a single game is that it is the lastest FF or Kingdom Hearts 2. My main reason for buying my PS2 was because I picked up almost all the FF for the PS1 and some of the older PS2 titles $15 each. I'll buy 4-5 titles at $15-20. Every game that I've ever spent over $50 on I've gotten burned on. I'll wait a year and pick it up for $20. Now that I've heard the next gen Nintendo console will be backwards compatiable, I'm thinking of buy 5-6 of the Game Cube classics, which sell for $20-$25.

And who would think this is good on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11969497)

But seriously, this is just an effect of production costs spiralling out of control.

Games today are pushing $40 million to make with World of Warcraft and Half Life 2. In two years we'll be looking at Hollywood movie budgets in the $100 million range. Already you can imagine a high quality 3D game requiring as many or more professional animators and modelers as a Pixar movie would require. Add voice acting and super star directors and it's not hard to see a 40 hour video game surpassing the 2 hour movie in budget.

Ahh... save us Nintendo DS. Give wireless delivery to the people!

Excuse me while I pick up my jaw. (1)

Xner (96363) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969626)

Here in Holland recently released console titles are all already priced at EUR 59.95. At current exchange rates, this amounts to $80.17 according to the currency calculator [] . A 50% price hike in the US ($40 to $60) is likely to be mirrored in european prices, and this would put prices of new console games far beyond anything I consider even vaguely reasonable, probably in the EUR 80 - 90 range.

At that price point, I have some severe doubts about the volume of units they will be able to move.

Won't Be Buying Then (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969714)

Sorry big ol' game publishers, but I won't be buying games at $59.95. Fifty dollars is my limit and only reserved for much anticipated titles. I've never seen a game worth more than $50 at retail and I'm not convinced that the next gen games are going to show us anything to make it worth the cost. I would predict that the only game that will get away with charging $59.95 will be the next iteration of Madden since EA killed off all of the competition with the NFL exclusive deal. So they can try charging more, but I'd guess they're going to back off of that real quick!

Unless the game spends the night and then makes me breakfast the next morning, there's no way I'm paying $60 for a game!

Count me out too (1)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969807)

I'll add myself to the majority here and say I will not buy a nextgen console game while this pricing scheme is in effect by developers trying to gouge me. Complaining about it is nice and all, but the best voice your opinion to them is through your wallet.

That's not much.... (1)

hinki (602400) | more than 9 years ago | (#11969934)

Compared to Australia prices!
US$59 is approx AUS$75!
A new release game in Australia ranges from AUS$79 to AUS$109 for a console (approx US$$62 to US$86!!).

I hope they don't consider increasing prices here!! I will definitely stop buying games locally.

I'm usually importing UK games (which work out to be AUS$75 for a new release!).

I just cannot understand why games in Australia are so friggin expensive! Why is a game that is "manufactured" in Australia the same price as a game that has been imported from Europe?? Wouldn't the locally manufactured game be cheaper?? Just does not make any sense to me at all.

Boycott all you'd like. (1)

DeanMeister (868655) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970114)

The fact of the matter is that for every one person saying they're not going to buy a 10 dollar more game 10 people ARE going to buy that game. Your not making much of a dent in the companies pocket, and besides they're making up that dent with the extra 10 bucks. Not buying their games just denies you some quality entertainment.

Re:Boycott all you'd like. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11970360)

Wow. You understand economics incredibly well.

Following your logic, they should just up the price per game to a million dollars! For every ten thousand people not buying, they now have one very rich person buying 1 copy, and doubling their profit! Plus, they'll only need to make 1/20000 of the number of copies which cuts down on production costs!

I love the new DeanMeister economics. It's the wave of the future - I just know it!

Wait until next year to buy... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970147)

These days I don't pay a lot for a video game unless it's a top-line FPS game (e.g., Doom 3, HL2, UT2004). I'll wait a few months or maybe a year until the price is right.

For example, I been looking at the demo of Empire Earth 2 that's coming out this month. The game is good enough to buy. However, I noticed that Empire Earth Gold (the original game and expansion pack) is available for $20 USD. So I got EEG instead of EE2 because it was cheaper, and I'll probably pick up EE2 Gold when it eventually comes out for $20 USD.

Won't matter till they lose 20% of their customers (1)

larsoncc (461660) | more than 9 years ago | (#11970327)

Now, I'm no math-a-magician, but...

If they can raise the price 20% higher than what it is now, without losing 20% of their customer base, then the higher price point makes sense for the company.

If their title is a big one and sells 5 million units, that means they'd have to piss off a million people before they'd start to lose money.

Even TERRIBLE titles when released with the system sell at a 1:3 ratio, so I just don't see where this is risky for the companies, ESPECIALLY when the system is new.

N64 (1)

Taulin (569009) | more than 9 years ago | (#11971416)

Almost all N64 games costed $80, and for some STUPID reason I bought them. Never again. I agree with an earlier poster, I will not pay over $50 for a game. I either wait for it to drop or look for a coupon/deal. The developers see the same amount regardless when they have publisher deals.

Costs go up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11971418)

Companies gotta charge more.

There was an interesting talk at the GDC mobile
this year. With the introduction of 3D
handsets, the cost in producing a mobile game,
in was stated, is slated to go up 10x to
a million dollars a title!

I happen to disagree. Mobile titles
don't need to be so complex. Better
to provide a little bit of fun or
information the user can use.

When you consider inflation... (1)

snuf23 (182335) | more than 9 years ago | (#11971563)

I spent $50 to purchase the computer game Ultima 3: Exodus in 1983. According to an inflation calculator [] that price in 2003 adjusted dollars would be $90.91.
Admittedly it came with a really nice cloth map and 3 manuals (2 were spell guides) but that's still a lot of money.

Hmmm (2, Interesting)

Elranzer (851411) | more than 9 years ago | (#11972014)

1. Activision, THQ, and Take Two are all indicating that they may be charging $59.99 for next gen titles.

Well who buys games from these guys anyway? This is just another nail in their coffin. IT would be a bigger deal if it was Nintendo, Electronic Arts and Square Enix saying they are going to charge $60+.

2. The possible main reason for the pirce flux is probably the cost of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD on the PS3 or Xbox Next, as oppossed to just cheapo DVD or whatever cheap propietary disc nintendo will use. Other than that, development is no more complicated than making a game for the PC, yet for some reason PC games are generally less expansive than console games (epsecially games released on console and PC simultaneously, see EA games). And we know that even with the next gen of consoles, PC gaming will still be ahead of consoles and always more complex. Once Xbox Next, Revolution and PS3 come out, shortly there will be graphics cards for PC that overshadows them. So "new console development" is no excuse.

3. I have a feeling that if Nintendo can always manage to find a way to keep the prices of their new consoles $200 or less at launch, they will find a way to keep their Revolution games $50 or under. This may be a good thing for them, if PS3 or Xbox Next games will be $60 and up.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?