Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

EA Slashing Current-Gen Pricetags

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the cheap-games-are-fine-by-me dept.

Businesses 84

kukyfrope writes "In order to help push current-gen sales, EA is slashing prices on some of its upcoming titles. For instance, two of EA's most anticipated titles, The Godfather (March 14) and Black (February 28), will retail for $39.95." From the article: "It'll be interesting to see how the market reacts to these price cuts. We would guess that several other publishers could soon follow EA's lead and drop the prices on their upcoming current-gen software also. It could be just the strategy the industry needs to boost overall sales. $39.95 looks like a bargain when it's sitting on the shelf next to a next-generation game priced at $59.95."

cancel ×

84 comments

Good stuff. (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771572)

Lower prices mean more sales. Umm, what else is there to say?

Re:Good stuff. (2, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771607)

Better games equal better sales?

Re:Good stuff. (3, Insightful)

fishybell (516991) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771660)

They don't want more sales, they want more profit.

Since they are trying to maximize profit, they will (correctly) charge as much as the market is willing to bear. Unless they difference in the number of sales more than offsets the loss in profit-per-unit, other publishers won't follow suit. Given that they are experimenting with lower prices it seems to be that they think they can indeed get a larger return from more sales.

However, since not all games are created equal, it seems silly to try to sell them all at the same price. Each product will have a specific price point that maximizes its profit. Perhaps this is the conclusion they are coming too.

Re:Good stuff. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771855)

Since they are trying to maximize profit, they will (correctly) charge as much as the market is willing to bear.

Not quite. The demand curve determines how many units you will sell at a given price. The market might "bear" $100 a unit, but you'll only sell 10, but at $60 you'll sell 100,000. Drop it to $40 and you might sell 300,000. What you want to find is the point at which profits are maximized, considering that you don't know what the competition will do (If they drop to $40 too you'll lose canibalized sales, so only sell 125,000 units). Or the public might decide a new $40 game must be crappy, and avoid it. There's a lot of voodoo that goes into setting prices, and having a "standard price" can be a reassuring thing.

Re:Good stuff, but econ of game price is? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772050)

You're assuming that they receive less with a lower suggested retail price.

We don't know the wholesale costs, nor do we know what in-game-revenue deals for product placement, or pricing of game supplement materials (books, add-ons, t-shirts, sports cars paint jobs, etc) are.

It's possible that they could drop the pricing from $59.99 SRP to $39.99 SRP per unit, sell five times as many units but only drop production/marketing/delivery costs by a fraction - more volume discounts on shipping, easier channel costs, better ad buys, easier to spin marketing with higher demand, and also make up for it in the add-on and in-game-advertising (Coke/Pepsi/GM/etc) to where they really don't "lose" much at all, and gain a lot more.

Re:Good stuff. (1)

fishybell (516991) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772382)

Congratulations on not reading the line following the quoted one. You reiterated my point exactly, but with numbers you pulled out of your ass.

Go back to watching Sesame Street.

Re:Good stuff. (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 8 years ago | (#14774251)

Your reasoning was correct, but your statement that a seller will charge "as much as the market is willing to bear" is the pet peeve of every economist because, as the GP explained, it's so very widespread and so very wrong. Suppliers charge the price that maximizes their profit, which is almost never the highest price that people would actually pay.

Re:Good stuff. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 8 years ago | (#14774478)

Offtopic but,
Suppliers charge the price that maximizes their profit, which is almost never the highest price that people would actually pay.
Unless you have a virtual (or real) monopoly then you charge as much as the market will bear then throw a few bones when too many people start complaining about it. Look at the gas/oil companies. there are only about 5 companies that control all the oil and gas in the US, everything else is conected to those 5 in some way unless it is some independent producer (very few left) but then they aren't refining the fuel either. Sadly, there is no alternative either

Re:Good stuff. (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 8 years ago | (#14774593)

Well, technically the gas companies are an oligopoly, not a monopoly. They do compete on price (otherwise prices would have never gone down after Katrina), but they can get away with moderate price hikes because gas is a relatively inelastic commodity - people are gonna need it no matter how much it costs. Monopolists dealing in products with more elastic demand (AT&T in its pre-split years, for example) still have to price their products to sell, or else they'll make no money.

Re:Good stuff. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779046)

"oligopoly" That is an interesting term. This is the first i have heard about it but it does fit the description quite well.

I'm kind of thinking that this type of system might actualy lend to abuse more redily then a clear monopoly because of the apearance of it being an open market. Either way, it has some of the apearances of a monopoly. I'm going to have to look inot it some more. Thanks for the correction.

Re:Good stuff. (1)

Darby (84953) | more than 8 years ago | (#14782288)

'm kind of thinking that this type of system might actualy lend to abuse more redily then a clear monopoly because of the apearance of it being an open market.

See also "Cartel". My admittedly possibly incorrect understanding is that a cartel is essentially an oligopoly where the few players are *actively* colluding.

I'm Buying (1)

UberMench (906076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14777460)

I think the price drop is an amazing strategy. Not only do brand new games like Black seem like a steal at $40, but lower rent games like Arena Football seem like highway robbery at a brand new price of only $30. I for one am much more inclined to buy, and have done so, at these lower prices. Additionally, with the "throw a dart at the calendar" release date of the PS3, which will cost between $5-$10,000, people will still feel like they're saving money for the PS3 while still building their PS2 libraries. Brilliant. "I'm a consumer whore!" "AND HOW!!!"

Re:Good stuff. (1)

Darby (84953) | more than 8 years ago | (#14782050)

New religious discussion site. No registration.

I dearly hope for your own sake that all your servers, cables, racks, and heck, your whole data center are made out of asbestos ;-)

EA pricing? (3, Insightful)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771580)

I'm an avid Need for Speed fan... every recent release comes out at $70 (Canadian) and then a week later it's down to $60, then a month later it's $50... then about 2 months after that it's in the bargain bin for $20.

If they started pricing games more reasonably, based on length, quality, and quantity of game play, then maybe they'd make money, and a much better return on investment... but instead, I just sit around waiting for a month before buying the game.

Then again, if you can sell a crap game for 4 times as much as the reasonable market value, why not!?

Pricing based on length... (1)

boldtbanan (905468) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771703)

I seriously hope they never start pricing based on length or 'quantity of game play' or else studious will start stuffing their games with mindless repetition in order to boost both of those stats. It's bad enough with the current crop of RPGs which either feature mind-numbing repetitios features (maybe it's to prepare you for the level grind of MMORPGs) or endless cut scenes interspersed with 10 minutes of actual game play.

Re:EA pricing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14772491)

I just tried a demo of Battlefield 2 the other day and liked it. Checked it out at EB: $60CDN.. This game is like a year old and they still want way too much money for it.

Oh well, guess it stays on the shelf then.

Reminds me of Valve/Sierra pricing with Half-Life.. $40 for like 7 fucking years.

Re:EA pricing? (0)

ThePlague (30616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14773092)

Good choice, EA screwed up that royally.

Re:EA pricing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14772719)

then maybe they'd make money, and a much better return on investment
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.

Then again, if you can sell a crap game for 4 times as much as the reasonable market value, why not!?
Closer to the truth.

*sigh* Companies like EA employ people with (probably) a much better insight than you into what's going to turn a profit in the current marketplace.

Developers would -much- rather be working on the next doom/katamari/colossus/whatever. It's the damn consumer that is feeding the current industry situation. :(

Yours, a down-in-the-dumps game dev

Re:EA pricing? (1)

PhoenixOne (674466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772954)

It isn't a stupid idea if the hard-core fans are willing to pay $70 in order to have the game right when it comes out. The fact that you are willing to hold off buying the game until the price comes down just means it isn't worth $70 to you.

You can't price games based on "quality", which is totally subjective (I, for one, wouldn't pay $5 for a Need for Speed game), and a long game isn't better than a short one (unless all you are looking for is a way to kill time). You price the game at what you think people will pay for it, and adjust it as you get more data.

Re:EA pricing? (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14773045)

I will not pay more than $29.99 for any game.

It takes a lot to get me to pay more than $20.00 for a game. When a game is particularly interesting or good I will, but I'm not going to buy a game at launch if the price is $69.99. It simply isn't going to happen. Also, I don't own a console, so any games I get are PC games. I don't see the draw in paying so GD much for a console or the games for it.

LK

Re:EA pricing? (1)

Darby (84953) | more than 8 years ago | (#14782337)

I will not pay more than $29.99 for any game.

I'm in a similar situation, but it's not a particular price point that's my cutoff.
I just don't play that many games. This means that when I feel like getting a new one, there are a lot I've never played that I can easily know whether they're generally considered "good" or "bad" and they're at about that price or less.

I just got a brand new computer, so I picked up a few games recently, all a bit older. I can play all of them at max settings totally smoothly.

Maybe they're not as totally awesome as the latest thing, but they're new to me and almost nobody who bought them new had as good an experience as I do since my hardware is ahead of the game curve considering that I am behind the curve with the games I am playing.

Re:EA pricing? (1)

patternjuggler (738978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14774595)

every recent release comes out at $70 (Canadian) and then a week later it's down to $60, then a month later it's $50... then about 2 months after that it's in the bargain bin for $20.

It's the free market in action. The longer after the release date, the more used copies are going to enter the market, competing with the new copies for sales, so the publisher has to lower prices in order to keep selling more games. There also may be new games out competing with the old game, so although the new game has all the hype and maybe a few new features you can get a similar old game for a lot less money (although if the same publisher makes both of those similar games then it may be cannibalizing its own sales).

You'll notice games that are both unique and top-notch don't drop their prices much for many months, sometimes for more than a year or until the sequel comes out. I think BF1942 stayed full price until the Vietnam one came out, and also Half-Life continued to sell for around $50 for years and years (though in increasingly 'deluxe' packages) until the sequel came out.

It's also a form of market segmentation, which is a way of extracting the most money out of each customer, in this case the customer's desire to play the game close to its release date is the how the segmenting is done. This form of market segmentation is far more preferable to the sort where the vendor sizes you up and makes you individually a limited-time offer based on how much they think you want it and how much money they think you're good for. You'll hate the vendor as soon as you find out how much less someone else paid for the exact same thing.

If they started pricing games more reasonably, based on length, quality, and quantity of game play, then maybe they'd make money, and a much better return on investment... but instead, I just sit around waiting for a month before buying the game.

The pricing scheme you've outlined already does this, but it's the derivative of price vs. time that is (inversely) proportional to length and quality (and originality), not the starting price.

Re:EA pricing? (1)

j3110 (193209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14776703)

I think this is the best form of price descrimination. Everyone wins, in the mentioned scenario.

1) Users who obviously get the most out of the product get taxed for their impatience.
2) Users who would not normally buy the game will get a chance to in only a few months.
3) Publishers/Developers get the most money out of the game because of #1 and #2
4) Publishers can build a better game because of #3
5) Users enjoy the game more than otherwise because of #4
6) See #1 for sequal/new title

This is capitalism working at it's best. Enjoy it, because usually it doesn't.

Big deal... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771581)

There are very few games I'm willing to pay full price for these days. Especially when you can wait a few months to get the "collector's edition" for the same price as the regular. Otherwise, I'll wait for a significant discount on Amazon or the $20 USD or under bargin bin.

Boycott (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771582)

I'm boycotting EA because of their unscrupulous behavior and shameless manipulation of what has become a brainless market. I also boycott Sony and Microsoft for the exact same reasons.

Please buy a Nintendo Revolution and do not buy any EA games for it. That is all.

Re:Boycott (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771643)

Just because no one is willing to give you a free T-shirt doesn't mean you should boycott every game company out there. Spend your money on clothes instead of video games for a change. :P

Re:Boycott (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771912)

Personally, I would boycott them because their games suck shit, but hey if you're a nintendo fan, then you're probably only 12 anyway.

Re:Boycott (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772046)

By the same token, you should boycott Nintendo as well. Hmm. Maybe you can look up a used Amiga on ebay and get some games for that one (though many of the great ones were made by EA, and many more were distributed by EA, so I guess you're better off just passing on gaming altogether until a shiny and untarnished new corporation appears that will make a console to your liking).

Are they learning? (1)

sabreofsd (663075) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771586)

I seriously doubt this, but maybe some of the big ind.'s are starting to listen... Get rid of the bloat and you'll make for a happier customer!

Its only a bargain... (3, Interesting)

Exsam (768226) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771614)

...If the game doesnt suck. Neither of those games looks particularly promising IMHO.

Re:Its only a bargain... (2, Interesting)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771714)

I've seen the ads for "Black".
You know, the 30-second ad with the first-person view of a gun blazing constantly.

Yeah, cuz the big problem with games these days is not enough rounds-per-second.

Duh.

I've been having a lot of fun recently in a game that is totally free, and has some strategy involved.
http://www.enemy-territory.com/ [enemy-territory.com]
Somewhat realistic WW2 FPS.

Re:Its only a bargain... (1)

pthor1231 (885423) | more than 8 years ago | (#14774723)

Best. Free. Game. EVER. Been playing it for going on three years now

Re:Its only a bargain... (2, Insightful)

wedgewu (701989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772198)

Actually, I've played the demo for Black (it's available at stores for free), and it's a lot of fun. It sets out to do what it wants to do, and it does it well, from what I've seen. Just destroy lots of stuff with badass guns. If that's not your cup of tea, then that's ok, but the game itself is actually pretty quality from what I've played of the demos. I would buy it for $50, but $40 is just icing on the cake. :) Criterion makes Black, and they usually churn out some fun games...

Re:Its only a bargain... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14776701)

I'm waiting for someone with the full version to comment on the game (I've seen it in stores for sale so I assume someone will have it). Does a game goal of "detroy everything" mean you are pretty much a walking tank (as in Serious Sam) that can take a rocket in the face without flinching or do they still expect you to take cover and not get hit?

Re:Its only a bargain... (1)

wedgewu (701989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14777700)

It releases Feb 28th, so no one should have it yet. In the demo, you still have to take cover... quite a bit, actually. I couldn't get through it without dying the first time, despite all the health packs around. I'd relate the experience somewhat to Half Life 2 in the sense that everything is destructable/you can interact with everything. The ad in my EGM says "If you can't get a target in your line of sight, blast the ceiling and bring it down on top of him" and another quote "catch an enemy in the shoulder and spin him arund into the enemy behind him, blow the balcony out beneath another - get creative with your kills." I think that accurately describes the feel they were going for.

Re:Its only a bargain... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14778232)

I'm in Europe, it was released here today. The price drop turned out to be 6 Euros out of 60, couldn't they have dropped it down to 50 Euros? 54 isn't much less than 60 and I don't think anyone will be more likely to buy it at that price.

E...A...$port$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771628)

It'$ in the game!

Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771651)

Anyone who has seen the screnshots can tell that this game looks pathetic compared to todays' standards. Designing game for archaic systems (PS2) shouldn't be a common denominator for game developers, since it makes the game look bad on more powerfull systems.

Microsoft's 360 Disaster Dragging Down Sector (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771671)

Even though the PS2 and its software is still selling at an amazing rate - and looks to continue to for the rest of the year, the marketplace failure of the 360 is going to drag down the entire console gaming sector until mid-2006 when the PS3 and Revolution bring sales back to life.

All that is left for the PS3 is for AACS to finish up in the next couple of weeks. But until July/June/August companies like EA are going to have to scramble to fill the giant hole the 360 mess has left in revenues for console companies.

lower price usually means lower... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771686)

with all the corporate bigwigs, trying to grab every penny they can. They are making a loser game. They know it won't sell, so they are making the price lower. Hopefully they will get a few sellers before it goes to the $20 bin. (There is one born every minute)

I like the idea of boycott. They treat their programmers like scum, and bring the same rehashed sport games out every year. Bleh!

Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771706)

Based on the screens released so far for The Godfather, it's not even worth $5.

i refuse to buy EA (1)

smash (1351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771715)

Ever since the fiasco that was "Formula 1 - 2000" that will not run in Windows 2000/XP, and has been largely unsupported with any patches to make it happen.

Not that they've had anything remotely interesting lately anyway...

smash.

Re:i refuse to buy EA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14773568)

I completely sympathize and follow your boycott here.

EA's games are almost entirely rushed out of the door, not that it's the developers' fault, rather it's the publisher's fault that a lot of their games are buggy. For example, look at Battlefield 2, a highly anticipated game, I bought it a year ago, very buggy. People have experienced the game crashing or closing randomly, excessive frameskip, and so forth.

I bought it one year ago, and with about every patch that is released it either fixes it temporarily, or it stops it from working completely.

EA really needs to get on top of their game, so yeah, I too refuse to buy anything from EA since they ripped me off by rushing the development schedule and forcefully creating a very shoddy game.

Re:i refuse to buy EA (1)

smash (1351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14775175)

Oh, and just before anyone jumps on the "linux hippy won't buy games anyway....

I've got well over 100 legally purchased games in my collection, 0 pirate games installed (shock!) and end up buying about 1 game per month (not much, but I only spend 10 days per month at home so....)

smash.

Re:i refuse to buy EA (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14775457)

Sony have had the F1 license for many years now, so there aren't even any EA F1 games for you to buy if you were prepared to do so.

They're made by Sony Liverpool (they guys behind the WipEout series and ex-Psygnosis), so if you can get a cheap PS2 I'd recommend giving them a look; they're good fun with a force-feedback wheel.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771776)

Black? No way.. I just downloa..err, I mean that I bought it last night.

Was able to buy the pre-release from winning an EA sweepstakes.. yeah thats the ticket.

EA web site contents and support also slashed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771806)

My web browser shows the EA home page [ea.com] as a plain black page. Quite innovative. Shouldn't a company's web site work with any browser [anybrowser.org] ? Why should I buy a new product from this company if I can expect zero support through their web site?

Re:EA web site contents and support also slashed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14771861)

Why should I buy a new product from this company if I can expect zero support through their web site?

You can get more support from EA if you really wanted to. You would just have to use Internet Explorer and run Windows to do it. What's wrong with that?

Re:EA web site contents and support also slashed (1)

Babbster (107076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14773073)

Funny. That web site comes up just fine in Firefox. Shouldn't anyone browsing the Interweb at this stage expect that many sites require Flash and use one of the many browsers (in Windows, OSX and Linux) that supports it? Either that, or not whine like a child when you choose not to subject yourself to something you don't want?

Re:EA web site contents and support also slashed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14776814)

I find it funny that some people get offended when a company known for flashy games puts Flash content on its web site. Shocker #2: Apple uses QuickTime all over its own web site!

Re:EA web site contents and support also slashed (1)

Darby (84953) | more than 8 years ago | (#14782381)

Shocker #2: Apple uses QuickTime all over its own web site!

The difference is that Apple's site actually even works in links if you choose to go without the pretty pictures.
It's just a basic useability issue.

Bummer for the employees (1, Funny)

mad.frog (525085) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771876)

I guess the workweek will have to go to 120 hours to make up for the lost revenue.

Re:Bummer for the employees (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771931)

so that's what, ten 12 hour days a week? :heh:
-nB

Re:Bummer for the employees (1)

tont0r (868535) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772252)

They are hourly employees now so atleast they get over time.

Re:Bummer for the employees (1)

mad.frog (525085) | more than 8 years ago | (#14774336)

The artists are, but not the coders.

Re:Bummer for the employees (1)

patio11 (857072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14774619)

How does giving the employees more break time make up for lost revenue?

EA (3, Informative)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771894)

Every time an article about EA is posted to Slashdot, every EA hating slashdotter immediately registers his disgust with EA, usually complaining about lack of support for x game x years back, or the simplisitude of their recent 200x sports game.

Give it a break, will 'ya. EA cutting prices on anticipated games such as Black and The Godfather is a good thing for anyone who's been waiting to sample these, and for those who think they will suck, well, let's wait for the reviews, shall we?

Sure, EA has published a fair number of crap games, but they have a long legacy of producing good stuff as well.

Re:EA (1)

Jonny_eh (765306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771933)

Ya, lowering prices is good, but why no next-gen love? Not everyone that has a next-gen system is rich (since they blew all their money on the hardware).

Fight Night Round 3 is $20 cheaper on the current-gen systems than the 360, which is just unfair, All that's different is graphics, I think I'll pass.

Re:EA (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772013)

Well, I'll certainly agree to that, but are the games even scheduled for the 360? The online shops I use doesn't give any info about a 360 release for Black (which is the only one I'll consider, really), and no info about the Godfather whatsoever.

Re:EA (1)

CMiYC (6473) | more than 8 years ago | (#14773376)

Not to defend EA, but I understand why. The current-gen consoles have an enormous amount of software on the shelf; either in New, Used, or "Best Sellers."

There are what, 10 Xbox360 games?

39.95 (4, Insightful)

mmalove (919245) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771904)

"In order to help push current-gen sales, EA is slashing prices on some of its upcoming titles. For instance, two of EA's most anticipated titles, The Godfather (March 14) and Black (February 28), will retail for $39.95."

That's what we call spin. What they really wanted to say is:
"Having reviewed testers' opinion on our upcoming games, we realise they stand no chance of being successful. Subsequently we will attempt to sell off as many copies at $40 as possible before the public wisens up to this."

Take Hacker:Elite - released a couple years back at 30 dollars to start. Box looked great, concept sounded great, game itself was short and ultimately pretty dull. Fortunately these days anyone with google, 4th grade reading comprehension, and enough patience to wait a day, can tell if a game sucks or not without blowing 30-50 dollars on it.

Re:39.95 (2, Interesting)

DorkusMasterus (931246) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771974)

Actually, everything I've heard about Black is that it looks compellingly attractive for a FPS. Environment detail and the fact that say, shooting a ceiling will cause it to come crashing down on your enemies in a realistic way, or that hiding behind a wooden door is no longer a way to avoid bullets of a high caliber, are two ways that I've already seen in their (playable) demos that demonstrate a desire to create a fun and inventive game that mimics reality.

Also, anyone who has actually shot the guns used in the game (myself, not included) would supposedly appreciate the detail into the guns, the sound effects, and the realistic recoils and such (from what I've seen in previews).

So instead drinking all that Hater-ade, why don't you wait and see the title before you bash it... If it sucks then, it sucks, but before then, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Re:39.95 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14773885)

>> Having reviewed testers' opinion on our upcoming games

Ha Ha Ha!

Re:39.95 (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14775476)

Actually, just about every review I've seen so far of Black has been positive. Far more positive than they are about most EA games, certainly.

So there's more to it than this, I'd suggest.

Re:39.95 (1)

Bobsledboy (836872) | more than 8 years ago | (#14775773)

It may be reviewing well, but I won't be buying another EA game after the shitfight that was BF2.

Re:39.95 (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14777335)

You're quite welcome to boycott it if that's your choice.

Personally, I don't think the problems that affected Dice's inability to write stable, crack-proof network code are particularly relevant to Criterion's single-player game. On the other hand, I'm not desperate for yet another FPS game (even if it's supposedly very good), so I'm not buying it for that reason.

Re:39.95 (1)

bri2000 (931484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14775487)

Don't know about the Godfather (and I have low expectations) but Black got a very positive review from Edge this month (the only source whose reviews I trust) and I'm planning to get it when released in the UK on Friday. Unfortunately the price cut doesn't seem to apply to Europe as web sites are still quoting the MRP as £39.95.

remember when (1)

kevin.fowler (915964) | more than 8 years ago | (#14771923)

Remember when EA said that all their sports games for the next (now current) gen systems were going to be $30 from then on 2-3 years ago? The focus being on Madden, so it could compete with the superior 2k series. Then remember the next two rounds of EA sports games debuted mostly at $50? Yeah. More EA doublespeak.

Yeah, but.... (1)

djSpinMonkey (816614) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772043)

$39.95 looks like a bargain when it's sitting on the shelf next to a next-generation game priced at $59.95.

How does it look sitting next to the used game for $15? Especially if the new game is "Getting Up" sitting next to a copy of, oh, the first "Prince of Persia" or "GTA: San Andreas" or whatever older game you think was awesome.

Don't get me wrong, though: I'm all for cheaper video games. And frankly, I'm sure it's just a matter of the game-buying public being unwilling to shell out $50 for a "last-gen" game when the new hotness is available for just $10 more. I mean, have you looked at the price of PS1 games lately? They used to run $40, too.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

Myria (562655) | more than 8 years ago | (#14777225)

How does it look sitting next to the used game for $15?

$15? I guess you haven't been to GameStop recently. They'll sell a $39.95 game used for $37.95 and have the sales droids push that $2 "discount" on anyone interested in the game.

Melissa

Sure (1)

cubicledrone (681598) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772189)

After firing thousands, why not reduce prices? Sounds great. On to the salad course.

Not much of a price cut, is it? (1)

g051051 (71145) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772383)

I won't even look at buying a game until it's dropped below $30, and most I wait until it's below $20. A few exceptions are things like Psychonauts or Doom 3.

It might take a while, but by the time I get a game, it'll have most of it's patches out, the game guides will be up, and I'll have seen enough reviews to know if it is even worth buying in the first place.

MMORPGS are left until the client is released for free. I'm not spending money to buy a game that requires a monthly subscription.

Re:Not much of a price cut, is it? (1)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 8 years ago | (#14773029)

I'll pay $40 for a REALLY good game. The rest have to wait till they approach $30. If I see anything above $45 then it gets to sit on the shelf and there's no way in hell I'll touch it no matter how good it is. It's going to get cheaper in time anyway so there's no point in rushing. A few months of not playing a game will not kill me. It's rediculous that some games refuse to go below $50 even months after it's been out.

meaningless.... (1)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772778)

They're just playing games with their customers.

(sorry: I just had to say that).

Winning Eleven always launches at $40.... (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 8 years ago | (#14772885)

...and I personally think the Winning Eleven series is a more solid series than FIFA is. Maybe they're learning that people aren't all to concerned about Madden 05, Madden 06, etc, when the only major difference is the roster, while more important aspects (like physics, which Konomi constantly improves in it's WE/Pro Evolution Soccer games) remain fundamentally unchanged for years at a time?

Re:Winning Eleven always launches at $40.... (1)

kevin.fowler (915964) | more than 8 years ago | (#14777933)

especially when you can download roster updates for PC ports of EA sports games.

I wish more Americans would dive into the winning eleven series. I'm one behind the current one, and it's head and shoulders above FIFA. Reminds me of the fun I used to have playing FIFA '96 against my brother on Sega Genesis.

pay $49 for a $0.49 disk .... wow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14772967)

delivering information via physical media and then excessively overpricing a product that consists of irrelevant media and unnecessary packaging is just so obsolete it's kind of pathetic, if you really think about it

personally , i think it's quite sad that these exploiters are so well paid for doing so much evil

Forget the publishers.. I like eve-online's model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14773052)

I get to download the entire game directly from the developer. Then play the game for 2 weeks (without giving them any information besides an email address). After two weeks I can pay for a subscription or stop playing the game.

Welcome to the future. All these companies producing these poor games are going to be in for an adjustment.

Precieved Value, etc. (1)

miyako (632510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14773094)

Our current economic system is built around charging an optimal amount for a given product. Basically prices are set at the sweet spot where the most people will pay the most money for a given product. Charge more and some people will still pay, but you'll make less money from all the people who opt not to buy the product. Charge less and more people might buy the product, but the greater sales don't make up the difference in profit you would get were you to charge more for the product.
While it's certainly possible (some would say en vouge) to debate the merits of our system here, there seems to me to be a big mistake that a lot of game publishers (and movie publishers) have traditionally made. The problem is the "a movie is a movie" or "a game is a game" attitude. The thing about it is, that sweet spot for how much I or many other people are willing to pay for a game varies greatly on a number of factors.
Games around here generally retail new for between $49.99 and $54.99. There are some games that I would certainly pay more for, because they hold more value for me. I would venture to say that there are a few top tier titles that could easily go for $65 and not stuffer hardly any loss in sales. Likewise there are a lot of games that I would buy if they were cheaper, but that I don't really see the value in for $50 or $55.
It seems though that the game industry has begun to realize that all games cannot be treated economically the same. I excpect that the end result of this will be that we'll see the average game cost less, with a rise in cost for premium games.
Hopefully this will also lead to more niche and experimental games that companies may have not forseen selling at all at $50 but which may do well at $25 (Katamari Damacy anybody?). The benefit of this is games that very possibly would have not turned any profit when sold at $50 could turn a small profit when soold at $25. Companies could then experiment more with genres and possibly find a new huge seller. This will be good for developers who won't be under so much preassure (instead of a game being either a breakway hit or a flop it could be mildy successfull), for companies (they find new product lines that could make them merry bundles of cash) and for games (we get some cheaper games and some better games).

Re:Precieved Value, etc. (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14776829)

Katamari Damacy sold for $20 because they figured you were going to spend the other $30 on acid and mushrooms to really enjoy the game.

Then everyone got addicted to Katamari as a mind-altering substance so they raised the price 50% on the sequel. Bastards.

Sounds a lot like... (1)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14773161)

EA Cuts Current-Gen Prices [slashdot.org]

Let's at least mix the subjects around when we're going to get a month-late dupe ;)

Just EA copying 2K Sports (poorly I might add). (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14773210)

2K sports has been price cutting their games for a long time. In fact pre-orders of the NEXT-GEN title Top Spin is priced at $39.99. Now what looks better a current-gen game at $39.95 or an excellent NEXT-GEN title at $39.95? Whatever developer started the trend of "Umm next Gen games cost more to develop so we need to charge more" should be shot. Have they given us any proof that development time is longer? Or that it costs them more to bump up the resolution?

Sounds like last couple months (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14773230)

Didn't they also slash the price on a handful of other games after less than spectacular holiday sales?

I know Need For Speed Most Wanted dropped to $40 from $50

In other news: (1)

Kuku_monroe (753761) | more than 8 years ago | (#14773389)

"In order to make the industry think about game pricing, older gamers are just waiting for the price on some of the current titles to drop."
"It'll be interesting to see how the market reacts to these older gamers decisions. We would guess that several other [younger] players could soon follow our strategy and wait for the prices to drop on the upcoming next-gen software also. It could be just the strategy the industry needs to stop selling games at such a high price so that $39.95 look like a bargain"
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...