Skyrim director believes games should be 20 quid

richymcdermott

http://www.destructoid.com/skyrim-director-games-should-be-19-except-skyrim--207933.phtml

Do you agree or disagree :pac:

Overheal

I will have his babies.

The blogger though is correct, the industry leaders are mostly talk and no action. The only one really making any gesture at all is Valve. I do also like that some games on steam are discounted if you own previous versions, like Cities XL or Arkham City. I would have not much reservation at all spending $40 on AC if only I had the extra 40 to spend

danthefan

There are plenty of games I would like to get but won't simply because of the price. I don't have UC3, Dark Souls, Arkham City yet, won't be buying AC:R, Skyward Sword any time soon either. All the games that are out at the end of October/start of November would cost probably €250 or more, which is a stupid amount of money.

daveyid89

have to agree with him and most of what he is saying. Games like skyrim which offer hundreds of hours of gameplay could still cost the 60 euro. Both dead spaces were available for 30 euro when they came out, which was about right for what they offered; about a 10 hour cinematic experience. Only that dead space was cheap (I got the original for about 15 second hand) I would never have bought it, and I am glad I did, it is probably my favourite game ever.

I'm not sure how much modern warfare will cost when it is out this week, but it should be in the 30e category for what it offers; a short cinematic storyline (a 6 hour movie in essence), and yes, the multiplayer adds value, but they get that income through map packs.

In terms of how it may actually work, it would take some kind of regulated categorization of the gaming industry; i.e. for a game to charge xxx euro there must be at least xxx hours of gameplay included on the disk before dlc and not including replays of the game with alternate characters. I am sure that some games would try to take advantage of it by elongating their game but surely that would come out in reviews and affect the game negatively.

I am a big fan of free/cheap games with dlc personally. I do not mind paying additional money to unlock more aspects of the game if you take a liking to it; it would allow you to try all games. I would only dl new content as long as they are affordable and assuming you get a free trial for an hour or something before purchasing.

daveyid89

danthefan wrote: »

There are plenty of games I would like to get but won't simply because of the price. I don't have UC3, Dark Souls, Arkham City yet, won't be buying AC:R, Skyward Sword any time soon either. All the games that are out at the end of October/start of November would cost probably €250 or more, which is a stupid amount of money.

Yeah, i want to get skyrim, batman, mw3, bf3, and loads more but just can't afford them all. Especially as in the last two months I have already spent loads on resistance 3, f1 2011, fifa 12, and fm 12.

I'm just glad we don't like in Portugal, where I saw prices in excess of €80 for newly released titles.

gizmo

Okay, so lemme get this straight...

A number of people think games are too expensive.
Some of these people are aware that making games is expensive.
Some people think games should be cheaper.
Other people think the prices are fine and say that publishers/developers can't reduce their prices because they'd lose money.
Some people argue that if games were cheaper, they'd sell more, therefore publishers/developers wouldn't lose revenue.

Someone will also, at some point I'm sure, throw in those figures that Gabe Newell gave awhile back about how much more money they made when they dropped the price of some of their games. Said person will of course be ignoring the fact that Valve continue to be the abnormality in the industry so they're not the best reference for this kind of stuff.

So anyway, bearing all that in mind, if games would sell so many more copies if they were cheaper, then why, two to three months after a game is released, do we not see massive sales spikes?

As an example, let's look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution. This game went on sale on August 26th. It is now priced at £25.75/19.38/12.99 for 360/PC/PS3. Now, here are the sales figures for Deus Ex since launch. What do you see there?

As I'm quite sure you're all aware, these types of price drops are common place these days with only a few notable exclusions. So why do we see the above behavior? Is it because people are saving their money to get the new releases on launch therefore ignoring these discounted prices in order to buy the new ones at full price and in the process ignoring the fact that it'll be cheaper in a few months? Or is it because most games, outside some of the big names, are targeting a relatively fixed audience which, to a certain extent, ignore the price of the game?

As for judging the price of a game based on it's length, well that's just insane.

The Sparrow

gizmo wrote: »

As for judging the price of a game based on it's length, well that's just insane.

Why? Seems to make perfect sense from my point of view as a consumer.

Surely the development of a 60 hour game must be much more expensive than the development of a 10-12 hour game. So why should they be the same price?

Overheal

gizmo wrote: »

Okay, so lemme get this straight...

A number of people think games are too expensive.
Some of these people are aware that making games is expensive.
Some people think games should be cheaper.
Other people think the prices are fine and say that publishers/developers can't reduce their prices because they'd lose money.
Some people argue that if games were cheaper, they'd sell more, therefore publishers/developers wouldn't lose revenue.

Someone will also, at some point I'm sure, throw in those figures that Gabe Newell gave awhile back about how much more money they made when they dropped the price of some of their games. Said person will of course be ignoring the fact that Valve continue to be the abnormality in the industry so they're not the best reference for this kind of stuff.

So anyway, bearing all that in mind, if games would sell so many more copies if they were cheaper, then why, two to three months after a game is released, do we not see massive sales spikes?

As an example, let's look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution. This game went on sale on August 26th. It is now priced at £25.75/19.38/12.99 for 360/PC/PS3. Now, here are the sales figures for Deus Ex since launch. What do you see there?

As I'm quite sure you're all aware, these types of price drops are common place these days with only a few notable exclusions. So why do we see the above behavior? Is it because people are saving their money to get the new releases on launch therefore ignoring these discounted prices in order to buy the new ones at full price and in the process ignoring the fact that it'll be cheaper in a few months? Or is it because most games, outside some of the big names, are targeting a relatively fixed audience which, to a certain extent, ignore the price of the game?

As for judging the price of a game based on it's length, well that's just insane.

I see that Deus Ex Only broke 200k units after a month, and in the proceeding 6 weeks sold an additional 600k.

So yeah, it tells me a lot in fact.

Theres also no data for the reseller market. Quite a lot more I imagine.

Personally I feel that a rich single player experience should be priced accordingly. A Rich multiplayer experience, should be priced accordingly. But looking at say, MW3 over BF3, they're both ridiculously priced for games that should in all fairness be priced lower to attract more players. But in fairness to both titles and their statuses, it's a judgement call on the publishers if they want to have a player base of however many million or however many million plus plus. Theres still merit in the low entry-point of many games. As an example, Monday Night Combat was priced appropriately and offered it's value easily. TF2 when it was paywalled, was priced fairly.

I would love to see a game like MW3 for instance just dare to whore itself out for $30 instead of $60 and see what kind of dramatic results ensue.

The Sparrow

The Sparrow wrote: »

Why? Seems to make perfect sense from my point of view as a consumer.

Surely the development of a 60 hour game must be much more expensive than the development of a 10-12 hour game. So why should they be the same price?

You can run into problems though, because the developer could argue that online play (such as the CoDs, Halos and the like) add more longevity to the game itself. Plus I can't see your casual gamer willing to invest 60+ hours into a game.

Blowfish

The Sparrow wrote: »

Why? Seems to make perfect sense from my point of view as a consumer.

Do you judge a book or a film based on it's length or by how good it actually is?

Naturally there are some outliers like MMO's which do need a constant stream of content, but for the majority of single player games quality is more important than quantity.

DjFlin

The Sparrow wrote: »

Why? Seems to make perfect sense from my point of view as a consumer.

Surely the development of a 60 hour game must be much more expensive than the development of a 10-12 hour game. So why should they be the same price?

Its a quality vs quantity thing. Just because somethings bigger doesnt mean its always better.

The Sparrow

Blowfish wrote: »

Do you judge a book or a film based on it's length or by how good it actually is?

Naturally there are some outliers like MMO's which do need a constant stream of content, but for the majority of single player games quality is more important than quantity.

Well I don't think books can really be compared because the production process is very different.

But films, tv and games can and yeah I do somewhat judge the price I'm willing to pay based on length. Not really movies as the majority are in and around 2-3 hours but I wouldn't really be willing to spend €60 quid on a dvd of a movie. However, I'd be willing to spend that on a dvd boxset of a tv series with many more or hours of content and likewise a game that is likely to keep me entertained for a lot longer than a movie.

gizmo

The Sparrow wrote: »

Why? Seems to make perfect sense from my point of view as a consumer.

Surely the development of a 60 hour game must be much more expensive than the development of a 10-12 hour game. So why should they be the same price?

Because using such an arbitrary measurement as length completely ignores the content of the game. For instance, did the developer create a new engine to power the game? Did they have to licence expensive middleware to build it? Is the game based in an open world which could be more sparsely populated by assets than a more tightly created world?

Then there's the multiplayer side of things, I put approximately 90hrs into Modern Warfare's various MP modes despite the short single player campaign. I'd regard that as a pretty conservative number of hours too. But what about people who don't play MP, should they pay less for the game?

What about Braid and Super Meat Boy, I got nearly as many hours out of those compared to some recent AAA games. Does that mean they're too cheap at £10 or the AAA games are too expensive?

Overheal wrote: »

I see that Deus Ex Only broke 200k units after a month, and in the proceeding 6 weeks sold an additional 600k.

So yeah, it tells me a lot in fact.

Er, it broke 200k units in a week in the US and then took another 10 weeks to match that. Worldwide it sold over 500k copies (on the 360) in the first two weeks and then sold another ~280K copies in the next 8 weeks.

Overheal wrote: »

Personally I feel that a rich single player experience should be priced accordingly. A Rich multiplayer experience, should be priced accordingly. But looking at say, MW3 over BF3, they're both ridiculously priced for games that should in all fairness be priced lower to attract more players. But in fairness to both titles and their statuses, it's a judgement call on the publishers if they want to have a player base of however many million or however many million plus plus. Theres still merit in the low entry-point of many games. As an example, Monday Night Combat was priced appropriately and offered it's value easily. TF2 when it was paywalled, was priced fairly.

Priced fairly? MNC was download-only title made by 16 developers. The other two have massive development teams and have all the other costs associated with being a high profile boxed product. Between the costs of development of those titles and the number of hours of entertainment people will get from these games I can't see how they're not regarded as fantastic value for money.

DjFlin

gizmo wrote: »

What about Braid and Super Meat Boy, I got nearly as many hours out of those compared to some recent AAA games. Does that mean they're too cheap at £10 or the AAA games are too expensive?

I have without a doubt spent more hours playing Super Meat Boy on my 360 than any other game. I've had a 360 since launch.

The Sparrow

gizmo wrote: »

Because using such an arbitrary measurement as length completely ignores the content of the game. For instance, did the developer create a new engine to power the game? Did they have to licence expensive middleware to build it? Is the game based in an open world which could be more sparsely populated by assets than a more tightly created world?

Fair enough. Obviously some of that would factor into the different development costs of each game that I mentioned but as you say that can be because of a multitude of things and not just length. However, I still think that as a consumer my main priority is the level of enjoyment and longevity that I expect to get from a piece of media that decides how much I am willing to pay for it.

For instance, I don't really care whether a movie cost 2 million or 200 million to produce, I'll still be only willing to pay the same price for both of them. And I think that most people are the same unless there are some serious extras.

Then there's the multiplayer side of things, I put approximately 90hrs into Modern Warfare's various MP modes despite the short single player campaign. I'd regard that as a pretty conservative number of hours too. But what about people who don't play MP, should they pay less for the game?

As someone who never plays MP, even I find it difficult to have any sympathy for someone who doesn't play MP but buys a game like Modern Warfare. When I was talking about the length in my previous post, I wasn't just talking about the single player campaign. Of course MP should be included in that equation if you are into that.

What about Braid and Super Meat Boy, I got nearly as many hours out of those compared to some recent AAA games. Does that mean they're too cheap at £10 or the AAA games are too expensive?

If you got more enjoyment and longevity out of a £10 game than a £60 game, I would assume that means that the £60 game was too expensive for you.

DjFlin

The Sparrow wrote: »

If you got more enjoyment and longevity out of a £10 game than a £60 game, I would assume that means that the £60 game was too expensive for you.

I've paid up to 80 Euro for some games before, and I'd rank a few of them below some games I've paid only 10 Euro for.

Games like Super Meat Boy and Plants Vs Zombies generally have low production costs, because of how they're built, that doesn't mean they're not as good, or not worth as much as other games.

A good example is LA Noire, it had a massive production cost because of the amount of tech that went into building it. Despite costing more to make, it still only costed the buyer 60 Euro

The Sparrow

DjFlin wrote: »

I've paid up to 80 Euro for some games before, and I'd rank a few of them below some games I've paid only 10 Euro for.

Games like Super Meat Boy and Plants Vs Zombies generally have low production costs, because of how they're built, that doesn't mean they're not as good, or not worth as much as other games.

A good example is LA Noire, it had a massive production cost because of the amount of tech that went into building it. Despite costing more to make, it still only costed the buyer 60 Euro

LA Noire is actually an interesting game in this context. I bought it on launch day and was psyched to play it. But it was pretty terrible and I didn't even bother finishing it.

So a bit like 3D, the production costs make no difference to me as a consumer if the product sucks.

Antar Bolaeisk

gizmo wrote: »

Someone will also, at some point I'm sure, throw in those figures that Gabe Newell gave awhile back about how much more money they made when they dropped the price of some of their games. Said person will of course be ignoring the fact that Valve continue to be the abnormality in the industry so they're not the best reference for this kind of stuff.

I disagree with your statement that Steam are an abnormality in the industry, they're the biggest player in digital distribution and, as far as I'm aware, selling more content that the physical retail outlets. Even were they not one of the bigger players they'd still be a good reference as they're constantly experimenting with prices and offers to see what works and what doesn't.

With regards to the €20 thing, bar Skyrim (which I feel will be worth it) I have not spent more than €20 on a game in the last couple of years. There is obviously a price/profit balance but I do think that the current prices, particularly those seen on consoles and the fixed costs of online digital distribution, are far too high and that a reduction in the initial cost would lead to a greater increase in sales. Of course, people evidently pay these massive prices otherwise the publishers wouldn't charge them.

hooradiation

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

I disagree with your statement that Steam are an abnormality in the industry, they're the biggest player in digital distribution and, as far as I'm aware, selling more content that the physical retail outlets. Even were they not one of the bigger players they'd still be a good reference as they're constantly experimenting with prices and offers to see what works and what doesn't.

He said valve, not steam.
One is a developer that makes a game once in a blue moon, the other is a digital distribution service.

I imagine the latter is more pertinent to this conversation.

gizmo

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

I disagree with your statement that Steam are an abnormality in the industry, they're the biggest player in digital distribution and, as far as I'm aware, selling more content that the physical retail outlets. Even were they not one of the bigger players they'd still be a good reference as they're constantly experimenting with prices and offers to see what works and what doesn't.

As hooradiation said, I was referring specifically to Steam as a service. To briefly explain why, I'll give a common complaint from gamers followed by the situation found on/with Steam.

DRM in general is bad.
Steam is DRM, albeit a rather passive one.

Origin is stealing my data.
Steam does an extremely similar thing, although it allows you to opt out.

DLC is ****, epecially that useless aesthetic kind.
Not even Newell knows why they're selling so many hats for TF2.

Game prices are too high.
The price of a new game on Steam is pretty much the actual RRP of game. Both brick and mortar stores and online stores discount this price heavily. Steam sales are the exception here of course.

As you can see, there are a few caveats attached to the examples I gave but the point remains, they get an awful lot of leeway with gamers and as such, their actions would not automatically lead to success if adopted by other companies. In light of this, I call them an abnormality.

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

With regards to the €20 thing, bar Skyrim (which I feel will be worth it) I have not spent more than €20 on a game in the last couple of years. There is obviously a price/profit balance but I do think that the current prices, particularly those seen on consoles and the fixed costs of online digital distribution, are far too high and that a reduction in the initial cost would lead to a greater increase in sales. Of course, people evidently pay these massive prices otherwise the publishers wouldn't charge them.

I showed above how a reduction in the price of games does not lead to a greater increase in sales. It was, of course, only one example but I'm quite sure if you were to do similar comparisons with other games you'd see the same thing.

hooradiation

Given that the bulk of a games sales happen within the first four weeks* I really don't see how games at 20 quid would make more money.

But I'm certain some people will fervently believe they're entitled to games at that price, as sure as I'm certain that if they were twenty quid people would fervently believe they were entitled to them at half that.





* before anyone thinks they're clever, it's a general rule - some titles do defy that trend, Mario kart Wii for example being one that sold strongly for about a year and a half, but in general, the first month is when the bulk of all sales happen.

Temptamperu

Some games should be 20 "quid" others i dont mind paying the full 60. There are 8 hour games now that do not deserve such a hefty fee but there are also 8 hour games that do... Its quite a pickle to be sure but the price wont come down and the companies will continue to blame piracy and second hand sales for the fall in first hand sales instead f the fall in quality.

hooradiation

Temptamperu wrote: »

Some games should be 20 "quid" others i dont mind paying the full 60. There are 8 hour games now that do not deserve such a hefty fee but there are also 8 hour games that do... Its quite a pickle to be sure but the price wont come down and the companies will continue to blame piracy and second hand sales for the fall in first hand sales instead f the fall in quality.

If you can figure out a system that somehow manages to price a game based on the varying subjective worths people will place on it, more power to you.

Until then, it'll be whatever the market has shown it's willing to pay.
So, 60 it is.

richymcdermott

hooradiation wrote: »

If you can figure out a system that somehow manages to price a game based on the varying subjective worths people will place on it, more power to you.

Until then, it'll be whatever the market has shown it's willing to pay.
So, 60 it is.

50 :pac:

Temptamperu

hooradiation wrote: »

If you can figure out a system that somehow manages to price a game based on the varying subjective worths people will place on it, more power to you.

Until then, it'll be whatever the market has shown it's willing to pay.
So, 60 it is.

Not all are willing to pay and there in lies the pirates and the second hand sales... Market crys no but producers cry theft.

penev10

I'm happy with the pricing of games at the moment. They're cheaper than they've been in years. Megadrive and SNES carts were IR£50, PS1 games were the same for 2 years then averaged out at IR£35, PS2 games were €69.99 for ages (although you could ususally pick them up for €55-60).

I'm happy paying €40-45 for a new title if it's one I really want but usually I'll just get a game when it hits €25-30 a few months later. Can't say fairer than that.

This has been the first console generation where you can pick up a host of great titles for a price-point of €10-15

Genghiz Cohen

People will pay what people are willing to pay.
If I thought I was getting reamed, I wouldn't have bought Uncharted 3 the other day for €50.
Same goes for Skyrim. It'll be €40/50 and I'd pay that if I had it. ( I don't after U3 and BF3 )

Hygro

Get BF3 on the PSN. Costs 70 euro, but if you can get 5 people together to pool in money you could get it for 12 euro each!! Well for another week anyway ....

hooradiation

Temptamperu wrote: »

Not all are willing to pay and there in lies the pirates and the second hand sales... Market crys no but producers cry theft.

Well, in the case of pirates they're right.

And most of the people who feel that the games industry is obligated to sell their products at twenty quid wouldn't buy the games even if they were a fiver, so fuck them.

Varik

Hygro wrote: »

Get BF3 on the PSN. Costs 70 euro, but if you can get 5 people together to pool in money you could get it for 12 euro each!! Well for another week anyway ....

And possibly face a account ban when game sharing.

The manufacturing cost of games are tiny compare to the initial development cost, Devs would rather make the most overall profit that sell a game a 50/60 but halving the price of a game won't guaranteed double the sales. And as said games are cheaper than they were even more so when you add inflation to that.