Hello all you wonderful game-loving enthusiasts.  I come at you with a rant that I hope will bring upon some debate; maybe even some controversy…without the sex scandal.  I would like to bring up the idea that the 50-60 dollar price tag for a game is dying, and needs to be killed off.  Now I know, you’re thinking to yourself that it just won’t happen.  Developers need to make that big money since they spend that big money, and they need to charge that premium price.  Well, I personally can’t stand it anymore, which is why I have avoided it for some time. The used game bin is a wonderful option for those not in a rush, and the Free-to-Play model is definitely one that is taking off.  I don’t think games are worth 50-60 dollars anymore, and here’s my reason why.

Let’s rewind time a bit shall we?  I won’t go too far back, because some people will just call me an old ass fool, and that’s fine.  I got thick skin.  I shall now go back to the days of the Nintendo 64 (although the Super Nintendo was just as bad with their pricing).  It’s not that far back, maybe 15-16 years…but as you know in the gaming world, that’s an eternity.  The N64 launched in the summer of 1996 with 2 games.  Yes, only 2.  Those games were Super Mario 64 (a groundbreaking title) and Pilotwings 64.  Those games retailed for 59.99 and at the time that was a big deal because before that titles were roughly around 49.99.  No sooner after the launch of the system, the big third-party releases were upon us.  How much were they you ask?  They retailed for 69.99 and some of upwards of 79.99.  Yep, that’s right, if you think 59.99 now is a lot, I paid 69.99 for my copy of Killer Instinct Gold (and no it wasn’t worth it).  So Erik, you ask, why then complain about paying 50-60 for a game when they were once 70-80? Well, the problem with this model is that it was nothing more than corporations squeezing the consumer for the all-amazing new technology, and at the time they had succeeded.  Nothing has changed of course, except the means of obtaining your games.  This is where the price problem comes in.

Let’s now fast forward to today.  So of course, one has to figure in the costs of marketing, development, staff salaries, electric bills, coffee runs, etc. and I totally understand and respect that aspect.  The problem is, back then, when a game came out it was only available at your local retailer.  They had to have their markup on top of the initial price that the manufacturer put on it.  It made sense, and it was your only option. The year is now 2012, and we have that wonderful advent of the “digital download” and of course the various apps for our mobile devices.  Games are no longer a rare breed of entertainment that only the geeks enjoy.  Everyone enjoys them now.  Look at Angry Birds for example, at only 99 cents; it became an international success.  It cost you only 1 dollar people…1 dollar!

So today’s titles for the consoles keep getting churned out.  Some are really amazing titles, some are epic failures.  The problem I have with this is that they all follow the most basic of pricing schemes still, and that’s a full retail value of 59.99 (in some cases, like first party titles, they would be 39.99 to 49.99 respectively). In a world where we have consoles with hard drives in excess of hundreds of gigabytes, internet connections that are so fast that some ISP’s try to limit your usage, you would think that game titles would try to compete, price wise, with the newer more lucrative business model of “micro transactions”.  Yes, yes, I know they already do that now with big titles.  Look at all the map packs for Call of Duty and Halo.  Look at games coming out that are “finished” but yet on launch day there is already DLC available for purchase.  Why not pack it in to the game you’re already dishing out 60 bucks for? We all know the answer to that question.

Here’s one example of what I am trying to get at.  What if you just wanted to enjoy a single player experience?  Why should everyone have to pay the same price for the same game where most people might play online, but some people don’t?  Why isn’t there a price difference for just a single player version of the game?  Are people who simply desire a single player experience just force fed a multiplayer mode that they would never use, still having to pony up the money just because other people want it?  We live in an age where options are plentiful, and certainly desired.  Will the business model of gaming just continue on this path?  Will we one day see titles with multiple purchasing options for the end user?  How great would it be if you could buy a console game for 19.99 (shout out to 2K Games for their attempt with their 2K5 sports series) and pay additional for the features you want.  Maybe this is just my opinion, but it’s a valid point none the less.

One could easily think of a variety of different pricing options based on the demand of the market. The one mentioned in the above paragraph is just one example.  Creating a variety of purchasing options may seem complicated to some, but I believe it should be a step developers need to take to compete with an ever-growing and sophisticated mobile market. Bring back the concept of innovation! Do something outside the box already!  We are too often thrown sequel after sequel of the same garbage, packaged with the same crap with some added fluff and one new feature and it’s labeled as “new”.  Let’s face it; the economy of today is not the economy of 5 years ago.  If developers and publishers keep following their current path, then it’s no wonder sales have been slowing and piracy is on the rise.  UbiSoft just recently realized this with their PC games sales…at least someone is paying attention!

In conclusion, paying a premium for a game these days just doesn’t feel right.  Sure, a good portion of people will still continue to dish out the 60 dollars for a mediocre title that will get old in about a week.  People will still buy the DLC adding more features (and more money) to their already overpriced title.  The point I simply want to get across is that as technology gets cheaper and cheaper, consoles get more and more advanced, and mobile devices become more and more popular, the price of games should not continue along this path.  Companies are slowly realizing that, but not fast enough.  Profit will always trump quality, unfortunately.  Maybe I’m just insanely naive in my thought process, but that’s just my 2 cents.  Until then, keep enjoying your games…just don’t go broke doing it. Rant finished.

http://www.rantgaming.com/2012/08/28/are-games-today-really-worth-the-asking-price/

No, That's why God invented GOTY/ultimate versions, price cuts and rentals :D

No. I don't even need to read the article to tell you this. No, games are not worth 60+ dollars. They may need to COST that much to make a profit, but they are not worth that much. Games I'm really looking forward to I'm willing to buy for 50 or 60, but that's like 1 game a year. Anything else I can get used for cheaper or wait for a price drop.

Yes. Yes, indeed they are.

Well, PS3 and 360 games are. The 10 dollar hike is just ridiculous. If anything, the standard price for a game should be no more than $39. That way more people will buy more games.

If a game cost so much to make that you need to charge $59 dollars or more for the average game then your development platform is flawed. The cost to the consumer should be the most important thing, first and foremost.

It is better to sell 2 games at $39 than 1 at $59. The less something cost, more likely people are to consider buying it. With the economy the state its been in for the last 8 years, games simply cost to much to be worth the asking price.

I love how people use Angry Birds as the epitome of what can be done for a buck.

I subscribe to "Apps Gone Free" and almost everything there is not worth the price that is charged on that day -- which is nothing. (For example, Angry Birds Seasons was included and my son's reaction was ''Delete it" -- and full Angry Birds is $3 on an iPad, BTW).

Games have a high price tag. But if you 9 hours of enjoyment out of a game, it is the equivalent of paying $10 for a 1-1/2 movie in a theater (in dollars spent per hour).

You don't even have to talk about concerts and sporting events with much higher price point tickets to demonstrate that games with high reply value are actually much better investments than other forms of entertainment.


Mike from Morgantown
Mike from Morgantown

yes they are for me, in the past, let's say n64, i had to pay even more for my games (except nintendo's own games) than nowadays and we are now over a decade later with the whole world beeing more expensive. sure cartridges did cost some money but i still see no reason why a game from nowadays should only cost the same or even less.

if people don't want to pay the full price, wait until you get it for the lower price. you can't or don't want to pay it at release? then buy it an year later, what's the problem? that's what i always did with movies because for me, a blu-ray was always too expensive at release but that doesn't mean that the system is shit or whatever, just that the price isn't right for me but for others it is.

if people say 39 would be a fair price i could also ask why, because 19 sounds even better and hey, 5 sounds better than 19, why not releasing all games for 5

is it fair to take 3.50€ for a coke in a restaurant? not for you? than don't go in the restaurant and if you think the rollercoaster costs too much for 3 minutes fun, don't go to that rollercoaster, other people think it's fair.

A game is totally worth it's asking price if you enjoyed playing it. Or simply wait a few months, when most games are half price. I only buy games I really look forward to on Day one, everything else i wait till it gets cheaper.

You are quite lucky as an American gamer, and you should not really complain about the prices you pay. In Europe, they pay 60 euros or $75, Japan is around 7000 to 9000 yen ($90 to $110) and games in Australia are between $70 and $90 (AU$1 = US$1). Even as a British Gamer, I'm ripped but not as badly as these countries, Games here are normally £40 at launch or $65, so yeah. In other regions, like India, the Middle East, Africa and South America, gaming can be even more expensive!! I heard, PS3's sell for about $600 in Brazil!!, they were $1000 at launch!!!

Plus games used to more expensive. N64 games used to sell for £60 and PSone games sold for £50! So games are cheaper, not more expensive.

Start complaining, because your games are among the cheapest in the world!

If I lived in any of those countries, I probably wouldn't play video games. Or, I would do as the local populace does and buy bootlegs instead of the real thing, because the real thing is way to damn expensive.

They are not.

Anything that you buy and own for a month and have to resell at half the cost wasn't worth the initial cost to begin with.

There isn't am electronics product I can think of that loses value as fast as video games do.

Yep the black market is huge in the developing world. Pretty much anything, is faked.