£80 per game ?

[HR4]

This subject has no doubt been talked to death, if I am posting this new thread and one already exists that is much the same, I apologise, I could not find it..
__


So we want a buoyant pc gaming industry, one which pushes the boundaries of pc gaming forward, not held back, or perceived to be held back by the console side. Better games, maybe games that can only really be run on a pc..

O.k.

So, there has to be an incentive for the people who make the pc games, an incentive that might bring new people in, or back, to making pc games.

What are you willing to pay, per game, to help the industry move forward and make it happen.

£80 per game to keep things moving forward ? If your answer is no, why not ? If your answer was yes, why ?

Don’t forget as pc gamers we tend to expect something far better than console, we also tend to be a little more mature, in years I mean, therefore should be a little more open to the fact that we may have to pay more for our enjoyment. The majority of us who pc game, tend not to be those who wait for mum or dad to buy us the machine to run our games.

What do you think..

Mention the price your willing to pay, per game, to help make this happen, if it could happen..

I know you probably think this is outrageous, but I would pay £80 for a pc game.

One that:
a: was too advanced (everything wise) to be played on console
b: pushed the industry forward, in gaming terms.


.

 

[HR4]

O.k. a mixed bag so far, but most tending not to want to spend more, in-fact thinking less would be better.

I, like a couple of other posters here, are of the age that remembers when technology cost a fair amount of money. My first video film cost me £65 in 1977 to buy, my first video recorder to stick the film in cost around £700 (VHS, Ferguson VideoStar, had a wired remote). Same with most of my tech throughout the years, it cost a fair bit.

Maybe gaming needs what many bussinesses have (me included when I was in business), Budget, Mid & Top end ranges.
Perhaps games would be better sold if they were sold like tech is usually sold, using that range type idea. We do it when buying other tech, so why not games, they are tech after all .

Maybe developers can’t see it, people like myself and others will pay for quality, if its real quality.

I understand the subscription cost idea, but for me and many others who don’t subscribe, our cost is upfront, and if the quality is there I would happily pay a higher price for it.

By the tone of most of the replies, maybe it will never change, the rut will simply continue..

But very interesting comments, and thanks for the replies so far..

.

 

[HR4]

So many have missed the point or not even read the original post at the top of the topic.

Most are simply broad stroking across gaming, venting on the fact its all rubbish or they see it as rubbish, if you want to vent post a venting topic.

My example:
If Arma 3 came out (I’m Arma series mad btw), and the price tag was £80, I’d pay it. Why! because BIS as a smaller business years ago pushed the boundaries of pc gaming, like it or not they did. Will A3 push the boundaries, no, probably not, but I support the series and if A3 had a £80 price tag, yes I would pay that, because I would want it. It has a full ‘Editor’ inbuilt and the arma series has done from way back when (there’s easily a 100 games, if you like the same genre, in the editor), and its as open world as your likely to get for that genre.
Will I pick up other war/sim type games, possibly not. No need, its everything I would want in that genre of game, so why not pay £80 for the uncountable hours of entertainment it will give me.

I don’t jump much from game to game, however if something as ground breaking as the Arma series was when it first came out (and other series) then I would . A game in any genre, but the price tag was going to be £80, but it pushed everything forward in pc gaming, I would want it, so yes please, where do I pay my £80..

The industry are happy to sit still and reap the rewards and milk it for years if need be, that’s business, why spend out more by developing new ideas or new systems for certain genre’s when you have people willing to pay for old ideas and re-churned stuff.

That’s not what this topic is about.

I’m not interested in whether you would pay £80 for most of the games out now, its paying good money to push the boundaries forward, not standing still.


.

 

[HR4]

If you've got an indie team of three or four, you can scrape by and turn a profit with a low number of sales. You can take risks and try new things in the hope of getting that big success story

Yes, but their scraping by, aren’t they.. Isn’t that not the argument ?

If AAA games cost £80 I'd sooner buy 8 unique quirky indie titles for the same price and stuff the AAA dev.

Well I wouldn't, I would sooner buy one indie title, for a larger amount, that was groundbreaking, and pushed pc gaming along. So there, perhap's, is a marketplace, because there must be others who would do the same..

.

 

[HR4]

By definition it wouldn't be an indie game would it then. The bigger budget would lead to a bigger team, and in turn result in less risks being taken with the development.

The biggest flaw in your logic is that the game's development has to be funded long before you get in to pay it off with your big price tag. The huge funding you're intending to be put in to match the profits made after release have to come from somewhere, and the bigger the budget the bigger the gamble if it fails to sell.

Making a huge budget game is never going to breed innovation for the majority of developers.

So groundbreaking has to be big budget..

BIS with the arma series started as two brothers, I believe, wanting something better for a war game genre..


Not only that but making games is a business, and gambles are what business is all about.. If your confident in your product you take that gamble.

I know, I did..

.

 

[HR4]

@orderoftheflame

Confusing my Sunday now..

Just to be clear, everything was a new idea or concept once, small business innovates, correct. But according to your good self, turning them into a bigger business stops them being innovative, well that’s rubbish to be fair. Your using and looking at a screen that has been provided by probably one of the largest businesses of its type (MS, probably what your looking at now) always innovative, on the most part, lets not start arguing there..
How did it start and when in your opinion did it get too large to no longer innovate?

Regards my first reply;
i.e. ground breaking means big budget (that was a retort) i.e. I don’t think ground breaking means big budget..

Back to topic:
In a nutshell, I would like pc games to be continuously improving, if it costs more to buy the games then I’m willing to pay that.


BTW
I don’t want to be feeding any more kids or paying anyone’s mortgage..
Just thought I would make that clear..

.

 

[HR4]

Except it isn't rubbish... A two man development team can take far more risk, and be far more agile when creating a game than an international company with hundreds of staff.

You don't have to look hard to see examples in the games industry... Small innovative studios being bought up by bigger brands and then proceeding to make cookie-cutter profit turners.



I said most companies, and to be honest, Microsoft is far larger than most "normal" companies and split under many sub-businesses all under the same name. What all-new software innovations have they come up with recently anyway? Windows is iteratively developed with each release, and started when the company was tiny compared to how it is today.

Microsoft are well known for buying out ideas from smaller companies and claiming them as their own.. I think you should look up the history o

.f DOS if you think it's a Bill Gates/Microsoft innovation.



If ground-breaking doesn't mean bigger budget, what good is just throwing money at it?

If companies can be innovative on a small budget, why should we pay premium price? I'm not sure if you're reading the all the replies in the thread, but most people are very against higher prices.



I think you'll find it hard to get a large number of people to work for you with just dreams and promises, let alone if you're a huge faceless corp.

You talk rubbish. Really you do...

Edit: Above comment 'Talk Rubbish' withdrawn.

I am a little above comments like that, well I thought I was..

 

[HR4]

Oh the Ironing.

In case you hadn't noticed the whole idea of increasing game prices you've put forward has been universally opposed in the thread...

Yes o.k.

What I said was too harsh and possibly not true..

'Rubbish' comment 'Withdrawn'

However your argument is quite flawed, but that’s imo..

.

 

[HR4]

someone has more money than sense.

Your right I have the money.

I got it by being in business and taking a chance on something I was confident in at the beginning (long time ago), using my own money to fund it. Then once that was sold and became popular and successful, which it did, very. I then spent the next 30 odd yrs building it up, still continuously throughout my business life taking gambles on things I felt totally confident about, new and innovative ideas in the field I was in. Not sitting on the one idea and hoping it would last forever, that’s not real world..

That’s how business and being innovative works. That’s how everything gets started, more or less..

 

[HR4]

Perhaps at the lower end, however high end business usually entails short term wrecking the economy type deals, very little innovation and lots of gimmickry and huffpuff PR.

On topic, EA and Activision do this like its nothing.

Lol lower end..

Sounds odd when you say it like that, but I understand what you mean.

I did not have a big business by any means, just under 70 employee’s and 35,000 sq ft of buildings. But the item I used to build before selling the business were, budget end £25,000 top end £75,000, and a full range in between, people will pay money for something that’s better, I do know that for a fact.

That’s all I want to do, is pay good money for something better than the current available..

Not a lot to ask..

.

 

[HR4]

Yes I would pay £80 for a game that gives me great entertainment & fun.

.

 

[HR4]

So its clear that more or less no one would pay £80 for a pc game, only me perhaps, so that’s o.k. I didn't ask you to. Although many pay far more via subscriptions etc. Only asked if you would or would not, and to if pos please give a reason why, either way. Which many have done, so thanks for that.

Just in reply to some other posts and only imo:
1/ Prices cannot be based on criminality i.e. theft (Piracy).
2/ Innovation happens in businesses of every size, throwing money at businesses/companies (as someone put it), or paying higher prices does not stop them being innovative, simply because their business/company gets larger, that’s just a flawed outlook on life.
3/ To all those that are really annoyed and angry about games that are out now and how much we pay for them.. Sorry but the thread is not about that, if you had read the OP, you would see that.

.

 

[HR4]

For something like Skyrim I definitely wouldn't mind paying over the odds, especially if they got rid of all this DLC rubbish and released it as part of the deal.

This EA/Dice "buy all our map packs for £40 up front" is BS - most people already had paid for the first one with their original purchase. No wonder everyone took a trip to India. The days of free updates/maps seem to have long gone.

Arma 2, Over 400 free mods of which 150 odd are free islands/maps..

Does still exist, with some games, not many, your right there.

.