£80 per game ?
- Thread starter HR4
- Start date
i think the problem is:
Game at £40
Good: They Make good game, get more sales (say 7.5m) ( lessprofit)
bad: its bad game no one recommends still sell 6.5m still above ground (profit)
year later it drops to £5-10 - most people will buy it as its now huge sale
or what we want:
Sell at £20
Good: 10m guy the game rave about it 25m Buy it (profit)
Bad: Game is bad 6.5m buy it most say its rubbish (now they didnt sell enough to break there margin) now there bankrupt.
year later it drops to £5-10 - most people will have already bought it or dont want it. less sales
in theory high prices are less risky for likes of EA etc.
Game at £40
Good: They Make good game, get more sales (say 7.5m) ( lessprofit)
bad: its bad game no one recommends still sell 6.5m still above ground (profit)
year later it drops to £5-10 - most people will buy it as its now huge sale
or what we want:
Sell at £20
Good: 10m guy the game rave about it 25m Buy it (profit)
Bad: Game is bad 6.5m buy it most say its rubbish (now they didnt sell enough to break there margin) now there bankrupt.
year later it drops to £5-10 - most people will have already bought it or dont want it. less sales
in theory high prices are less risky for likes of EA etc.
Last edited:
To be honest I think the pricing model with gaming is likely to move away from the traditional 'one off payment up front' model anyway. With more and more online interaction I can see a future whereby publishers tend to sell games for relatively cheap (possibly loss-leading or even free) initial payments but then seek to get recurring revenue through subscriptions or micropayments (episodic content, DLC etc). So people may end up paying £80 or more, but not in one go.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
Games usually turn out to be rubbish. You can pay £40 for a game and play it for only 40 minutes.
I'd much rather pay for the amount of time I get from it.
- Free trial for 48 hours
- £10 to purchase the game
- £5/month subscription
That means that good games get more money - and bad games get less.
I'd much rather pay for the amount of time I get from it.
- Free trial for 48 hours
- £10 to purchase the game
- £5/month subscription
That means that good games get more money - and bad games get less.
25 should be what most games cost.
special titles should be able to charge a premium of 35
i think publishers are already pushing there luck at 40-50 not many people will be buying games at that price in a hurry again after 1-2 turds (diablo 3
)
at 25-30 if a game is all hype its not such a massive blow 40-50 on a game and then finding out it sucks, especially a pc game you cant resell....
just way to much!
atleast if a console game blows you can recover £25-30 of the 40-50 asking price with a pc game your ******
special titles should be able to charge a premium of 35
i think publishers are already pushing there luck at 40-50 not many people will be buying games at that price in a hurry again after 1-2 turds (diablo 3
)at 25-30 if a game is all hype its not such a massive blow 40-50 on a game and then finding out it sucks, especially a pc game you cant resell....
just way to much!
atleast if a console game blows you can recover £25-30 of the 40-50 asking price with a pc game your ******
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..
.
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..
.
Um, £25 then > £35 today.
Hence the topic of this thread, is £35 too cheap? Should go back to paying as much as we did back then.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
tied keys will be a feature of the next gen consoles I bet, if not it won't be through the want of trying
As with most things that are pirated nowadays (music, movies and games), there is so much carp being produced that the consumer cannot feel confident of a high quality experience.
Did you know that the marketing budget of studio movies is normally the same as the production cost. That is mental- the studios know that no matter how poor the movie is, they can use a set formula to make money.
I am sure the same dynamic is present with music and games. There is no incentive for quality and there is real pressure for profits. The consumer ends up with radically varying products all hyped to the same level.
Did you know that the marketing budget of studio movies is normally the same as the production cost. That is mental- the studios know that no matter how poor the movie is, they can use a set formula to make money.
I am sure the same dynamic is present with music and games. There is no incentive for quality and there is real pressure for profits. The consumer ends up with radically varying products all hyped to the same level.
but when you think about what some people pay for mmos or other subscription games
World of tanks is a great example,
if you play premium your 80 quid a year PLUS whatever tanks and ammo you buy. theres plenty people playing that sinking 150-200 pounds a year if not more into the game. and i'd imagine its a cracking earner for the devs
World of tanks is a great example,
if you play premium your 80 quid a year PLUS whatever tanks and ammo you buy. theres plenty people playing that sinking 150-200 pounds a year if not more into the game. and i'd imagine its a cracking earner for the devs
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 41
- Location
- birmingham
Some people pay nearly that much for a game now , if you take into account going elite or premuim whatever its called or buy more download content
future of pc gaming is this
play for free but with catches like extra dlc and so on or micro transactions.
or like bf and cod the game will be cheaper but youll have to pay for the cream through dlc and subscription
just different marketing and what i said about ten years ago has finally come to mp fps gaming.
play for free but with catches like extra dlc and so on or micro transactions.
or like bf and cod the game will be cheaper but youll have to pay for the cream through dlc and subscription
just different marketing and what i said about ten years ago has finally come to mp fps gaming.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
if that happens I will forever enjoy my old games.
think i will continue buying every game that i remotely like in any steam sale and that should keep me busy for years.
think i will continue buying every game that i remotely like in any steam sale and that should keep me busy for years.
I think the OP was referring to what you'd pay for a game with content you really valued, rather than the half-baked stuff.
I'd pay £80 for a game if I knew for a fact it was a game I'd love, and had great support from the devs etc. The fact is though that most consumers aren't particularly discerning, so publishers only have to make people believe that their game is the next big thing and people are happy to pay the going rate for it.
Regarding the price of games currently, well, as with any other product or service for sale that's dictated by supply and demand.
Indeed, the cost of games is significantly lower than it used to be. Inflation since 1990 is 96% so a game costing £25 then is the equivalent of just under £50 now.
Part of the problem with the price of goods in general (not just games) is that we (understandably) base our perception of value against what things have traditionally cost. So for example, falling RAM prices leads us to think "amazing value!" whereas rising hard drive prices enrages people into saying "What a rip off, I'm not buying again until it is £50 for 2TB!". So we aren't actually doing a cost-benefit analysis of the item, we are just comparing with historical pricing.
Paying £80 for a real top quality game may compare favourably with other forms of entertainment, for example I went to a gig in London last weekend and taking transport, ticket, food and drink into consideration it was probably around £130 for an evening's entertainment. Even a couple of nights on the town could run to £80.
its not something that works well with other genres though.
WOT is pretty basic all they need to do is add a new tank or a new map every other month to people people happyt because the people are the content.
its not a game i would pay for though as i grew up in a time when people were allowed to mod games and make there own content.
now were expecting to pay £15 for a couple of maps
Not exactly a mixed bag, when every single responsesays less.
The problem with games is not that they are too cheap, it's that they have a single price, that is not suitable for all. But they also have a problem: they cant easily create multi-level pricing schemes
"pay £10 and get the base game; pay £40 and we'll give you the ending!"
Especially considering the fact that most people don't finish games...
Though they are experimenting, with such things as online passes (mainly to damage the used games market, admittedly), and collector's editions.
Valve has taken this way further than anyone else, with its sales. They know that selling a game at one price will attract a certain audience capable of paying that price. Then selling it at a lower price will attract people who wonted to buy it, but had too many other things to budget for. Then sell at a ridiculously low price, so that even people who never had any interest in it think, "hmm, for that price, why not give it a try." (several months later - "how come I have 400 games in my library??!")
By lowering prices, not raising them, valve has if anything bolstered the PC games market (though it wasn't in trouble anyway).