£80 per game ?

deko · 10 Jun 2012 at 13:11

Games aren't far away from £80 once you count all the DLC (which is on the disc anyway). Only game I would pay £80 for is probably GTA.

Warbie · 10 Jun 2012 at 13:12

I'm fine with paying £50+ for a decent online game. Get a few months/years worth of gameplay and you'd be hard pushed to find better value entertainment.

iamdjdz · 10 Jun 2012 at 13:14

Id buy a game for £80 if it came with all future dlc and there was an option of a £30 version with no dlc included for games that you might not want to buy everything for. Also there would still have to be sales but maybe be fairer to people who wait by making it have to be a year before games could drop.

HR4 · 10 Jun 2012 at 13:34

orderoftheflame said:
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 ?

orderoftheflame said:
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..

.

Omaeka · 10 Jun 2012 at 13:41

Vern1961 said:
Sooner or later the big companies will try pushing the price of a PC game over £50, at which point I think it is time to hang up the spurs and take up book reading.

If that happens you should hang up your spurs and pull out your left eyeball, cut off your right hand and right leg. Get an eyepatch, a hook for a hand and a peg-leg. Then come sail the seven seas! Yarr! I certainly will be if that happens!

orderoftheflame · 10 Jun 2012 at 13:41

HR4 said:
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..

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.

lokiss · 10 Jun 2012 at 13:51

Heh.

Remember back in the playstation era, 50 quid top line releases.

No hardware costs, why carts started to cost so much... just cd's... Your f1's, command and conquers ect..

Myself i buy few games these days, 30 quid or 80 quid for football manager, or a diablo.. makes little difference to me.

HR4 · 10 Jun 2012 at 13:55

orderoftheflame said:
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.. :confused:

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..

.

UncleRuckus · 10 Jun 2012 at 14:13

HR4 said:
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.

They weren't charging £80 for the game though were they?

If a company wants to gamble by investing in innovation that is their choice and they should be paying. Not the consumer on a game which may not even be any good even after pay an inflated price tag.

Glaucus · 10 Jun 2012 at 14:15

Developers have just got boring, churning out the same old games.

About the only good things are remakes of old very old games, but even they aren't always sucsefull.

I've been far more impressed with games like kerbal space program. Not only cheaper, it's all about game play and fun. The industry needs some refreshing new games. Or at least take a concept like elite/x-universe and make it an MMO.

orderoftheflame · 10 Jun 2012 at 14:22

HR4 said:
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..

That's the exact opposite of what I said. :confused:

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

Small budget, small sized teams breed the best innovation. A big budget with a big team wont. You're saying start pouring money into small teams, until they're no longer small teams..?

HR4 said:
Not only that but making games is a business, and gambles are what business is all about..

Maybe when you're starting out in business, say like a small indie dev.... It's suicide for a big business with thousands of staff relying on success to pay their mortgages as feed their families.

Take a massive gamble on a new idea, or go with an option that's guaranteed to bring in profit. It's not dragons den here... These are huge international operations.

HR4 said:
If your confident in your product you take that gamble.

You're talking the exact opposite of what you're asking. :confused:

You take a product that has been done before, and you know will sell well because of this, despite it not being anything new. You have confidence in that product, and you know it will turn a profit and the investment wont be wasted.

Alternatively you take a product that's got lots of new ideas, you're unsure how the market will react to it, there are no guarantees that it will make profit. You might end up making a big loss on it.

FeFiDoh · 10 Jun 2012 at 14:36

People are kicking up a stink at the prospect of paying £80 for a game but I imagine this isn't far off what some do already!
BF3 £30-40 and then this Premium bs another £40 that is £80 just not all in one hit.
Me I will never pay £80 for a game up front and for me to invest any more money in it, it had better be damn worth it. BF3 is NOT! Half the stuff they package as premium is complete rubbish "double xp events, strat guides, extra camo" that is not premium content.

UncleRuckus · 10 Jun 2012 at 14:42

Yep, what especially boils my **** is that a couple of games have been released with DLC on the disc which you have to extra pay for!

If companies carry on like that they will start losing customers.

Omaeka · 10 Jun 2012 at 14:46

UncleRuckus said:
Yep, what especially boils my **** is that a couple of games have been released with DLC on the disc which you have to extra pay for!

If companies carry on like that they will start losing customers.

Capcom are bad for that, but lets be honest; they won't lose any customers.

UncleRuckus · 10 Jun 2012 at 14:52

Omaeka said:
Capcom are bad for that, but lets be honest; they won't lose any customers.

Well I certainly won't be purchasing DLC off them until they halt this scummy practice

Omaeka · 10 Jun 2012 at 15:00

UncleRuckus said:
Well I certainly won't be purchasing DLC off them until they halt this scummy practice

I need to for Bryan and Cody on Street Fighter x Tekken, so thats me screwed. :eek:

HR4 · 10 Jun 2012 at 15:16

@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.. :eek:

.

sbweightman · 10 Jun 2012 at 15:37

£80 is a bit high, even with all the DLC bundled in with it. Especially considering most companies only offer digital copies of their games - a hard copy, with all the extras (artbooks, not pdfs, soundtrack on a CD, physical mini figurine rather than an exclusive skin) would probably get £50 from me tops. As long as the game was good, too.

orderoftheflame · 10 Jun 2012 at 15:57

HR4 said:
@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.

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.

HR4 said:
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?

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

HR4 said:
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.

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.

HR4 said:
BTW
I don’t want to be feeding any more kids or paying anyone’s mortgage..
Just thought I would make that clear..

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.

HR4 · 10 Jun 2012 at 16:03

orderoftheflame said:
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..