Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
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...
Last edited:
£80 per game ?
- Thread starter HR4
- Start date
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...
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 5,038
TL;DR OP starts a discussion; everybody poo-poos his thoughts with logical reasoning and we are talking rubbish.
Good game!
Good game!
i believe i paid £70 for the warhammer online mmo that came with
a hardback art book
a hard back graphic novel
a pewter games workshop figure that could be sold on for £20 easily
a mouse pad
+ it came in a huge good quality box with a felt lining
limited to 55,000 copies in europe
they were big books to and pretty thick
i considered that great value for money
compare that to the skyrim or starwars collectors editions that cost what was it £140
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
economies of scale
steam and their 5 quid deals have done more good for pc gaming then 80 quid games ever could
DLC or monthly subs are something for those wanting more attention but the industry in the main will always rely on bulk sales to the purple shirt brigade
That kickstarter thing is probably the best indicator of what price can work
steam and their 5 quid deals have done more good for pc gaming then 80 quid games ever could
DLC or monthly subs are something for those wanting more attention but the industry in the main will always rely on bulk sales to the purple shirt brigade
That kickstarter thing is probably the best indicator of what price can work
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 1,348
- Location
- London
As a mere child back in the day of NES, SNES and later N64, I didn't often buy my own games, so I don't think I've ever bought a really expensive game. The most expensive game I have ever received was the Forza 4 CE as a late birthday present last October, but I honestly think the most expensive game I've bought myself was Diablo 3 a few weeks for £37.99 in HMV on release day. I tend to only buy new games between £25-30, and even then if I'm not overly interested in them I'll wait until they're significantly cheaper or on sale.
Overpriced games will not save the industry.
Overpriced games will not save the industry.
Similarly, large development budgets do not guarantee success.
Some great games have been made on shoe-string budgets, and some projects have blown millions on development and flopped (or been cancelled).
It seems a more reliable path to success is employing good management; setting appropriate goals, and getting the most out of the resources you have.
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..
.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,252
- Location
- Staffordshire
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..
No way would I pay that for a game. It would have to be something out of this world! 
I rarely pay more than a fiver for them these days; I simply don't have to as having such a huge back catalogue to get through results in me picking them up at very reduced prices, such as the steam sale / greenman, etc.
I rarely pay more than a fiver for them these days; I simply don't have to as having such a huge back catalogue to get through results in me picking them up at very reduced prices, such as the steam sale / greenman, etc.
Last edited:
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..
.
More money won't get you better games. Infact, the very best mp fps I can think of are all over 10 years old and gameplay wise still stand comfotably over anything current. More money will just get you prettier bolt on aesthetics - which unfortunately is enough for the majority. Take Skyrim. I lost countless hours running about and looking at the sights. Strip those away and focus on the gameplay, though, and it's utterly dire. But the sunsets look great and 'oh look, there's a cave over there ...'
So because you have a lot of money, you think its right that everyone should have to pay a price you can afford? £80 is ridiculous, games cost nowhere near as much to make as people/companies like to claim to create, and once they are made, the companies no longer have to pay even 5% of what they did creating it. If it cost £40 to create a retail copy, £80 may be viable, however it costs more on the end of £1 to create a retail copy, creating £39 of pure profit. Games that you download however, cost nothing, so £80 pure profit PER SALE of something that will sell tens and hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions is ridiculous. Pure and simple. If you want gaming to innovate that much by the consumer throwing pathetic amounts of money at the already filthy rich businesses, then donate every penny you have to EA and see what they 'innovate'.
Something you may want to take into account; shoes and clothes...
It can cost millions in designing and marketing for a new product, and a good pair of shoes/coat will cost about 30% of the retail price to create, even using overseas labour. Its quite rare you see a good pair of trainers sell for more than £80 these days, yet I can guarantee it cost at least £20 to make them for the company. So why do video games deserve a similar price, when they cost nothing to create post-production? I'd also like to add that video games serve absolutely no use other than recreation, so why do they deserve to make more profit for companies than something which is pretty much vital.
The same goes for for pretty much anything, a game should be sold based on what it costs to make post-production, pure and simple.
Movies can cost 50+ million to create, yet sell for £10 tickets and £10 retail afterwards? (not exact figures I know, but accurate)
Please explain why they DESERVE such ridiculous profit? They don't even create the tools in which they work on themselves, unlike a lot of manufacturers.
You may of had a successful business yourself, but that doesn't make you Alan Sugar, son. You clearly have no clue about this industry even suggesting this, unless this whole thing is just one giant troll, in which case you may be on your way to winning the internet.
Don't even get me started on royalties when it comes to video games, its as bad as music/film.
Something you may want to take into account; shoes and clothes...
It can cost millions in designing and marketing for a new product, and a good pair of shoes/coat will cost about 30% of the retail price to create, even using overseas labour. Its quite rare you see a good pair of trainers sell for more than £80 these days, yet I can guarantee it cost at least £20 to make them for the company. So why do video games deserve a similar price, when they cost nothing to create post-production? I'd also like to add that video games serve absolutely no use other than recreation, so why do they deserve to make more profit for companies than something which is pretty much vital.
The same goes for for pretty much anything, a game should be sold based on what it costs to make post-production, pure and simple.
Movies can cost 50+ million to create, yet sell for £10 tickets and £10 retail afterwards? (not exact figures I know, but accurate)
Please explain why they DESERVE such ridiculous profit? They don't even create the tools in which they work on themselves, unlike a lot of manufacturers.
You may of had a successful business yourself, but that doesn't make you Alan Sugar, son. You clearly have no clue about this industry even suggesting this, unless this whole thing is just one giant troll, in which case you may be on your way to winning the internet.
Don't even get me started on royalties when it comes to video games, its as bad as music/film.
Last edited:
It was different for n64/snes games, you were actually buying a cartridge with all the electronic gubbins inside, they cost something to manufacture and transport to retail. On the distribution side of things, CDs/DVDs cost very little to produce, digital games cost nothing to produce (ignoring the development of the game itself). If you did pay £80 for a game, how much of that goes to the publisher who basically just wasted money on marketing, while whining about piracy.
Viral marketing costs very little due to the widespread use of social networks, I wonder how much money is still spent on giant expensive posters to put on billboards, do any of those convert to sales anymore?
I think it would be better if we had more gaming companies using stuff like kickstarter to fund the games, this way you can throw small amounts of money at a company and then pay more if you like the direction they are going. Cut out the publishers/retail, no one needs to keep the chimney sweep fatcats around just to soak up a percentage of the money for nothing.
Viral marketing costs very little due to the widespread use of social networks, I wonder how much money is still spent on giant expensive posters to put on billboards, do any of those convert to sales anymore?
I think it would be better if we had more gaming companies using stuff like kickstarter to fund the games, this way you can throw small amounts of money at a company and then pay more if you like the direction they are going. Cut out the publishers/retail, no one needs to keep the chimney sweep fatcats around just to soak up a percentage of the money for nothing.
This.
Back then, hardware like cartridges cost a bomb to create, even Gameboy games were very, very expensive.
The reason games are cheaper now is exactly this, post-production costs are near none existant, even server hosting is pennies now, and the bandwith to let people download their games is also pittance, for a giant company it might cost them an average of about 20 pence in server bills per GB they host. Meaning it costs about what, £2 per video game they have in their database? (Hypothetical, but I can confidently say accurate)
Those aren't even the developers hosting either, 90% of the time.
This is also true, there really is little need for publishers these days, why so many big companies are still under their thumbs I have no idea, there is a huge reason why Capcom have always published themselves in the past 10 years with most things. Back in the day they'd have tiny contracts with big companies like Virgin that were exclusive to one title, just to get the game out there. Capcom are freaking intelligent, which is probably why they are one of the biggest names.
Last edited: