Soldato
looks like they have taken the "feedback" on board, but I will be checking the 10 hour trial before i buy in still.
Sticking it to the greedy publishers.
- Thread starter biron_w
- Start date
"Games should be £90-100" is such BS. I don't even pay £50 for games. The average price is about £20 on PC, and about £30 for console games.
@Raymond Lin the market for games is constantly increasing, which means the volume of sales also increases. However, games aren't priced at what they need to be to make a profit, they're priced at what the publishers think people in the region will accept and pay.
Which is why games in less economically developed countries are quite a bit cheaper. This contradicts most of your claims in this thread. Because they can afford to sell games in counties at half the price or less.
@Raymond Lin the market for games is constantly increasing, which means the volume of sales also increases. However, games aren't priced at what they need to be to make a profit, they're priced at what the publishers think people in the region will accept and pay.
Which is why games in less economically developed countries are quite a bit cheaper. This contradicts most of your claims in this thread. Because they can afford to sell games in counties at half the price or less.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,905
Where can you buy console games for £30 within the first 6 months of release??
Soldato
Thats the same argument as saying i only buy second hand cars. If nobody bought the new ones then you wouldn't have any second hand ones to buy.
If you only buy games on sale/second hand then someone else has the hold up the market for you or there would be no games.
Games are cheaper in "less developed" countries (a term I hate) cause when you earn $20 a week your not going to drop 3 weeks wages on a game! they are comparatively similar pricing if you take everything into account, (earnings cost of living etc).
Also the market has dictated that games are £50 in the UK with some variance up and down +/-£5 say,maybe some big retailers taking a hit on the biggest games to get foot traffic, the new strategy of "deluxe editions" and season passes stops someone form having to break from the herd, once one does they will all move as well. same as when games crept up from £40. COD or GTA or a big must have game will stick an extra £5 on and the rest will slowly drift up.
If you only buy games on sale/second hand then someone else has the hold up the market for you or there would be no games.
Games are cheaper in "less developed" countries (a term I hate) cause when you earn $20 a week your not going to drop 3 weeks wages on a game! they are comparatively similar pricing if you take everything into account, (earnings cost of living etc).
Also the market has dictated that games are £50 in the UK with some variance up and down +/-£5 say,maybe some big retailers taking a hit on the biggest games to get foot traffic, the new strategy of "deluxe editions" and season passes stops someone form having to break from the herd, once one does they will all move as well. same as when games crept up from £40. COD or GTA or a big must have game will stick an extra £5 on and the rest will slowly drift up.
I got Ratchet and Clank on PS4 for about £29. Crash Bandicoot was about £25. Gravity Rush 2 was less than £30. Mario Odyssey had an offer through Amazon that made it about £35.
Can you show me where I said anything about second hand?
I got GTA 5 on PC for £25 about a week after it came out.
I don't think you've understood my point about less developed countries either... You're taking parts of what I said, and responding to it in isolation without context.
My point is that the price set by publishers isn't about what the game cost, it's about what they think people in said region will pay. Which means that Raymond's claims about how they "should" be £90-100 now, makes no sense.
Does anyone else remember a time you could walk into your local supermarket and pick up the new releases for £40? Now days most places are selling the yearly 'AAA' titles for £46-£50. It put me off buying Fifa this year as I don't fancy buying any games at those prices.
I have mostly stuck to buying games from the MM or other places which do secondhand games at reasonable prices.
I have mostly stuck to buying games from the MM or other places which do secondhand games at reasonable prices.
Something priced £40 in 2010 would be £49 now by inflation alone though. That said, it's still pretty easy to get new releases for under £40 online; Wolfenstein II cost me £33 after a £5 Amazon promotion and £2 Prime member discount. Meanwhile those who are fully embracing digital distribution and want to see the end of physical releases would be paying nearer £50 for it, which baffles me really.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,905
I don't mind Digital as long as things become backwards compatible, but it should definitely be cheaper than buying a boxed copy and in the case of the Playstation store, MS Store etc they often aren't.
For instance I had quite a few Wii games that couldn't be used on anything else, so on Switch I buy the physical cartridges for everything.
To be fair, a lot of my digital Xbox 360 games are playable on Xbox One.
Yes I remember when the Supermarkets would get people in store by selling brand new games at £10 below RRP. They don't now
For instance I had quite a few Wii games that couldn't be used on anything else, so on Switch I buy the physical cartridges for everything.
To be fair, a lot of my digital Xbox 360 games are playable on Xbox One.
Yes I remember when the Supermarkets would get people in store by selling brand new games at £10 below RRP. They don't now
For non-Nintendo single player games it's really common, even on sites like Amazon.
Permabanned
A Mass Effect dev has said that one player spent $15,000 on loot crates or whatever their version of them is. Let that amount of cash sink in for a second...$15,000!!!!!
Why the rush? I love crazy amount of hours spent in a game.
Just had a glance at the Call of duty wiki page. First game was released in 2003 and there have been 14 games since. Barring the last few games there were only 2 developers, so I thought 14 games in 14 years that’s a development time of like a year for each game! Na that can’t be right, then it dawned on me... 2 developers taking it in turns to release a new game in the series the average must be 2 years development time, right? Dunno
Now that there is a third dev in the mix it looks like development time has gone up on average to 3 years if all things being equal, and the next instalment will be released in 2 days time, I think.
Here comes the money bit. From 2003 to Feb 2016 these games have amassed 15 billion dollars in sales. On average that just over 1 billion per game, now the most expensive game to develop (that I could find) is destiny at just over $500 million and I have no idea how much money it made.
I still think publishers are greedy *****rs.
Now that there is a third dev in the mix it looks like development time has gone up on average to 3 years if all things being equal, and the next instalment will be released in 2 days time, I think.
Here comes the money bit. From 2003 to Feb 2016 these games have amassed 15 billion dollars in sales. On average that just over 1 billion per game, now the most expensive game to develop (that I could find) is destiny at just over $500 million and I have no idea how much money it made.
I still think publishers are greedy *****rs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Associate
But if you put the price up to high then people will stop buying the games and, therefore, the publisher will make less money/no profit. They would have to balance prices.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-10-31-ea-sports-helps-ea-grow-revenue-narrow-losses
For some perspective....EA continues to post losses, this industry isn't a gravy train, even the big guns struggle. I can't see their strategy of doubling down on monetisation and closing studios changing things though...
For some perspective....EA continues to post losses, this industry isn't a gravy train, even the big guns struggle. I can't see their strategy of doubling down on monetisation and closing studios changing things though...
Seems you completely missed that part. "primarily" being the part that stands out. That means if they don't get enough money from them then they'll soon be adding things to cards that can only be bought. Remember Black Ops 3 and the "primarily cosmetic only" line we got? Look how that turned out; weapons were soon added to Supply Drops.
I have absolutely zero trust in any publisher with these things anymore.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,905
Primarily as in, you can pre-order and get a nice bonus card.
So I guess it's technically pay to win if you want to pay silly money for the Deluxe edition, but I imagine people are less likely to pay a large upfront cost (kids aren't going to convince their parents to buy them a £70 game) - Whereas over time kids would be able to ask their parents for Xbox live credit which they could easily spend on loot boxes.
So I guess it's technically pay to win if you want to pay silly money for the Deluxe edition, but I imagine people are less likely to pay a large upfront cost (kids aren't going to convince their parents to buy them a £70 game) - Whereas over time kids would be able to ask their parents for Xbox live credit which they could easily spend on loot boxes.
From 1987 until 2012 EA had acquired 39 developers/publishers. One particular acquisition for pop game cost them in excess of 750 million and is rumoured the true value ended up over a 1.3 billion and I was amazed they paid 650 million for jamdat games (I always wondered what happened to them).
Doesn’t surprise me they’re still making a loss.
don't get it.
At the bottom it says "but notched net income up from $1.125 billion to $1.136 billion" then it goes on to say they expect a net loss of 64 million a few sentences later. (not really up to speed how these big companies work)
Income - expenditure = profit.
EA spend more on developing, marketing and distributing their games than they make from selling them....at the moment
re reading it, it says profit for the year is $1.136 billion but its a loss for the quarter. To me that sounds as if they are still making profit