The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I just wanted to see what people thought about prices for games.
I think prices are extremely exaggerated I mean £40 + for games that have been out for months.The prices really are not fair that is why games do not sell well because most people can not magic £40 + out of their backside and do not have a money tree.
I think prices are extremely exaggerated I mean £40 + for games that have been out for months.The prices really are not fair that is why games do not sell well because most people can not magic £40 + out of their backside and do not have a money tree.
Page:
pb wrote:
The result is usually that, no, prices aren't fair but if people keep playing and paying then they'll stay the same. However, there's now a lot of pressure from the App Store and Android Marketplace, not just from the 69/99p games that some people (wrongly) deride, but also the £5 and £10 games that give consoles and handhelds a run for their money.
I remember reading something recently about the comparison between the App Store game prices and the prices of Nintendo's download services. The jist of it was that App Store games are rarely designed to have any sense of longevity about them. They are designed to fill in time - like if you're flicking a bit of paper on your desk at work/school - compared with handheld console download games which are designed to keep you entertained for hours. It's a different type of gaming and the cost normally corresponds with that.
Personally I wont pay more than £1 for an App Store game at the moment as I don't consider mobile phone gaming to be worth anything more than a quick time-fix.
The result is usually that, no, prices aren't fair but if people keep playing and paying then they'll stay the same. However, there's now a lot of pressure from the App Store and Android Marketplace, not just from the 69/99p games that some people (wrongly) deride, but also the £5 and £10 games that give consoles and handhelds a run for their money.
I remember reading something recently about the comparison between the App Store game prices and the prices of Nintendo's download services. The jist of it was that App Store games are rarely designed to have any sense of longevity about them. They are designed to fill in time - like if you're flicking a bit of paper on your desk at work/school - compared with handheld console download games which are designed to keep you entertained for hours. It's a different type of gaming and the cost normally corresponds with that.
Personally I wont pay more than £1 for an App Store game at the moment as I don't consider mobile phone gaming to be worth anything more than a quick time-fix.
That partly relates to my post about GAME and how they need to make a profit to stay open, but the cheaper online prices make it harder for me as the consumer to continue to shop there.
I am from the era of price-fixing. When games cost an abosolute fortune to buy. The original Turok game (which was awesome for it's time) was RRP'd at £70 if I remember correctly. Granted my brother purchased it in a GAME sale for £4.99 a few years after release, but it just goes to show that whilst games are expensive, when, for example, compared to a movie, music album, etc, but if it's a quality game which gives you the entertainment you desire, is £35-£40 really too much for the retailer to ask for?
If you take a look at Ubi's payroll for the Assassins Creed games, the list is huge! And most of the jobs aren't low-skilled. They pull off a fantastic set of games. But they have to pay an appropriate rate to all of their staff as well as earning enough profit to make the next game and increase the value of the company. If they are forced to drop the wholesale prices of the games then there are only really a few options. Most of these would either result in the eventual closure of the developer, or lower quality games.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should be paying more for our games. As a consumer we should be getting the best possible deal to suit us as individuals. However, I think games companies can justify what they charge for games at present.
I am from the era of price-fixing. When games cost an abosolute fortune to buy. The original Turok game (which was awesome for it's time) was RRP'd at £70 if I remember correctly. Granted my brother purchased it in a GAME sale for £4.99 a few years after release, but it just goes to show that whilst games are expensive, when, for example, compared to a movie, music album, etc, but if it's a quality game which gives you the entertainment you desire, is £35-£40 really too much for the retailer to ask for?
If you take a look at Ubi's payroll for the Assassins Creed games, the list is huge! And most of the jobs aren't low-skilled. They pull off a fantastic set of games. But they have to pay an appropriate rate to all of their staff as well as earning enough profit to make the next game and increase the value of the company. If they are forced to drop the wholesale prices of the games then there are only really a few options. Most of these would either result in the eventual closure of the developer, or lower quality games.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should be paying more for our games. As a consumer we should be getting the best possible deal to suit us as individuals. However, I think games companies can justify what they charge for games at present.
PB your right and also if they do not sell games for at least £40 they will not make enough money to either keep the shop running or the creators will not have high enough ratings and think that a new game would be pointless but if selling for a higher price causes more people to think that a game is worth the money then customers will buy it.Although I think prices are too high most games that are high prices are worth it. I hope it makes sense to you haha.
Every few months this debate comes up somewhere on a forum.
The result is usually that, no, prices aren't fair but if people keep playing and paying then they'll stay the same. However, there's now a lot of pressure from the App Store and Android Marketplace, not just from the 69/99p games that some people (wrongly) deride, but also the £5 and £10 games that give consoles and handhelds a run for their money.
With Steam also doing well on weekly sales where decent games can be picked up for £2-£10 you have to wonder if the current retail system is sustainable.
The result is usually that, no, prices aren't fair but if people keep playing and paying then they'll stay the same. However, there's now a lot of pressure from the App Store and Android Marketplace, not just from the 69/99p games that some people (wrongly) deride, but also the £5 and £10 games that give consoles and handhelds a run for their money.
With Steam also doing well on weekly sales where decent games can be picked up for £2-£10 you have to wonder if the current retail system is sustainable.
Oh don't get me wrong, Rome was still a challenge, but the latter games were so much more difficult (in a good way). Going to reinstall Medieval 2 after this conversation, just to remind myself how bad I was at it.
Sonic Chris wrote:
I played Rome the most. Then picked up Medieval 2, and the difficulty was such a leap. Rome is pretty simple. Archers behind warriors. Cavalry charge at soldiers or archers. Phalanx on Cavalry
The idea is simple, co-ordinating everything is somewhat more difficult and if you've expanded massively getting caught without a certain unit you're in trouble.
Rome Total War was one of those much loved games where I'd be very happy to pay £40 because it would go on for months. I'd probably still be playing it if my gaming machine hadn't broken. Think I might install it on my sisters machine.
I honestly think that if gaming moves into a purely digital age then the days of paying a lump sum for a game are done and that's something that I could get behind. I'm far warmer to the idea of paying £2 a day (up to a limit of £40) for something like Arkham City which I finished in roughly 10 days. That's the way it should be, a move towards giving customers value for money, quality control and the choice to vote with their pockets if they buy something and realise it's rubbish.
I played Rome the most. Then picked up Medieval 2, and the difficulty was such a leap. Rome is pretty simple. Archers behind warriors. Cavalry charge at soldiers or archers. Phalanx on Cavalry
The idea is simple, co-ordinating everything is somewhat more difficult and if you've expanded massively getting caught without a certain unit you're in trouble.
Rome Total War was one of those much loved games where I'd be very happy to pay £40 because it would go on for months. I'd probably still be playing it if my gaming machine hadn't broken. Think I might install it on my sisters machine.
I honestly think that if gaming moves into a purely digital age then the days of paying a lump sum for a game are done and that's something that I could get behind. I'm far warmer to the idea of paying £2 a day (up to a limit of £40) for something like Arkham City which I finished in roughly 10 days. That's the way it should be, a move towards giving customers value for money, quality control and the choice to vote with their pockets if they buy something and realise it's rubbish.
I played Rome the most. Then picked up Medieval 2, and the difficulty was such a leap. Rome is pretty simple. Archers behind warriors. Cavalry charge at soldiers or archers. Phalanx on Cavalry. Medieval on the other hand, I tested out a peasant fight vs a small group of soldiers (on Rome, this would nearly always result in a victory for the soldiers). On Medieval 2, the peasants managed to win!
Sonic Chris wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]Bought the Total War Collection though, so I have multiple copies of most of the games... I think that makes me a bit of a sad git...
I don't know what benefit having multiple copies of the games has, but at least you have them all. I haven't even played Empire or Napoleon. What are the specifications like for Shogun? My computer isn't the best in the world![/i]
Like all previous TW games, the specs are flexible. If you have a high- end system, it'll look glorious with volumetric light and shadow etc... If your system's a little older, you'll still be able to play and it'll look more like Rome TW graphically speaking.
Giving Napoleon a blast at the moment. That's actually quite challenging.
chasfh wrote:
[i]Bought the Total War Collection though, so I have multiple copies of most of the games... I think that makes me a bit of a sad git...
I don't know what benefit having multiple copies of the games has, but at least you have them all. I haven't even played Empire or Napoleon. What are the specifications like for Shogun? My computer isn't the best in the world![/i]
Like all previous TW games, the specs are flexible. If you have a high- end system, it'll look glorious with volumetric light and shadow etc... If your system's a little older, you'll still be able to play and it'll look more like Rome TW graphically speaking.
Giving Napoleon a blast at the moment. That's actually quite challenging.
chasfh wrote:
Bought the Total War Collection though, so I have multiple copies of most of the games... I think that makes me a bit of a sad git...
I don't know what benefit having multiple copies of the games has, but at least you have them all. I haven't even played Empire or Napoleon. What are the specifications like for Shogun? My computer isn't the best in the world!
Bought the Total War Collection though, so I have multiple copies of most of the games... I think that makes me a bit of a sad git...
I don't know what benefit having multiple copies of the games has, but at least you have them all. I haven't even played Empire or Napoleon. What are the specifications like for Shogun? My computer isn't the best in the world!
Sonic Chris wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]Sonic Chris wrote:
[i]I don't really think it's about quality as much. As I said before, people will buy what they want to buy or what they think they need. Look at Call of Duty, quality seemingly decreasing with every new release, yet the sales figures would suggest otherwise. This however is a matter of my opinion, so what is the definition of a good game?
But, as you rightly say, it's all opinion. Others will doubtless have other criteria that they consider important. And let's face it, the world would be a dull place if we were all the same.[/i]
That it would, although I agree on the Total War Games. Haven't tried the latest, but spent many days (accumulatively obviously) on Rome and Medieval 2.[/i]
I bought all the Total War games in Special Edition sets right up to the latest one. I was bought that one for Christmas, so it's a standard edition.
Bought the Total War Collection though, so I have multiple copies of most of the games... I think that makes me a bit of a sad git...
chasfh wrote:
[i]Sonic Chris wrote:
[i]I don't really think it's about quality as much. As I said before, people will buy what they want to buy or what they think they need. Look at Call of Duty, quality seemingly decreasing with every new release, yet the sales figures would suggest otherwise. This however is a matter of my opinion, so what is the definition of a good game?
But, as you rightly say, it's all opinion. Others will doubtless have other criteria that they consider important. And let's face it, the world would be a dull place if we were all the same.[/i]
That it would, although I agree on the Total War Games. Haven't tried the latest, but spent many days (accumulatively obviously) on Rome and Medieval 2.[/i]
I bought all the Total War games in Special Edition sets right up to the latest one. I was bought that one for Christmas, so it's a standard edition.
Bought the Total War Collection though, so I have multiple copies of most of the games... I think that makes me a bit of a sad git...
Page: