The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Apparently, next week, none of us are meant to be buying any games. Games, we’re told, are too expensive and would sell more units if they were all cheaper. So, rather than have lots of high priced games (most of which lose money), we’re going to force the industry to have lots of cheap games that sell well. Increase market scope; reduce piracy; save the world from Saddam Hussein. Cheaper games are good; or so we’re told.
What a waste of time. Games should not be cheaper – prices should just be more flexible. Why should we pay the same amount for Final Fantasy (cost to make: £20 million) as we do for Wetrix (cost to make: <£1 million). Final Fantasy is a superb epic game that took years to make and will take ages to complete. Wetrix is a small puzzle game that offers short bursts of enjoyment. Would you pay £100 for a pair of slippers because that’s how much Gucci boots cost?
Would you buy Final Fantasy or Wetrix with your hard-earned cash? When you consider the options it’s no surprise that most games make a loss – it’s like marketing a Ford at the price of a Ferrari.
Imagine the difference. No longer would you only have the reserves to buy a game every few months – instead you could buy more games more often. Small games would be far more attractive to gamers, and would flourish alongside the big-name games alongside them on shop shelves. In a month when there was no big game release you wouldn’t have to buy an inferior game for the same price. Instead you could get two or three smaller games to keep you happy.
But then there are the publishers to consider. If you start selling games that were making a loss at a cheaper price, will you make more money? Well, yes. If the game is good to start with that is. Buying cheap games would become as common as buying an album – and people buy millions of them a week. There would be less reservations to buying games by unknown developers or that gambled on creativity – developers could once more spend their time making original games. Increase market scope; reduce piracy; save the world from Saddam Hussein. Everyone’s a winner.
So next week ignore the protest on game pricing. After all, the game sales the week after would just double.
Sonic
What a waste of time. Games should not be cheaper – prices should just be more flexible. Why should we pay the same amount for Final Fantasy (cost to make: £20 million) as we do for Wetrix (cost to make: <£1 million). Final Fantasy is a superb epic game that took years to make and will take ages to complete. Wetrix is a small puzzle game that offers short bursts of enjoyment. Would you pay £100 for a pair of slippers because that’s how much Gucci boots cost?
Would you buy Final Fantasy or Wetrix with your hard-earned cash? When you consider the options it’s no surprise that most games make a loss – it’s like marketing a Ford at the price of a Ferrari.
Imagine the difference. No longer would you only have the reserves to buy a game every few months – instead you could buy more games more often. Small games would be far more attractive to gamers, and would flourish alongside the big-name games alongside them on shop shelves. In a month when there was no big game release you wouldn’t have to buy an inferior game for the same price. Instead you could get two or three smaller games to keep you happy.
But then there are the publishers to consider. If you start selling games that were making a loss at a cheaper price, will you make more money? Well, yes. If the game is good to start with that is. Buying cheap games would become as common as buying an album – and people buy millions of them a week. There would be less reservations to buying games by unknown developers or that gambled on creativity – developers could once more spend their time making original games. Increase market scope; reduce piracy; save the world from Saddam Hussein. Everyone’s a winner.
So next week ignore the protest on game pricing. After all, the game sales the week after would just double.
Sonic
My point is not to charge people prices based on the type of game, but instead simply to allow the price to reflect the cost to make the game. For example, suppose Sqaure made a new FF game, but this time reused all the AI/Physics engines making for a cheaper development price: Should they charge the same price for that game as all the rest?
Take MGS. If I remember correctly, the VR pack (of extra missions and training) came with the game for free in Japan. Over here, however, Konami released the VR pack as an add-on at almost normal price. The mere fact that the pack was free in Japan shows the publisher's harsh marketing strategy in the UK.
Moving on, as I have said on many other occassions, the price of games overall could be dropped significantly by a change in publishing ethos. Developing games with full language support from the outset would eliminate release date waiting times and lower prices. Abolishing regionalisation (a feature rumoured to have been taken out of Xbox dev kits) would mean that the profit created by retailers in the UK would have to be dropped to compete with other markets. (Last year, while publishers and developers made overall losses, retailers made record-breaking profits: Is this fair?)
Sonic
Take MGS. If I remember correctly, the VR pack (of extra missions and training) came with the game for free in Japan. Over here, however, Konami released the VR pack as an add-on at almost normal price. The mere fact that the pack was free in Japan shows the publisher's harsh marketing strategy in the UK.
Moving on, as I have said on many other occassions, the price of games overall could be dropped significantly by a change in publishing ethos. Developing games with full language support from the outset would eliminate release date waiting times and lower prices. Abolishing regionalisation (a feature rumoured to have been taken out of Xbox dev kits) would mean that the profit created by retailers in the UK would have to be dropped to compete with other markets. (Last year, while publishers and developers made overall losses, retailers made record-breaking profits: Is this fair?)
Sonic
I'd get more of my money's worth from Wetrix, but there you go. Yes, its a good idea to charge different amounts for games, but then there should be some sort of industry watchdog to oversee it all. In the end the people who set the prices are going to want to sell the games, so they will have to bow to public pressure sooner or later.
True, Sonic. But then it all depends on what genre of games you like. I like racers and rpgs. rpgs tend to be expensive, because by the very nature of them, they take a lot of time to make. Racers are about mid-point, because a lot of effort goes into making them, but once the game physics and so on are there, it's a much easier ride for the programmers.
If, however, I was into puzzle and party games, I'd probably go for lots of cheap games, rather than a few really good ones.
Either way, it's all down to people's individual tastes.
If, however, I was into puzzle and party games, I'd probably go for lots of cheap games, rather than a few really good ones.
Either way, it's all down to people's individual tastes.
I think your point is very vaild SonicRav and it is a well written and good post, but I think that with a name like Final Fantasy, gamers will pay more money because they kow the quality that it has to offer and because of the name, the price of it goes up, whereas with a game like Wetrix, people aren't willing to pay £40 because of the name and what the game is about. But I think that it's a good point to make.
I am not to sure about this one.
With each game we pay the added tax for vat, also about £7 goes to Sony, Microsoft, nintendo etc for playing it on their machine (or more so for the publisher to release it on it)
then there is the money the retailer takes, then the publisher and lastly the money the developer gets which in most cases in a small percentage of the cost.
It is this I disagree with. I am all for the pay for what you get, so crap games should be cheaper than your classic games. I also disagree with Half pints idea of if games where half price then people wouldn't buy more than one. You saying you would rather pay for one game than get two for the same cost?
The way I see it is a games cost should reflect how good it is, also the like of Nintendo should take a percentage of the overal sales instead of the fixed cost on every game sold.
After the price fixing of nintendo I can't help think that the price of games is too high. Reduce the cost and you will sell more. I know myself that I won't buy an expensive game unless I think that it might be good, but with cheaper games your likely to take a risk and buy some games you may be unsure on.
Anyone who has ever had an amiga and bought pirate games will know. You'll buy any old game to try it due to the cost.
Sadly there is no way people are going to stop buying games next week or showing that the price is too high and it is due to this single fact that games prices have risen so much over the years I have played games.
Unless people complain they will continue to up the costs and it is us who suffer - unless of course we all keep getting the GAD prizes ;-)
With each game we pay the added tax for vat, also about £7 goes to Sony, Microsoft, nintendo etc for playing it on their machine (or more so for the publisher to release it on it)
then there is the money the retailer takes, then the publisher and lastly the money the developer gets which in most cases in a small percentage of the cost.
It is this I disagree with. I am all for the pay for what you get, so crap games should be cheaper than your classic games. I also disagree with Half pints idea of if games where half price then people wouldn't buy more than one. You saying you would rather pay for one game than get two for the same cost?
The way I see it is a games cost should reflect how good it is, also the like of Nintendo should take a percentage of the overal sales instead of the fixed cost on every game sold.
After the price fixing of nintendo I can't help think that the price of games is too high. Reduce the cost and you will sell more. I know myself that I won't buy an expensive game unless I think that it might be good, but with cheaper games your likely to take a risk and buy some games you may be unsure on.
Anyone who has ever had an amiga and bought pirate games will know. You'll buy any old game to try it due to the cost.
Sadly there is no way people are going to stop buying games next week or showing that the price is too high and it is due to this single fact that games prices have risen so much over the years I have played games.
Unless people complain they will continue to up the costs and it is us who suffer - unless of course we all keep getting the GAD prizes ;-)
I concur with basically all that you said, well written and very true. Nice one Sonic.
I completely agree. This row over game pricing is stupid, because the fact is would anybody buy 2 games with £40 if they were £20 each, rather than 1 game for £40 if they were £40? No, of course not. When people compare the game industry to music and dvds, they forget to realise a few key factors - music albums cost nowhere near as much to produce and manufacture as games, and shops & publishers take nowhere near as large a cost. And there's the matter of singles, too.
If games became as incredibly mainstream as music, then I'd understand a price drop when publishers don't take as large a cut. But the thing is, games aren't, the increase of the game industry just can't keep up with the increase of production costs - ten years ago, bestselling games were made by teens in bedrooms, not multi-million pound corporations.
But I think overall, you can't complain with a price cut. I would endorse publishers taking a smaller cut, but not developers losing out. After all, the publishers are the fat cats, not hard-at-work Joe behind his computer screen. I won't endorse the gaming strike, because it will achieve nothing. And I don't think anybody else should.
Nice post Sonic.
If games became as incredibly mainstream as music, then I'd understand a price drop when publishers don't take as large a cut. But the thing is, games aren't, the increase of the game industry just can't keep up with the increase of production costs - ten years ago, bestselling games were made by teens in bedrooms, not multi-million pound corporations.
But I think overall, you can't complain with a price cut. I would endorse publishers taking a smaller cut, but not developers losing out. After all, the publishers are the fat cats, not hard-at-work Joe behind his computer screen. I won't endorse the gaming strike, because it will achieve nothing. And I don't think anybody else should.
Nice post Sonic.
Apparently, next week, none of us are meant to be buying any games. Games, we’re told, are too expensive and would sell more units if they were all cheaper. So, rather than have lots of high priced games (most of which lose money), we’re going to force the industry to have lots of cheap games that sell well. Increase market scope; reduce piracy; save the world from Saddam Hussein. Cheaper games are good; or so we’re told.
What a waste of time. Games should not be cheaper – prices should just be more flexible. Why should we pay the same amount for Final Fantasy (cost to make: £20 million) as we do for Wetrix (cost to make: <£1 million). Final Fantasy is a superb epic game that took years to make and will take ages to complete. Wetrix is a small puzzle game that offers short bursts of enjoyment. Would you pay £100 for a pair of slippers because that’s how much Gucci boots cost?
Would you buy Final Fantasy or Wetrix with your hard-earned cash? When you consider the options it’s no surprise that most games make a loss – it’s like marketing a Ford at the price of a Ferrari.
Imagine the difference. No longer would you only have the reserves to buy a game every few months – instead you could buy more games more often. Small games would be far more attractive to gamers, and would flourish alongside the big-name games alongside them on shop shelves. In a month when there was no big game release you wouldn’t have to buy an inferior game for the same price. Instead you could get two or three smaller games to keep you happy.
But then there are the publishers to consider. If you start selling games that were making a loss at a cheaper price, will you make more money? Well, yes. If the game is good to start with that is. Buying cheap games would become as common as buying an album – and people buy millions of them a week. There would be less reservations to buying games by unknown developers or that gambled on creativity – developers could once more spend their time making original games. Increase market scope; reduce piracy; save the world from Saddam Hussein. Everyone’s a winner.
So next week ignore the protest on game pricing. After all, the game sales the week after would just double.
Sonic
What a waste of time. Games should not be cheaper – prices should just be more flexible. Why should we pay the same amount for Final Fantasy (cost to make: £20 million) as we do for Wetrix (cost to make: <£1 million). Final Fantasy is a superb epic game that took years to make and will take ages to complete. Wetrix is a small puzzle game that offers short bursts of enjoyment. Would you pay £100 for a pair of slippers because that’s how much Gucci boots cost?
Would you buy Final Fantasy or Wetrix with your hard-earned cash? When you consider the options it’s no surprise that most games make a loss – it’s like marketing a Ford at the price of a Ferrari.
Imagine the difference. No longer would you only have the reserves to buy a game every few months – instead you could buy more games more often. Small games would be far more attractive to gamers, and would flourish alongside the big-name games alongside them on shop shelves. In a month when there was no big game release you wouldn’t have to buy an inferior game for the same price. Instead you could get two or three smaller games to keep you happy.
But then there are the publishers to consider. If you start selling games that were making a loss at a cheaper price, will you make more money? Well, yes. If the game is good to start with that is. Buying cheap games would become as common as buying an album – and people buy millions of them a week. There would be less reservations to buying games by unknown developers or that gambled on creativity – developers could once more spend their time making original games. Increase market scope; reduce piracy; save the world from Saddam Hussein. Everyone’s a winner.
So next week ignore the protest on game pricing. After all, the game sales the week after would just double.
Sonic