The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Do you like paying up to £45 for your videogames? No? I didn't think so either. I remember a time when new games used to total £35 or less, but ofcourse then, I was purely a PC gamer and so didn't think about the prices of Nintendo, Sega and Sony games. But now I am a keen gamer for most consoles and am currently building up my collection of GameCube games, for which I am not disappointed with any of my buys so far. However, I am disappointed with the amount of money I have had to spend on the games I have bought.
Looking at my emails today, I read a very interesting article about reducing the prices of games, and how, with the high prices we already see, developers are actually losing money on 95% of games released. Infact the website that is linked to in that email suggests a boycott between December 1st and December 8th this year, asking you not to buy any games at all within that period. This is supposed to make the videogame industry take notice of our complaints about high prices and consider reducing the reccomended retail prices of all their games. But I have a very strong feeling that it is a futile campaign and that what is being asked of developers and gamers themselves is not practical at all.
I'm not saying I don't want to pay less for my videogames at all. I don't think anyone would be insane enough to complain about only having to pay £20 or less for a videogame that last week would have cost them £45, but this plan of the 'Fairplay' website is just not feasable and I can't see it working.
First off, they're asking people not to buy games on those eight days of december. December is the retailer's best month of the year for sales and I really can't see parents waiting a week to buy their children's Christmas presents just because of a supposed boycott. It's a good idea in theory, but who's going to go along with it? I only heard about this boycott from accessing the internet, but many gamers still don't have internet access and so, will not even know that this campaign actually exists. I know that if there is a game I really want, and I can afford it on those dates, I will certainly buy it. Teenagers aren't really going to be that bothered either, those who can afford the games. After all, some go out spending sixty-quid or more on nights out drinking, so what's £45 for a game that will probably last them a few months?
There's another part of this campaign that bugs me. 95% of games actually make a loss to the developers according to the fairplay website. If that was the case, I'm sure most developers would not be in business right now. They're suggesting that out of every 100 games released, only five make profits for the developers. I certainly can't believe that. If that was the case, it would be way too risky for anyone to even want to join the industry, yet there are many small developers entering the market all the time and they must be making some profit to be able to stay in business. So would a drop in price really benefit these developers who are supposedly (I don't think so) making a loss on most of their games? Not really. In theory, halfing the price means doubling the amount of sales. More people will try a game if it's cheaper. But doesn't that mean that for the same game to make any more of a profit, it would have to sell more than double the amount of units? The fairplay website claims that games only cost 40p to make. So in theory, developers are making a profit of £44.59 on every sale made of their games at full price. But what that website is forgetting is that there are wages to be paid, development costs, packaging, delivery costs, import costs, export costs and the list goes on. The development of a game isn't merely to copy them to a 40p disc. It needs to be developed on expensive computer units, extensively tested, copied in mass amounts, ported to compat with other countries' systems, and all this costs a lot of money. 40p per game maybe the price of copying games, but not to actually make the games.
The website goes on to ask that movies can sell for less than £20, so why can't videogames? Well the answer is simple. Although movies are watched by more people, if you take a look at the profits made by the sales of most movies, you'll soon see why the videogame industry is much larger than the movie industry now. So despite these claims that 95% of videogames make a loss, the videogame industry is still bigger than the movie industry, and is very quickly going to overtake the music industry within the next couple of years.
The thing is, people are complaining about the prices of games now. Well let's take a look at the average (full) price of games on the shelves of one of Special Reserve's competitors, Game. The full price of an X-box game is £45. The full price of most GameCube games is £40 and Playstation 2 games are usually £35. So, if you want cheaper, and have the ability to read this, you have the ability to order from Special Reserve for cheaper prices anyway. Take a look back to the early days of the Nintendo 64. The game Turok: Dinosaur Hunter had a reccomended retail price of £70 on release! Now not only was that rediculously high, but people were prepared to pay that and it's become the hit series we know today! Prices of games in the past were much MUCH higher in the past and people still think we're being conned out of our hard earned cash? I'd rather pay £35-£45 for a new game than £70 thankyou very much.
It even suprised me to read that the fairplay website is commenting on the price reductions of the X-box. Sure, Microsoft can afford to sell the console at half it's original retail price, but they're still making a loss on units, infact, a hell of a bigger loss, but Microsoft have one heck of a large piggy bank stored on Bill Gates's mantlepiece which means that although Microsoft are suffering huge losses through console sales, they can still stay alive in the market for a long time yet. Infact, with the reduction in console prices and the increase in console sales, it means that Microsoft can make more money from the increase in X-box games bought by the extra customers. It doesn't matter so much to Microsoft which games are bought. They all have the Microsoft X-box logo on them and so money is still going to Microsoft. But that is why they can afford to cut the price in consoles. If they didn't charge so much for the games, it would be a different matter.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with this campaign in theory. For the consumer, it can only be beneficial to see a reduction in prices. But the fact of the matter is, the way the campaign is being organised, it will not work. I can tell you now that I wont be joining in the boycott as I can't see it having any effect at all! Can you really see people not buying games over that time period whilst their kiddies are missing out on games this Christmas because they were sold out for the rest of the year? It just wont work. Discuss.
Looking at my emails today, I read a very interesting article about reducing the prices of games, and how, with the high prices we already see, developers are actually losing money on 95% of games released. Infact the website that is linked to in that email suggests a boycott between December 1st and December 8th this year, asking you not to buy any games at all within that period. This is supposed to make the videogame industry take notice of our complaints about high prices and consider reducing the reccomended retail prices of all their games. But I have a very strong feeling that it is a futile campaign and that what is being asked of developers and gamers themselves is not practical at all.
I'm not saying I don't want to pay less for my videogames at all. I don't think anyone would be insane enough to complain about only having to pay £20 or less for a videogame that last week would have cost them £45, but this plan of the 'Fairplay' website is just not feasable and I can't see it working.
First off, they're asking people not to buy games on those eight days of december. December is the retailer's best month of the year for sales and I really can't see parents waiting a week to buy their children's Christmas presents just because of a supposed boycott. It's a good idea in theory, but who's going to go along with it? I only heard about this boycott from accessing the internet, but many gamers still don't have internet access and so, will not even know that this campaign actually exists. I know that if there is a game I really want, and I can afford it on those dates, I will certainly buy it. Teenagers aren't really going to be that bothered either, those who can afford the games. After all, some go out spending sixty-quid or more on nights out drinking, so what's £45 for a game that will probably last them a few months?
There's another part of this campaign that bugs me. 95% of games actually make a loss to the developers according to the fairplay website. If that was the case, I'm sure most developers would not be in business right now. They're suggesting that out of every 100 games released, only five make profits for the developers. I certainly can't believe that. If that was the case, it would be way too risky for anyone to even want to join the industry, yet there are many small developers entering the market all the time and they must be making some profit to be able to stay in business. So would a drop in price really benefit these developers who are supposedly (I don't think so) making a loss on most of their games? Not really. In theory, halfing the price means doubling the amount of sales. More people will try a game if it's cheaper. But doesn't that mean that for the same game to make any more of a profit, it would have to sell more than double the amount of units? The fairplay website claims that games only cost 40p to make. So in theory, developers are making a profit of £44.59 on every sale made of their games at full price. But what that website is forgetting is that there are wages to be paid, development costs, packaging, delivery costs, import costs, export costs and the list goes on. The development of a game isn't merely to copy them to a 40p disc. It needs to be developed on expensive computer units, extensively tested, copied in mass amounts, ported to compat with other countries' systems, and all this costs a lot of money. 40p per game maybe the price of copying games, but not to actually make the games.
The website goes on to ask that movies can sell for less than £20, so why can't videogames? Well the answer is simple. Although movies are watched by more people, if you take a look at the profits made by the sales of most movies, you'll soon see why the videogame industry is much larger than the movie industry now. So despite these claims that 95% of videogames make a loss, the videogame industry is still bigger than the movie industry, and is very quickly going to overtake the music industry within the next couple of years.
The thing is, people are complaining about the prices of games now. Well let's take a look at the average (full) price of games on the shelves of one of Special Reserve's competitors, Game. The full price of an X-box game is £45. The full price of most GameCube games is £40 and Playstation 2 games are usually £35. So, if you want cheaper, and have the ability to read this, you have the ability to order from Special Reserve for cheaper prices anyway. Take a look back to the early days of the Nintendo 64. The game Turok: Dinosaur Hunter had a reccomended retail price of £70 on release! Now not only was that rediculously high, but people were prepared to pay that and it's become the hit series we know today! Prices of games in the past were much MUCH higher in the past and people still think we're being conned out of our hard earned cash? I'd rather pay £35-£45 for a new game than £70 thankyou very much.
It even suprised me to read that the fairplay website is commenting on the price reductions of the X-box. Sure, Microsoft can afford to sell the console at half it's original retail price, but they're still making a loss on units, infact, a hell of a bigger loss, but Microsoft have one heck of a large piggy bank stored on Bill Gates's mantlepiece which means that although Microsoft are suffering huge losses through console sales, they can still stay alive in the market for a long time yet. Infact, with the reduction in console prices and the increase in console sales, it means that Microsoft can make more money from the increase in X-box games bought by the extra customers. It doesn't matter so much to Microsoft which games are bought. They all have the Microsoft X-box logo on them and so money is still going to Microsoft. But that is why they can afford to cut the price in consoles. If they didn't charge so much for the games, it would be a different matter.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with this campaign in theory. For the consumer, it can only be beneficial to see a reduction in prices. But the fact of the matter is, the way the campaign is being organised, it will not work. I can tell you now that I wont be joining in the boycott as I can't see it having any effect at all! Can you really see people not buying games over that time period whilst their kiddies are missing out on games this Christmas because they were sold out for the rest of the year? It just wont work. Discuss.
Europe, and Britain especially, has loads of taxes for imports, exports, etc. That's partly why I think we generally pay more. However, we don't pay much more than the US (who pay a little more than the Japs)
I think a price drop to under twenty pounds would bring shoddy quality games in the future and would definately not be fair play for all parties concerned. People have got to make a living somehow.
I think that Fair plays main point is while Americans are paying no more than $50 for their games, our prices are roughly $70-$80.
The only problem I have with it is that this boycott will only hurt the retailers and I don't think that they've chosen this pricing...
The only problem I have with it is that this boycott will only hurt the retailers and I don't think that they've chosen this pricing...
Do you like paying up to £45 for your videogames? No? I didn't think so either. I remember a time when new games used to total £35 or less, but ofcourse then, I was purely a PC gamer and so didn't think about the prices of Nintendo, Sega and Sony games. But now I am a keen gamer for most consoles and am currently building up my collection of GameCube games, for which I am not disappointed with any of my buys so far. However, I am disappointed with the amount of money I have had to spend on the games I have bought.
Looking at my emails today, I read a very interesting article about reducing the prices of games, and how, with the high prices we already see, developers are actually losing money on 95% of games released. Infact the website that is linked to in that email suggests a boycott between December 1st and December 8th this year, asking you not to buy any games at all within that period. This is supposed to make the videogame industry take notice of our complaints about high prices and consider reducing the reccomended retail prices of all their games. But I have a very strong feeling that it is a futile campaign and that what is being asked of developers and gamers themselves is not practical at all.
I'm not saying I don't want to pay less for my videogames at all. I don't think anyone would be insane enough to complain about only having to pay £20 or less for a videogame that last week would have cost them £45, but this plan of the 'Fairplay' website is just not feasable and I can't see it working.
First off, they're asking people not to buy games on those eight days of december. December is the retailer's best month of the year for sales and I really can't see parents waiting a week to buy their children's Christmas presents just because of a supposed boycott. It's a good idea in theory, but who's going to go along with it? I only heard about this boycott from accessing the internet, but many gamers still don't have internet access and so, will not even know that this campaign actually exists. I know that if there is a game I really want, and I can afford it on those dates, I will certainly buy it. Teenagers aren't really going to be that bothered either, those who can afford the games. After all, some go out spending sixty-quid or more on nights out drinking, so what's £45 for a game that will probably last them a few months?
There's another part of this campaign that bugs me. 95% of games actually make a loss to the developers according to the fairplay website. If that was the case, I'm sure most developers would not be in business right now. They're suggesting that out of every 100 games released, only five make profits for the developers. I certainly can't believe that. If that was the case, it would be way too risky for anyone to even want to join the industry, yet there are many small developers entering the market all the time and they must be making some profit to be able to stay in business. So would a drop in price really benefit these developers who are supposedly (I don't think so) making a loss on most of their games? Not really. In theory, halfing the price means doubling the amount of sales. More people will try a game if it's cheaper. But doesn't that mean that for the same game to make any more of a profit, it would have to sell more than double the amount of units? The fairplay website claims that games only cost 40p to make. So in theory, developers are making a profit of £44.59 on every sale made of their games at full price. But what that website is forgetting is that there are wages to be paid, development costs, packaging, delivery costs, import costs, export costs and the list goes on. The development of a game isn't merely to copy them to a 40p disc. It needs to be developed on expensive computer units, extensively tested, copied in mass amounts, ported to compat with other countries' systems, and all this costs a lot of money. 40p per game maybe the price of copying games, but not to actually make the games.
The website goes on to ask that movies can sell for less than £20, so why can't videogames? Well the answer is simple. Although movies are watched by more people, if you take a look at the profits made by the sales of most movies, you'll soon see why the videogame industry is much larger than the movie industry now. So despite these claims that 95% of videogames make a loss, the videogame industry is still bigger than the movie industry, and is very quickly going to overtake the music industry within the next couple of years.
The thing is, people are complaining about the prices of games now. Well let's take a look at the average (full) price of games on the shelves of one of Special Reserve's competitors, Game. The full price of an X-box game is £45. The full price of most GameCube games is £40 and Playstation 2 games are usually £35. So, if you want cheaper, and have the ability to read this, you have the ability to order from Special Reserve for cheaper prices anyway. Take a look back to the early days of the Nintendo 64. The game Turok: Dinosaur Hunter had a reccomended retail price of £70 on release! Now not only was that rediculously high, but people were prepared to pay that and it's become the hit series we know today! Prices of games in the past were much MUCH higher in the past and people still think we're being conned out of our hard earned cash? I'd rather pay £35-£45 for a new game than £70 thankyou very much.
It even suprised me to read that the fairplay website is commenting on the price reductions of the X-box. Sure, Microsoft can afford to sell the console at half it's original retail price, but they're still making a loss on units, infact, a hell of a bigger loss, but Microsoft have one heck of a large piggy bank stored on Bill Gates's mantlepiece which means that although Microsoft are suffering huge losses through console sales, they can still stay alive in the market for a long time yet. Infact, with the reduction in console prices and the increase in console sales, it means that Microsoft can make more money from the increase in X-box games bought by the extra customers. It doesn't matter so much to Microsoft which games are bought. They all have the Microsoft X-box logo on them and so money is still going to Microsoft. But that is why they can afford to cut the price in consoles. If they didn't charge so much for the games, it would be a different matter.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with this campaign in theory. For the consumer, it can only be beneficial to see a reduction in prices. But the fact of the matter is, the way the campaign is being organised, it will not work. I can tell you now that I wont be joining in the boycott as I can't see it having any effect at all! Can you really see people not buying games over that time period whilst their kiddies are missing out on games this Christmas because they were sold out for the rest of the year? It just wont work. Discuss.
Looking at my emails today, I read a very interesting article about reducing the prices of games, and how, with the high prices we already see, developers are actually losing money on 95% of games released. Infact the website that is linked to in that email suggests a boycott between December 1st and December 8th this year, asking you not to buy any games at all within that period. This is supposed to make the videogame industry take notice of our complaints about high prices and consider reducing the reccomended retail prices of all their games. But I have a very strong feeling that it is a futile campaign and that what is being asked of developers and gamers themselves is not practical at all.
I'm not saying I don't want to pay less for my videogames at all. I don't think anyone would be insane enough to complain about only having to pay £20 or less for a videogame that last week would have cost them £45, but this plan of the 'Fairplay' website is just not feasable and I can't see it working.
First off, they're asking people not to buy games on those eight days of december. December is the retailer's best month of the year for sales and I really can't see parents waiting a week to buy their children's Christmas presents just because of a supposed boycott. It's a good idea in theory, but who's going to go along with it? I only heard about this boycott from accessing the internet, but many gamers still don't have internet access and so, will not even know that this campaign actually exists. I know that if there is a game I really want, and I can afford it on those dates, I will certainly buy it. Teenagers aren't really going to be that bothered either, those who can afford the games. After all, some go out spending sixty-quid or more on nights out drinking, so what's £45 for a game that will probably last them a few months?
There's another part of this campaign that bugs me. 95% of games actually make a loss to the developers according to the fairplay website. If that was the case, I'm sure most developers would not be in business right now. They're suggesting that out of every 100 games released, only five make profits for the developers. I certainly can't believe that. If that was the case, it would be way too risky for anyone to even want to join the industry, yet there are many small developers entering the market all the time and they must be making some profit to be able to stay in business. So would a drop in price really benefit these developers who are supposedly (I don't think so) making a loss on most of their games? Not really. In theory, halfing the price means doubling the amount of sales. More people will try a game if it's cheaper. But doesn't that mean that for the same game to make any more of a profit, it would have to sell more than double the amount of units? The fairplay website claims that games only cost 40p to make. So in theory, developers are making a profit of £44.59 on every sale made of their games at full price. But what that website is forgetting is that there are wages to be paid, development costs, packaging, delivery costs, import costs, export costs and the list goes on. The development of a game isn't merely to copy them to a 40p disc. It needs to be developed on expensive computer units, extensively tested, copied in mass amounts, ported to compat with other countries' systems, and all this costs a lot of money. 40p per game maybe the price of copying games, but not to actually make the games.
The website goes on to ask that movies can sell for less than £20, so why can't videogames? Well the answer is simple. Although movies are watched by more people, if you take a look at the profits made by the sales of most movies, you'll soon see why the videogame industry is much larger than the movie industry now. So despite these claims that 95% of videogames make a loss, the videogame industry is still bigger than the movie industry, and is very quickly going to overtake the music industry within the next couple of years.
The thing is, people are complaining about the prices of games now. Well let's take a look at the average (full) price of games on the shelves of one of Special Reserve's competitors, Game. The full price of an X-box game is £45. The full price of most GameCube games is £40 and Playstation 2 games are usually £35. So, if you want cheaper, and have the ability to read this, you have the ability to order from Special Reserve for cheaper prices anyway. Take a look back to the early days of the Nintendo 64. The game Turok: Dinosaur Hunter had a reccomended retail price of £70 on release! Now not only was that rediculously high, but people were prepared to pay that and it's become the hit series we know today! Prices of games in the past were much MUCH higher in the past and people still think we're being conned out of our hard earned cash? I'd rather pay £35-£45 for a new game than £70 thankyou very much.
It even suprised me to read that the fairplay website is commenting on the price reductions of the X-box. Sure, Microsoft can afford to sell the console at half it's original retail price, but they're still making a loss on units, infact, a hell of a bigger loss, but Microsoft have one heck of a large piggy bank stored on Bill Gates's mantlepiece which means that although Microsoft are suffering huge losses through console sales, they can still stay alive in the market for a long time yet. Infact, with the reduction in console prices and the increase in console sales, it means that Microsoft can make more money from the increase in X-box games bought by the extra customers. It doesn't matter so much to Microsoft which games are bought. They all have the Microsoft X-box logo on them and so money is still going to Microsoft. But that is why they can afford to cut the price in consoles. If they didn't charge so much for the games, it would be a different matter.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with this campaign in theory. For the consumer, it can only be beneficial to see a reduction in prices. But the fact of the matter is, the way the campaign is being organised, it will not work. I can tell you now that I wont be joining in the boycott as I can't see it having any effect at all! Can you really see people not buying games over that time period whilst their kiddies are missing out on games this Christmas because they were sold out for the rest of the year? It just wont work. Discuss.