The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
You think video games are overpriced? Go here! I have signed it, lets just hope it works.
http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/
http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/
Page:
Nintendo charge fine prices, and though it may cost 40p to mass produce a game (which I doubt) it costs so much more to develop it. Think of MGS2 - $10,000,000 not including staff wages! Companies like Nintendo really care about their customers and prices, and I will not boycott them.
Games cost roughly 40p to produce , Yet they sell for £40. Compared to videogames, replica football shirts are a bargai. Everytime you buy a videogame for £40 you're being taken for an idiot.
But WHY are games so expensive?
The simple answer is because no-ones doing anything about it. Theres absolutely no inherent reason why games should cost so much. Games companys charge £40 because thats what they think they can get away with. We think its time they stopped getting away with it.
Who are "we"?
Fairplay is an organisation setup by consumers and videogames industry proffesionels who realise that expensive games are killing the industry, condemming gamers to endless repetitionof the same handful of boring, overpriced games, and costing the industry thousands of jobs. We propose to put that right by cutting the price of standerd new release games in half. This protest is the first step in the campaign. What are we asking you to do? Nothing.
ONE WEEK VIDEOGAME BOYCOTT - 1st - 8th December 2002 Don't buy a videogame week
FairPlay - Action for videogame price reduction
www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk
Im not loaded with cash, So i can only purchase a few games a year, Thats why i am fully backing the campaign.
But WHY are games so expensive?
The simple answer is because no-ones doing anything about it. Theres absolutely no inherent reason why games should cost so much. Games companys charge £40 because thats what they think they can get away with. We think its time they stopped getting away with it.
Who are "we"?
Fairplay is an organisation setup by consumers and videogames industry proffesionels who realise that expensive games are killing the industry, condemming gamers to endless repetitionof the same handful of boring, overpriced games, and costing the industry thousands of jobs. We propose to put that right by cutting the price of standerd new release games in half. This protest is the first step in the campaign. What are we asking you to do? Nothing.
ONE WEEK VIDEOGAME BOYCOTT - 1st - 8th December 2002 Don't buy a videogame week
FairPlay - Action for videogame price reduction
www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk
Im not loaded with cash, So i can only purchase a few games a year, Thats why i am fully backing the campaign.
gamezfreak wrote:
> Take a Film for example, they costs millions to make except they sell
> for £15-£20...
That's not a valid reason! A film is amazingly cheaper to manufacture than a computer game! They make the money they spent making it at the box office, and then cash in on videos and DVDs, which are merely five minute efforts (with the exception of DVDs such as The Lord Of The Rings). Making a game costs so much more in terms of time and money.
> Take a Film for example, they costs millions to make except they sell
> for £15-£20...
That's not a valid reason! A film is amazingly cheaper to manufacture than a computer game! They make the money they spent making it at the box office, and then cash in on videos and DVDs, which are merely five minute efforts (with the exception of DVDs such as The Lord Of The Rings). Making a game costs so much more in terms of time and money.
But the main reason games are expensive is due to the fact the console manufacturers make a loss, and need to get this money back on each games. This means they *need* about £10 off each game if they're going to make losses of up to £150 on each consoles (like Microsoft).
Microsoft are still making a loss with me. I bought my console for £300, and I've heard that at the time they cost £450 to make (cheaper now, obviously, but back then). I've bought 6 games, they've made £150 loss.
To break even that would mean they needed £25 off each game I bought, but they actually take about £10 - meaning they're still at a loss.
Expecting them to take about £3 is just stupid. It will put them straight out of business. I'm all for cheaper games, but unless games consoles become as popular as music or films - it'll never happen.
Microsoft are still making a loss with me. I bought my console for £300, and I've heard that at the time they cost £450 to make (cheaper now, obviously, but back then). I've bought 6 games, they've made £150 loss.
To break even that would mean they needed £25 off each game I bought, but they actually take about £10 - meaning they're still at a loss.
Expecting them to take about £3 is just stupid. It will put them straight out of business. I'm all for cheaper games, but unless games consoles become as popular as music or films - it'll never happen.
I do belive with the next set of consoles that it wont just be the price of the cosole as people will want cheap games to. If one comapnay wants to win the ocnsole war it will be on price of games.
Or a music album, They take maybe 1-2 years to make and a million pounds yet they retail for £11.
But a lot more people buy films than games. Also, it goes to the cinema, where it makes a lot of money, then it's available on DVD or video, meaning they make a lot more profit on it.
Some of their reasons are very valid.
Take a Film for example, they costs millions to make except they sell for £15-£20...
Take a Film for example, they costs millions to make except they sell for £15-£20...
The prices are fine, and I really don't think Fair Play are going to get anywhere. I, for one, will not stop buying games because some idiots tell me to. Did they consider the fact that companies like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony make a loss on their consoles? That's right. They then have to make that up on the games, which are very cheap anyway (well, Nintendo's are).
I wouldn't say no to cheaper games, but I'm not going to back it. If companies didn't charge those prices, would we be playing such high quality games as we are now? Would we have breakthrough technology? Possibly not. I think the prices are fair, and so do many others.
I wouldn't say no to cheaper games, but I'm not going to back it. If companies didn't charge those prices, would we be playing such high quality games as we are now? Would we have breakthrough technology? Possibly not. I think the prices are fair, and so do many others.
The Campaign is going well
"Reaction to the first week of the FairPlay campaign has been phenomenal. From a standing start, we've attracted many tens of thousands of hits, coverage and support banners from over 40 sources ranging from national press to online retailers replacing their "buy" link buttons with FairPlay banners, and even the ultimate Internet honour, a satirical Penny Arcade strip. Over 80,000 people have replied to polls about FairPlay (around 85% favourably) or signed up to the campaign petition, and there are still seven weeks to go.
Disappointingly, but not all that surprisingly, the games industry has chosen to react to the FairPlay campaign with panicked hysteria, rather than actually dealing with the issues raised. Rather than defend their pricing policies, the industry's response has been to rubbish all of our claims, libellously attack individual supporters of the campaign (knowing that it's almost impossible for an individual to make a successful libel prosecution in the UK), attempt to intimidate FairPlay with ludicrous lawsuits (knowing that no matter how ridiculous the suit, ISPs will usually cave in immediately rather than take even the tiniest risk of legal action), and threaten magazines with financial sanctions if they run stories on the campaign (knowing that most magazines can't afford to lose advertising).
The curious thing about all this is, of course, that if the industry was so confident that its pricing structures were fair and reasonable, it could simply come out and explain them to everyone and FairPlay would have no answer. So in the absence of a proper debate, we'll deal with some of the industry's terrified smears.
The people behind FairPlay have over 50 years of games industry experience, in journalism, development and other areas. We have been responsible for the sales of literally millions of games. We know full well how the games industry works and how its economics are structured.
One of the quotes used to illustrate FairPlay's point was written by veteran games journalist Stuart Campbell. Despite lazy, unresearched claims by the industry to the contrary, Stuart Campbell did not instigate or devise the FairPlay campaign, or design the FairPlay website - he is a journalist and former developer who happens to agree with the campaign's aims and strategies, and has offered it some assistance (including, obviously, allowing use of extracts from published articles). He is therefore a perfectly legitimate source for a quote.
This is an astonishing and offensive claim. Several successful and prominent developers and retailers have already given their support to the FairPlay campaign. It's difficult to see why they would do this if they thought the campaign secretly wanted to destroy the games industry. The games industry is currently putting itself out of business, as is demonstrated by the huge losses and redundancies posted by all but a handful of games companies. Over 70 development companies have closed down already this year. FairPlay wants to save the games industry, not destroy it. The campaign does NOT propose that people stop buying games, or even that they buy any fewer games - merely that they postpone purchases for a single week in order to send the industry a message that we're tired of rip-off prices.
Of course we can't prove that. You can only prove or disprove it by trying it out. But all the existing evidence strongly supports the belief that slashing game prices brings an overall increase in games industry revenue and profits. Don't just take our word for it, though - listen to the industry's trade body ELSPA. At the start of 2001, game sales shot up as consumers bought cheaper games (due, in part, to substantially discounted clearance stock). The industry's total revenue rose by over 5%. ELSPA's explanation? "The increase in sales revenue... is due to a significant fall in the price of discs and cartridges". Lower prices mean higher sales and, crucially, MORE money coming into the industry overall.
FairPlay is happy to publicly debate the issues of this campaign with the games industry at any time and in any manner the industry chooses. But the industry's cunning strategy seems to be "If we stick our heads in the sand long enough, maybe they'll go away." If there's such a strong case for games staying expensive, why is the industry so afraid to let the public hear it? "
"Reaction to the first week of the FairPlay campaign has been phenomenal. From a standing start, we've attracted many tens of thousands of hits, coverage and support banners from over 40 sources ranging from national press to online retailers replacing their "buy" link buttons with FairPlay banners, and even the ultimate Internet honour, a satirical Penny Arcade strip. Over 80,000 people have replied to polls about FairPlay (around 85% favourably) or signed up to the campaign petition, and there are still seven weeks to go.
Disappointingly, but not all that surprisingly, the games industry has chosen to react to the FairPlay campaign with panicked hysteria, rather than actually dealing with the issues raised. Rather than defend their pricing policies, the industry's response has been to rubbish all of our claims, libellously attack individual supporters of the campaign (knowing that it's almost impossible for an individual to make a successful libel prosecution in the UK), attempt to intimidate FairPlay with ludicrous lawsuits (knowing that no matter how ridiculous the suit, ISPs will usually cave in immediately rather than take even the tiniest risk of legal action), and threaten magazines with financial sanctions if they run stories on the campaign (knowing that most magazines can't afford to lose advertising).
The curious thing about all this is, of course, that if the industry was so confident that its pricing structures were fair and reasonable, it could simply come out and explain them to everyone and FairPlay would have no answer. So in the absence of a proper debate, we'll deal with some of the industry's terrified smears.
The people behind FairPlay have over 50 years of games industry experience, in journalism, development and other areas. We have been responsible for the sales of literally millions of games. We know full well how the games industry works and how its economics are structured.
One of the quotes used to illustrate FairPlay's point was written by veteran games journalist Stuart Campbell. Despite lazy, unresearched claims by the industry to the contrary, Stuart Campbell did not instigate or devise the FairPlay campaign, or design the FairPlay website - he is a journalist and former developer who happens to agree with the campaign's aims and strategies, and has offered it some assistance (including, obviously, allowing use of extracts from published articles). He is therefore a perfectly legitimate source for a quote.
This is an astonishing and offensive claim. Several successful and prominent developers and retailers have already given their support to the FairPlay campaign. It's difficult to see why they would do this if they thought the campaign secretly wanted to destroy the games industry. The games industry is currently putting itself out of business, as is demonstrated by the huge losses and redundancies posted by all but a handful of games companies. Over 70 development companies have closed down already this year. FairPlay wants to save the games industry, not destroy it. The campaign does NOT propose that people stop buying games, or even that they buy any fewer games - merely that they postpone purchases for a single week in order to send the industry a message that we're tired of rip-off prices.
Of course we can't prove that. You can only prove or disprove it by trying it out. But all the existing evidence strongly supports the belief that slashing game prices brings an overall increase in games industry revenue and profits. Don't just take our word for it, though - listen to the industry's trade body ELSPA. At the start of 2001, game sales shot up as consumers bought cheaper games (due, in part, to substantially discounted clearance stock). The industry's total revenue rose by over 5%. ELSPA's explanation? "The increase in sales revenue... is due to a significant fall in the price of discs and cartridges". Lower prices mean higher sales and, crucially, MORE money coming into the industry overall.
FairPlay is happy to publicly debate the issues of this campaign with the games industry at any time and in any manner the industry chooses. But the industry's cunning strategy seems to be "If we stick our heads in the sand long enough, maybe they'll go away." If there's such a strong case for games staying expensive, why is the industry so afraid to let the public hear it? "
Page: