“Gamers Aren’t Overcharged; They’re Undercharged,” Says Wall Street Analyst

If we're going to adjust for inflation for games, why not factor in household income, which has remained static? It's cherry picking, nothing less. We should all be so lucky to rabble rouse for favorable outcomes.
 
It's extraordinarily rare to have a game that provides over 900 hours of content...
 
MrDeaf said:
These DLCs are getting closer and closer to arcade game costs.

Oh, you want to play? pay $1 to play
Oh, you died? pay $1 to continue
Oh, you finished a level? pay $1 to continue
Oh, you want to save your character? pay $5 to continue
Oh, you want to open your boxes? pay $5 to continue
Oh, you ran out of inventory space? pay $10 to continue
Oh, you ran into our artificial level cap? pay $10 to unlock
etc.
Click to expand...
In the early days of arcade gaming, most games were skill-based games: the more skilled you were, the longer you could play them. If you were really good at Asteroids, for example, you could play for hours on a single quarter, flipping the game again and again. As time went on, games started to move away from that, and you increasingly started to see time-based games: games that you could play for a certain length of time based on how much money you put into it (a game like Gauntlet, for example), not how good you were. The goal moved from you getting more skilled to you putting in more money to keep playing.

These days, console/computer games seem to be moving pretty hard towards monetization -- towards squeezing every bit of cash out of you they can. It's gotten to where they're not even very subtle about it anymore. And since many people are willing to accept these practices, for whatever reason, publishers have no reason to halt or even slow this trend. As a gamer, I can't say I like where things seem to be going, but there's not much I can do to stop it.
 
liffie420 said:
I will most certainly be in the minority on this, but technically speaking he is correct, not that I want to pay more. If you lok back to the early days of consoles, after the crash, starting with the Nintendo Entertainment System games have traditionally cost anywhere between $40 and $70 a game, usually right around the $60 price point. That price point has stayed more or less the same for over 30 years. And that was around $60 for garbage games and outstanding classics of the various generations. Sometimes the prices went up for certain games, if I remember ChronoTrigger was $75 when it came out. If you add in inflation to the picture, a normal game today should be around the $90 to $100 price range, again that's for garbage games and things like GTA V. I don't line micro transactions and paid DLC anymore than the next person, but on the other hand price wise we have to admit, even if we REALLY don't want to, that games are pretty cheap all things considered. There are VERY few items that have held to the same price for a 30 year span. I am obviously excluding computers since that is a whole different thing.
Click to expand...

No EA shouldn't get more money for buying up and then closing up the competition.
EA has destroyed great studios and there is no scenario where they deserve more money for fucking over consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
Madoc said:
As a gamer, I can't say I like where things seem to be going, but there's not much I can do to stop it.
Click to expand...

You can absolutely do something about it. Don't buy the game. Don't buy microtransactions. etc

The problem with this "analyst's" view is the same problem that pervades America today where it's just the illusion of choice and free market. How is it choice when EVERY [insert product] has nearly the same offering and NEARLY THE SAME PRICE? civic or corolla? ATT or Verizon? apple music or google music? Same stupid thing with different branding THAT COSTS ME THE SAME. WHERE'S THE CHOICE? The fact that video games exist as a different form of entertainment is an actual choice because it works on entirely different engagement mechanics. It's not like passive entertinament like a movie or tv, not like listening to music, etc. Who says it needs to cost the same??
 
The analyst estimated cost per hour for a typical "Star Wars Battlefront II" player. He said if a gamer spent $60 for the game, an additional $20 per month for loot micro-transaction boxes and played around 2.5 hours a day for one year, it comes out to roughly 40 cents per hour of entertainment. This compares to an estimated 60 cents to 65 cents per hour for pay television, 80 cents per hour for a movie rental and more than $3 per hour for a movie watched in a theater, according to the firm's analysis.

That's some cool math.

I mean the cable tv numbers are possible, for my household though, it's about $1 an hour.
The movies though, if the average movie is 2 hours, where the fuck are they finding $6 movie theaters? 2.5 hours it's still $7.50. National average for Q1 2017 is $8.84, and that must include a ton of matinees. Around here it's $11. Some of the theaters have even put in variable pricing so that if you want to see say justice league in 2d, it'll cost you $11.97, but if you want to see wonder at the same day and time, it's only $9.97. If you like your movies before 10am, it's like $6. Given that there's a 5:1 or worse ratio of full price to matinee price showings, even if every matinee is sold out, you still aren't hitting $7.50. Heck you aren't hitting $9.
 
stealthballer123 said:
No EA shouldn't get more money for buying up and then closing up the competition.
EA has destroyed great studios and there is no scenario where they deserve more money for fucking over consumers.
Click to expand...

I'm not addressing EA specifically or their practices when it comes to buying and/or closing studios. Just the general topic of the price of games. I don't like paid DLC or mirco transactions either,.I think they are shitty, but $60 for a game, regardless of popular opinion, IS cheap.
 
Not when they did to the market what they did specifically to drive down costs. It's not too little, it's too much considering the damage done to the larger marketplace.
 
Win-green? No wonder he wants to charge more.

Blakestr said:
I've always thought this was the case actually. From the time I was a kid to a young bachelor, it seemed like a much less expensive hobby than anything else. Cars, motorcycles--try buying a BOAT.
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between gaming and other hobbies. That is games are made once then can be sold infinitely. While tools and gadgets of other hobbies are made individually one by one. In low volume production that has a lot of overhead. So nope, I think games cost less exactly for this reason. So the only way you can come to a conclusion that gamers are undercharged if you disregard every other factor.

I also think physical products are more valueable, because it not just play once then forget, it sits there and I can look and admire it every day, be it art, or a collection of anything. That's why I miss proper boxed games in a way. I feel I'm getting much less value with a digital copy of a game.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Statements like this are telltale signs of a 10 gram a day cocaine habit.
Click to expand...
Some posts I feel like deserve a special award. This is one of them.

Rizen said:
Looking at market data he's not wrong, even if it's going to be an unpopular opinion.

I was paying $70 for N64 games back in the 90s, which is equivalent to about $112 now. Even subtracting the costs of the more expensive media, games back then were more expensive than they are now, and the costs of building games has increased exponentially since. Sure, the market is larger now too, but it's also more fractured, and it takes a lot more sales to recoup development costs.

That all being said, I'd much rather pay $80 for a game that comes with all of the content, than pay $50-60 and be nickle and dimed with DLC and microtransactions. The current business model is broken.
Click to expand...
This is one of those cases where I think it's up to the market to decide whether or not he's wrong. Sure, it costs more to make a game now, but it's also far more competitive than it's ever been also. That $60 game should maybe cost $80 today, except that it's fighting for air against a swarm of $10 - $30 indie titles that often have a hell of a lot going for them. Or it's fighting against a AAA game that's 2 years old that you can pick up for $10 - 15 on sale.

The bottom line is if a new game can raise its base price to $80 and still make money, then he's right. If it CAN'T, then he's wrong, regardless of production costs. It doesn't matter what the game SHOULD cost if your consumer base won't buy it at the price you think it should be.
 
wall street analysis are overpaid and are nothing but a drag on the economy.
 
Supply and demand. Go ahead and charge us 500 for a video game. See how many copies you sell.
I usually wait until games are a few years old and end up a Steam sale before I play them anyway . I already have a huge backlog of games and very little free time. I rarely will get a game that is brand new at full price.
My strategy usually gets me a better experience . Bugs are typically fixed, might get free DLC, Game of the Year edition, etc.
Anyone remember Sierra Online/Dynamix? They published a game called Outpost - it sounded awesome as they were hyping it. I bought it (full price) . It was barely playable. They didn't have hardly any of the promised features. Seems like a final patch came out - but it didn't even come close to the hype. At the time, it was nicknamed Compost. That's just one example - there are hundreds more like it.
 
A lot of you are mixing emotions about EA into this discussion. Business is math at the end of the day, and your personal feelings over EA and their business practices don't really change how the industry at large works.

So don't believe what these publishers say. Meanwhile CD Project Red makes one of the greatest games on a tiny budget and no DRM or Micro transactions, and they raked in the cash for it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "tiny" but the budget for Witcher 3 was $81million USD. Now understand that they are based in Poland, which has a much lower cost of living. Producing that game in Western European or North American countries would have cost significantly more.
 
darckhart said:
You can absolutely do something about it. Don't buy the game. Don't buy microtransactions. etc
Click to expand...

As much as I would like that to be true, all that would do is make me *feel* like I was doing something about it. But whether or not I purchase a game has no significant effect a game's profitability, because I'm just one out of thousands (or millions). I already do what you suggested. But for everyone like me, there are dozens, hundreds, or thousands who do the opposite. I suppose this is part of the mainstreaming of games, but it's made the voice of people like me lost in the crowd of people who will always spend the money on these sorts of monetization tactics.
 
A good video game is a great entertainment value. A bad one is definitely not.
There are advantages to a pay as you go system so that you don't have to make a big investment in buying a game that turns out to not be enjoyable.
But randomized loot boxes are a thinly veiled gambling gimmick to sucker you out of extra money.
I prefer not paying more money, but if I have to do so make it fixed price expansion packs, or fixed price cosmetic items, not a paid lottery chance.
 
Games are under priced, but microtransactions are a terrible way to deal with it.
 
I just don't see how it takes 100-150 million dollars to build these games. Not to mention the massive marketing budgets on top.

It also doesn't make sense when they make the argument of how it's expensive to hire developers when those that are in the industry said it's notorious for underpaying and overworking their workers who are living out their dream of being a game dev.

Typical top heavy business IMO.
 
I'm going to post an updated version of what I posted in the last "cost of games" thread I participated in here in 2013.

It really depends on how you look at it. I cant read that PCGamer article, as this is a screenshot (well I could google it, but I haven't yet) but think of it this way:

In this scan of the 1991 Electronics Boutique catalog you can see that Sid Meier's Civilization (the original) cost $45 when it was launched, and it was pretty typical for a new game.

If we adjust for inflation, that's $80 in today's money according to the Consumer price index (CPI-U, 1991 to 2017)

The most expensive game in that catalog was a tie between Wing Commander II and F117A Stealth Fighter 2.0, both at $59.99. That's $110 in today's money.

What's even scarier, check out some of the list prices.... $79.99 for a game in 1991 dollars is over $145 today.

Add to that, that games have become vastly more complex and involved to program, write and create artwork for, some having a production budget of as much as $100 million. Games back then were made on a shoestring budget. You could have a few guys write a game. They didnt need a huge production like they do today.

On the flip side, there are likely a lot more sales today than there were in 1991. It was a completely different market them. Not as many people had computers at home and were buying games, so today there are more buyers to spread the costs of development out over.

In many cases when accounting for inflation and the ever growing complexity of games, we are actually getting a whole lot, for a whole lot less than we used to in games.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm going to post an updated version of what I posted in th elast "cost of games" thread I participated in here in 2013.

It really depends on how you look at it. I cant read that PCGamer article, as this is a screenshot (well I could google it, but I haven't yet) but think of it this way:

In this scan of the 1991 Electronics Boutique catalog you can see that Sid Meier's Civilization (the original) cost $45 when it was launched, and it was pretty typical for a new game.

If we adjust for inflation, that's $80 in today's money according to the Consumer price index (CPI-U, 1991 to 2017)

The most expensive game in that catalog was a tie between Wing Commander II and F117A Stealth Fighter 2.0, both at $59.99. That's $110 in today's money.

What's even scarier, check out some of the list prices.... $79.99 for a game in 1991 dollars is over $145 today.

Add to that, that games have become vastly more complex and involved to program, write and create artwork for, some having a production budget of as much as $100 million. Games back then were made on a shoestring budget. You could have a few guys write a game. They didnt need a huge production like they do today.

On the flip side, there are likely a lot more sales today than there were in 1991. It was a completely different market them. Not as many people had computers at home and were buying games, so today there are more buyers to spread the costs of development out over.

In many cases when accounting for inflation and the ever growing complexity of games, we are actually getting a whole lot, for a whole lot less than we used to in games.
Click to expand...

Of course. On the flip side you could state that since the number of titles being sold has increased, and profitability and revenues have also increased, that while the production cost of a game has grown exponentially the sales volume more than makes up for it. SNES carts in 1994 were what, $60 new and a couple being as high as $70 every now and then? From purely the standpoint of the consumer, it's almost a minor miracle that the cost of games hasn't gradually increased over time. One could say that season passes were that increase, but expansion packs also existed years ago as well.

Certainly no consumer ever wants to hear that they should be getting charged more for a product or service, but that doesn't mean the analyst is wrong.
 
I didn't read the article. Did it list what games he played? I'm thinking his resume sucks.
 
You could join Fast Money talk about how certain stocks will go up or down and blow a fuse when Cramer shows up.
 
Really just goes to show you how out of touch this joker is if he thinks the "average gamer" puts 900 hours into a game.
 
Madoc said:
As much as I would like that to be true, all that would do is make me *feel* like I was doing something about it. But whether or not I purchase a game has no significant effect a game's profitability, because I'm just one out of thousands (or millions). I already do what you suggested. But for everyone like me, there are dozens, hundreds, or thousands who do the opposite. I suppose this is part of the mainstreaming of games, but it's made the voice of people like me lost in the crowd of people who will always spend the money on these sorts of monetization tactics.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree that it's an uphill battle, but it starts with one... :)
 
Merc1138 said:
Certainly no consumer ever wants to hear that they should be getting charged more for a product or service, but that doesn't mean the analyst is wrong.
Click to expand...
And certainly no company wants to hear that the average consumer is unwilling to spend more than $60 on a game regardless of what they think the price should be. The analyst isn't RIGHT either unless he has proof consumers are willing to pay for more. If they're not, then it doesn't matter what the price of games "should" be, just what people are willing to pay for them.
 
beemanit said:
Imagine that EA was your ISP. You pay $60 dollars for "internet access" however they then start charging additional fees to access amazon, another fee to access google, another fee to access other favorite websites.
Click to expand...
oh you read what the FCC announced today...
 
I think this "analyst" is single handily trying to torpedo the gaming industry. If he thinks people want to spent 100$ per each game, which could eventually rise be the same cost of the console you buy to play it, he's seriously delusional. Considering the average game today is only supported for a year or maybe 2 before they release a new sequel. You aren't getting the value out of the game unless that's the only game you play and with all the micro-transactions and DLCs you aren't getting the full game at initial purchase anyway. These guys seriously ruin everything.
 
I vote with my wallet. I don't buy games at release, unless they meet the following criteria:

1. No day one DLC.
2. Not a rushed, buggy launch (except for Bethesda, I like their games and I expect bugs)
3. Not from publishers that have time and again screwed over their customers (EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc)
4. Includes everything necessary for a complete game.
5. No nonsensical DRM.
6. No stupid P2W, loot boxes, RMT, etc.

Examples of recent day 1 purchases: The Witcher, Dark Souls 3, and Fallout 4. Nearly everything else I will wait for a sale.
 
tetris42 said:
And certainly no company wants to hear that the average consumer is unwilling to spend more than $60 on a game regardless of what they think the price should be. The analyst isn't RIGHT either unless he has proof consumers are willing to pay for more. If they're not, then it doesn't matter what the price of games "should" be, just what people are willing to pay for them.
Click to expand...
Actually, yes there is proof that people are willing to throw more money than $60 at games. Obviously the analyst didn't say anything about increasing the base cost of the game, but when Take Two well... read for yourself:
http://comicbook.com/gaming/2017/11...-selling-big-for-2k-games-grand-theft-auto-v/
 
The big complaint about this game was all about Pay-to-Win rather than micro transactions that are currently in many MMOs? This is different to how much a game costs per hour .
 
He does make some good points. Game costs have been staying flat since around 2009-2010 while development costs have been going up. And it is a cheap form of entertainment all said and done. There are a few things that need to change:

1) Gamers demand longer and longer games. Too many are fixated on a certain hour amount and not a quality or enjoyment metric. And this often results in more development costs and quality goes down in general. To compensate, these games are filled with more micro transaction things. It also fits the repetitive stretched out gameplay.

2) Publishers need to trim back on the fat. Less Hollywood voice actors, which probably cost more than traditional voice actors. Let creative game designers take more of a leading role so they don't end up scrapping prototype after prototype game when they figure out their check list of "a great game" ends up being crap.

If someone could re-imagine shooting mechanics and add a new level of depth, an shorter 8-10 hour game would be much better than another 30-50 hour third person shooter slog. Ditto with fighting mechanics. Even if the game is linear, I would probably get enough enjoyment out of it to replay the game. But instead we get more of those generic run here and there games with dated combat, supplanted with lots of customization crap to bug you. Really funny in third person shooter games to, because you don't even see your weapon and they all feel the same.

Now they way they handle it in MP games is fairly annoying. Battlefront 2 looks fairly simplistic and not all that great. I'd rather have a $25-30 seasons pass that have lots of good content. Too many gamers apparently fall for microtransations, unlocks and other gimmicks otherwise publishers wouldn't think of this in the first place.
 
Gweenz said:
His cherry-picked calculations say 2.5 hours every day for a year. Every. Day. So to hit his numbers you have to play each and every game you buy for 912.5 hours per year. These games aren't that good.
Click to expand...

No game is that good.

I'm lucky if I get 2.5 hours of total game time in a week, and I have more than one game...
 
Flogger23m said:
Now they way they handle it in MP games is fairly annoying. Battlefront 2 looks fairly simplistic and not all that great. I'd rather have a $25-30 seasons pass that have lots of good content. Too many gamers apparently fall for microtransations, unlocks and other gimmicks otherwise publishers wouldn't think of this in the first place.
Click to expand...

Except season passes were more like $50, and with the smattering of content released over the course of a year with the community split, at least with most of the EA/DICE games from the past decade, they've been a waste of time. It still happens in battlefield 1 and it's not even that old. New content comes out, two weeks later you're lucky if you can find more than a couple servers actually running the content because the rest sit empty since half the community never bought the content and the moment a server switches to a map from one of the DLC packs the server gets emptied. It was the same in hardline, battlefield 4, and battlefield 3.
 
Meh, the wallstreet guru's numbers can work but are exaggerated. I've bought one new/release day game via steam at $60 this year. The rest of the new games have been 10-20% off deals via various places like humble or amazon. In the end, prices are what the market will bear and with so much competition out there now, good luck raising prices anymore than they already have with DLC and season pass stuff.

Oh, and GoG just started their black friday sale fyi.
 
I don't buy games at release much at all anymore, last 2 games I bought (pre-order) Titanfall 2 and The Division. The steam sale is pretty much where I get my games because frankly I'm just not much into multiplayer anymore, unless its co-op. To many immature players screaming obscenities/ racist comments/ and talking about screwing my mom / girlfriend / wife. That scene killed multiplayer for me, that and cheaters.
 
nutzo said:
Somebody need to go back to school and take an economics class since they obviously don't understand capitalism.

If you want your product to be successful, you do NOT price it based on some made up formula or what you think it is worth.
You price it based on what will bring you the best return on your investment.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They forgot how basic price setting works.

Proper price setting is based on what the market will bear. To get an idea of this, it makes sense to look at what other companies are charging for their games. If yours costs significantly more, chances are - unless it is fucking spectacular - customers are going to go elsewhere.

This analyst is comparing pricing not with the games market but with entertainment as a whole, and that I do not think makes any sense, as I don't think consumers really cross-shop those things.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm going to post an updated version of what I posted in the last "cost of games" thread I participated in here in 2013.

It really depends on how you look at it. I cant read that PCGamer article, as this is a screenshot (well I could google it, but I haven't yet) but think of it this way:

In this scan of the 1991 Electronics Boutique catalog you can see that Sid Meier's Civilization (the original) cost $45 when it was launched, and it was pretty typical for a new game.

If we adjust for inflation, that's $80 in today's money according to the Consumer price index (CPI-U, 1991 to 2017)

The most expensive game in that catalog was a tie between Wing Commander II and F117A Stealth Fighter 2.0, both at $59.99. That's $110 in today's money.

What's even scarier, check out some of the list prices.... $79.99 for a game in 1991 dollars is over $145 today.

Add to that, that games have become vastly more complex and involved to program, write and create artwork for, some having a production budget of as much as $100 million. Games back then were made on a shoestring budget. You could have a few guys write a game. They didnt need a huge production like they do today.

On the flip side, there are likely a lot more sales today than there were in 1991. It was a completely different market them. Not as many people had computers at home and were buying games, so today there are more buyers to spread the costs of development out over.

In many cases when accounting for inflation and the ever growing complexity of games, we are actually getting a whole lot, for a whole lot less than we used to in games.
Click to expand...

Yes games were expensive in the early 90s, and the gaming market in my country literally consisted of about a dozen people who could both afford them and also were interested in games. But the market for gaming magazines were huge, as people still gamed, only they pirated every game. If they want that back sure they can raise prices. To me even $60 price is over what I'm willing to spend on a standard (non collectors edition) game. I buy every new game around 40-45 on key seller sites.
 
If all he cares about is time played, then why wouldn't companies just design games to get people to play as often as possible for as long as possible because, you know "good value."

Except at some point it just becomes Farmville. It becomes work, and feels like stupid, infinite "arrow in the knee" sidequests that are all the same. At some point I feel like I'm not getting fed the meaty, good content fast enough and feel like devs should be paying me to keep playing because it's so boring.

I'd rather pay $5-10/hr for a really fun game than $0.10/hr for boring crap that's 100x as long.
 
Yeah the wall street journal same place i read an article about dropping demand for meat which didn't consider the massive price increases as part of the reason... it had to be something else, because people will buy the meat no matter what supposedly.
 
Uvaman2 said:
because people will buy the meat no matter what supposedly.
Click to expand...

there are better alternatives: "Pork, the other white meat." and "Eat mor chiken"

So go ahead, raise the prices and start charging $20/month and see how long it takes before gamers need to spend a wad of money to upgrade their PC and if they will continue gaming ... or not

I remember well the game called Pong. Took two to play and then PC games with single player became vogue and now it seems they are trying to direct it to online multi-player ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top