So I guess 59.99 is finally the new price point for PC games..

Portal 2 and The Witcher 2 (both AAA releases) are for sale at $49 or below. The only reason other games need to be released at $60 is to support the mostly dead weight of too large monolithic publishers like EA and Activision. A cadre of C-level execs and more vice-presidents than you can shake a stick at cost a lot of money.
 
an image from pazhman in genmay on a similar discussion
UW6Cm.jpg


this price point is nothing new
 
DA2 with all the DLC will be $30 by Christmas. Wait until Spring of 2012 and it will be $15. Who cares what the price is at launch? That's the sucker price. Steam will have it on super sale down the road. Take a look at the games I've been playing:

Assassin's Creed 2: $12
Darksiders: $10
Borderlands: $10
L4D2: $10
Just Cause 2: $7.50
Metro 2033: $10-15 (can't remember)

That's about $60 of games right there... I have others as well, and it has created a big enough back log that I have no need to buy games when they come out anymore.

Edit: TETRIS FOR $50!!! TETRIS!
 
that's why I'm on the lookout for sales now more then ever...pre-ordered Crysis 2 from Newegg a few days back at $49.99...still too high but any savings is better then nothing
 
They expect us to pay the "console tax" despite the lower costs of publishing on the PC.

Sucks.

As for me, I'll wait until the price hits $50 or less.
 
I'm willing to buy games new, if they're willing to price them reasonably and cut it out with the DLC BS. What is DLC BS?... things like EA making you buy part of DA2 separately if you want it on Steam. Or paid DLC that resolves or continues plot threads that should have been handled in the game proper (Lair of the Shadow Broker, Witch Hunt) or held off for the sequel. LoTSB was great content, but it felt like it should have been in the game. Overlord was OK DLC as it didn't directly address a plot begun in the first or second game, it was true additional content, not ransomed content.

Games with DLC like that aren't $60... they're $75, or $85, or more.

I had been buying Bioware games new and full price for a long time, but after that nonsense started they are now on my bargain bin list.
 
The DLC issue is actually a bit worse when you combine it with the new digital distribution and single license system. Without these you could buy the game at release, then sell/gift your copy and buy the GOTY version getting all the DLC at once. Now your options (since they don't put all the DLC into one expansion usually) is you buy the game for for $60 on release, buy each DLC for $5-$15, then find out 1-2 years later the GOTY version (with everything) is like $30-40 (even cheaper on sale).

I guess the "extended demo" option is appealing lol...
 
The best new games, and PC exclusives are still $49.99 MSRP or less. The ones charging $59.99 are mostly just console ports. Who needs them?

Shogun 2 Total War $49.99
Portal 2 $49.99
The Witcher 2 $49.99

So I don't see myself paying $59.99 for a game anytime soon.
 
You will find those games that charge 59 dollars are all from EA and Activision..

Anything else still stay in normal ... so not much to worry about for me at least..
 
tokey43074 said:
an image from pazhman in genmay on a similar discussion

this price point is nothing new
Click to expand...
That also figures in Nintendo's play-to-pay scheme and the price of the cartridges themselves. Discs and digital distribution don't add $15-$25 to the cost of the games.
 
I don't understand why Modern Warfare 2 is still $59.99. Who the fuck just bought this game recently for there to be so much demand for it at that price point over a year later? :confused:

Not that I'm saying its that great of a game but I would like to go thru the single player campaign just for the hell of it. At $19.99 or cheaper though...
 
Guess I am lucky. I will only pay new prices for BF games. Everything else i can wait until they are $5-20.

EA can eat a bowls of ducks. WAY to corporate six sigma nuckleheads.
 
fattypants said:
That also figures in Nintendo's play-to-pay scheme and the price of the cartridges themselves. Discs and digital distribution don't add $15-$25 to the cost of the games.
Click to expand...

that scan must be from around 1988. surely you can understand a price increase over the last 20 years? for a not-so-scientific comparison, the national average wage index in '88 was around 20K and today it's around 40K. in theory we're spending a smaller percentage of our income for games. again, not a matter-of-fact comparison but you see what i'm saying.
 
Demon10000 said:
It may sound stupid, but this is the reason I haven't picked up Dead Space 2. I have a huge backlog (don't we all). I'm not a pre-order kind of guy, so I didn't even pay much attention to the price until release, and after I had finished Dead Space 1. When I saw it was $60, I figured I'd go take care of some of my backlog instead of adding something else to the pile...

Not complaining about the price... but had it been $39.99 instead of $59.99... I'd have picked it up on day 1. Instead, I'll probably get it for $20 in a couple years...
Click to expand...
Too bad you missed the sale on Amazon a few weeks ago. They were selling it $39.95 and I snagged a copy. The funny thing is that they were selling the download version for $59. Fuck that.
 
Eh, I thought 59.95 was the new pricepoint due to the failure of DLC to attract a lot of buyers. But then they announce bulletstorn has DLC. grrrrrr. I might just boycott games with DLC until gold versions are available. Takes about a year and a half. This whole "milk money from the player" thing is annoying.
 
I don't have a problem with 60$ new game prices, if you can afford it, buy it! If you can't afford all the games you want new, wait 1/2 year and it'll be 40-50% off, 1 year and it'll be 75% off, 2 years and 90% off. Of course, if you want to save some dough like me, you can always wait for Black Friday/Christmas :D
 
Bulletstorm is a console port. Most console ports are looking at the $60 target. I wont pay $60 for a game. Funny to think that you guys think you need to fork out $60 when there are nameless alternatives.
 
Thankfully, Duke Nukem Forever is launching for PC at $49 as I honestly have a hard time swallowing $59 for PC games. The good news is that us PC gamers have Steam to rely on, and thus we just need to be patient enough. I have no problems paying $59 if the game warrants that kind of price. However there is no way in hell i'll pay $59 for yet another console port among a sea of already crappy console ports. Almost all games released these days qualify for this.

The good news is that we consumers have the power. If enough of us don't like $59 PC games and don't buy at release, then it won't be long until they either get the message or take it the wrong way and abandon the PC market completely.......
 
fattypants said:
That also figures in Nintendo's play-to-pay scheme and the price of the cartridges themselves. Discs and digital distribution don't add $15-$25 to the cost of the games.
Click to expand...

No but the current price does reflect the cost of development. Something that took maybe a 20 man team to do on a nintendo cartridge back in the day now consists of hundreds of people.


R&D costs money, then you have production costs, post production costs, lawyer fee's to make sure no copyrights are being taken advantage of and lets not forget marketing costs.


All of this before a single box is printed and a disc is stamped. In the grand scheme of things is $60 for a brand new title really that much to bitch about.

You complain about the high cost of games but don't take in to account the high cost to produce a game. If you cut the budget to cut the final cost the game isn't going to sell because its going to look and play like crap.
 
Nightbird said:
I don't have a problem with 60$ new game prices, if you can afford it, buy it! If you can't afford all the games you want new, wait 1/2 year and it'll be 40-50% off, 1 year and it'll be 75% off, 2 years and 90% off. Of course, if you want to save some dough like me, you can always wait for Black Friday/Christmas :D
Click to expand...

If only reality followed such a pricing trend. Realistically a popular game thats $60 today will be $60 next year too maybe $50 in 2 years. You just have to watch for the sales.
 
BurntToast said:
Bulletstorm is a console port. Most console ports are looking at the $60 target. I wont pay $60 for a game. Funny to think that you guys think you need to fork out $60 when there are nameless alternatives.
Click to expand...

And there is the spoiled PC gamer sentiment i was expecting... "Dont you dare try and pass off a console port to me for $60 it must contain more than the console version AND be cheaper!" :rolleyes: Leaves a lot of reasons for Devs to cater to PC gamers dont it, its a whole community that wants more for less and either way it will make less money. Im honestly surprised given the big money sink PC gaming is that we are not paying MORE than the console versions at this point. Thats generally how it works with the less profitable platform not the reverse.

I think we are long past due for a price increase in the PC department. Its been a long damn time in coming. It always sucks when prices go up for sure but its not really unrealistic.

If the console version is worth $60 and has been for some time why would the PC version be worth less?
 
tokey43074 said:
You complain about the high cost of games but don't take in to account the high cost to produce a game. If you cut the budget to cut the final cost the game isn't going to sell because its going to look and play like crap.
Click to expand...

This guy from THQ is referring this to console games, but PC games could suffer the same fate because most of them are console ports.

"It still costs us a fortune to make games on this platform," he said. "If they're going to up the scale, up the art, up the content, I don't know how to make that and sell it to anybody for under $100 a game. Who wants to do that? It's bad for everybody."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-01-19-thq-new-consoles-would-be-horrible

Who is going to pay $100 or more for a game?
 
I would pay $100 for a Battlefield game b/c I would get my moneys worth out of it even at that price. People pay WAY more than that for WoW. If you play something daily, $100 isn't much.

BUT how do you know that you will get that much gameplay out of it? Sketchy.
 
dark_reign said:
This guy from THQ is referring this to console games, but PC games could suffer the same fate because most of them are console ports.

"It still costs us a fortune to make games on this platform," he said. "If they're going to up the scale, up the art, up the content, I don't know how to make that and sell it to anybody for under $100 a game. Who wants to do that? It's bad for everybody."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-01-19-thq-new-consoles-would-be-horrible

Who is going to pay $100 or more for a game?
Click to expand...

I agree its a double edged sword. keep it looking as beautiful as everyone expects and the consumer wont purchase it because it is going to cost too much, cut the costs and the consumer isn't going to buy it because it looks like crap

The addition of name brands in the game will help with the funding. That being said thats only a treatment for one of the symptoms. Not the cure we are looking for. We may never find it. We have beeing paying out the nose since the 80's for the latest games and we will continue to do so until either the industry goes belly up or we find a solution to the problem. Until that happens I am happy paying $60 for a game I just absolutely have
to get the day it comes out. And with a mild idea of the cost of development I would suspect most people wont mind either. If you don't like the price there is always the bargain bin and hunting for sales.

A game will eventually hit your price point. The only other issue is, do you still want to play it when it gets there. That being said I love the barging bin and the steam sales. I also don't mind paying full price for a game at launch if I absolutely have to have it.
 
New? There was already a whiny thread post about this for SC2 last year and it was confirmed that Warcraft III was also $60, a game released about 8 years earlier. So games have gone that high for at least that long ago. But yeah, I guess Activision used a time machine and got to Blizzard 8 years ago. :D (love how Activision can be the scapegoat for just about everything we don't like these days).
 
The price point that maximizes profits is the same old price point for all games.
If $60 is more common (not new by any stretch as has been pointed out) it's because consumers have proven we'll pay for it -- when it's worth it, or when we think it's work it anyway.

On the flip side digital distribution has given rise to commercially viable $5 and $10 and $20 games both on the PC and consoles in record numbers. 5 or 10 years ago if your game was on sale for $10 just a month after release it meant it was a financial disaster and a prelude to bankruptcy proceedings. But with XBLA, PSN, Steam et al it is not only a viable business model but something many developers target.

There's so much more diversity in the pricing and value of games that publishers as well as consumers are more free now than ever to decide what the entertainment value of a particular title is to them. Quite honestly, I love it. The polish and precision of a good $60 game is every bit a pleasing as a the one gem of game-play brilliance surrounded in poor finish, voice acting, and sloppy UI you get in a $10 indie game.
 
I've played quite a few low budget indies lately that easily surpass big budget titles. Super Meat Boy and Defense Grid come to mind right away, as do Braid, Aquaria, World of Goo, Torchlight, Trine...
 
Hate to say it but i used to pay this sort of price for Atari ST and Amiga games back in the late 80 early 90's. I remember paying £30 for Operation Thunderbolt. Badass game back then. £30 for Midwinter too. Awesome. I paid £60 for Street Fighter 2 on megadrive. Game prices dropped for a few years then normalised.

If you dont like the prices they are paying then wait a month or two.

NFS Hot Pursuit £12.99 in the shops now. Booyah!. If you really have to have the game at launch then suck it up and pay the price. Or wait a month or 2 for prices to come down.

Only the Activision games are still at stupid prices but us ELITES are too awesome to play those childish games they release right.. RIGHT?:p
 
polonyc2 said:
that's why I'm on the lookout for sales now more then ever...pre-ordered Crysis 2 from Newegg a few days back at $49.99...still too high but any savings is better then nothing
Click to expand...

Should have pre-ordered it back in April of 2010 when I did. List price was $49.95 and I was able to use the PAX2010 code for $20 off and free shipping. $29.95 shipped for me.
 
spaceman said:
I would pay $100 for a Battlefield game b/c I would get my moneys worth out of it even at that price. People pay WAY more than that for WoW. If you play something daily, $100 isn't much.

BUT how do you know that you will get that much gameplay out of it? Sketchy.
Click to expand...
I agree with this statement. Games I've gotten more than my money's worth:
Morrowind
Oblivion
BF2
BF1942
BC2
Minecraft
Unreal 2004
TF2
HL2
Portal
Fallout 3 GOTY
Just Cause 2

I would have easily paid 50% more for those.

But with most games, I feel like I'm not quite breaking even; should have paid less for them.
 
The pre-order for Rift was $59.99 for CE and $49.99 for standard. Throw in the fact that unless you absolutely NEED boxed copies, D2D has ran at least two 20% off deals this month. So look around and you can usually find a deal somewhere without always having to pay full price.
 
+1 for getting games on sale on steam. They can make the starting price $100 as long as it eventually make it down to 10 bucks Ill buy em.
 
If you factor in inflation, $59.99 is still a steal for what has traditionally been $49.99

let's round these figures to $60 and $50 respectfully. $60 is a 20% increase in price

let's say inflation is at 3% per year

1.03^X = 1.2

X is approximately 6

meaning that if the price of video games was $49.99 for more than 6 years then the increase is justified(and then some, think of all the years that they DIDN'T raise the price to keep up with inflation, that's a lot of lost profit).
 
I personally don't think I'll be paying $60 for many games. I'm a little miffed since the higher price was justified when it happened originally be the console licensing fee. They said "Well we've got to pay a per copy license on the consoles, so this make that up." Ok fine. However now some publishers have apparently decided that is just what games should cost period. Sorry, not so interested. Not saying I'll never pay it, but I'm much less inclined.

Also I get a little miffed by the increasing prices without any kind of return policy. You want more money for the product? Fine but then I need some assurance if it isn't a good product I can get my money back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top