Video Game Pricing - Fair or Not Fair

[Zeusthecat]

I think this discussion is worthy of a new topic. My opinion is that a $60 price tag is a pretty fair price for many games considering that price has stayed relatively flat over the last 25 years even though development costs (for AAA games at least) have continued to go up. I've even come around to being pretty okay with developers or publishers carving out parts of their game ahead of time so they can release it as paid DLC. Making games isn't cheap and people in the games industry are worked to the bone as it is so I don't mind paying a little extra in a lot of cases.

 

But there's a whole lot of factors at play and I'm sure it's not a black and white issue. Some games seem more fairly priced at $60 and some games don't. Some DLC feels exploitative and some of it is great and can improve the overall experience of a game. Let's talk it out.

 

And also, I'm quoting dartmonkey's question here as I think it is pertinent to the discussion:

 

Not wanting to drag the debate out, but I'd be interested to hear the recent games people willingly payed the full £39.99/€49.99/$59.99 launch day price for.

 

The last ones for me were Dark Souls 2, Mario Kart 8 and Mario 3D World.

 

[itsamoose]

Personally I wouldn't consider AAA games to be $60 USD. DLC is often planned as part of, or even before the main game is designed, and often times this is released pretty close to launch. I think that of game prices had increased in the last 25 years this wouldn't be the case, but at the moment it seems to be the model.

What really frustrates me are mobile game prices, where people will give your game a low rating for no other reason than you had the gall to charge $5 for it. The bottom is also starting to fall out on indie game prices, or perhaps more studios are transitioning into mid size studios.

Ultimately I hate this. Movies are all of a pretty standard size, as are music albums, or they at least scale appropriately. Games can vary to such a degree that I think the whole idea of a standard price doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I wish games were priced more like books or art, where there isn't a need to design your game for a particular price point.

[Cordeos]

I think this discussion is worthy of a new topic. My opinion is that a $60 price tag is a pretty fair price for many games considering that price has stayed relatively flat over the last 25 years even though development costs (for AAA games at least) have continued to go up. I've even come around to being pretty okay with developers or publishers carving out parts of their game ahead of time so they can release it as paid DLC. Making games isn't cheap and people in the games industry are worked to the bone as it is so I don't mind paying a little extra in a lot of cases.

 

But there's a whole lot of factors at play and I'm sure it's not a black and white issue. Some games seem more fairly priced at $60 and some games don't. Some DLC feels exploitative and some of it is great and can improve the overall experience of a game. Let's talk it out.

 

And also, I'm quoting dartmonkey's question here as I think it is pertinent to the discussion:

 

I used to care more about video game pricing, but thanks to steam sales I pick up so many games for so cheap and have such a broad array of games available that I am willing to wait for prices to come down. To some people GTA 5 is worth $60, I plan on waiting until it is around $20 to buy it. My only price annoyance is when a rather old game is still close to the original price. You have to decide how much games are worth to you. I can't remember what the last game I bought at launch for $60 even was (maybe Europa Universalis 4), I have pre-ordered Just Cause 3 so I do still do it occasionally.

 

I would like to point out that many AAA games have unneeded multiplayer components that often don't survive long after the games launch, perhaps they could save some money by not tacking on a bad multiplayer component to a single player game.

[dium]

I was about to make a post about how full-price video game pricing is practically irrelevant to me since I buy the majority of my games at steep discounts during sales and promotions. But then I started answering dartmonkey's question and I realized how that isn't really true anymore... mainly due to Nintendo.

 

The last video game I bought at full launch-day price was Splatoon. Other full price games I bought this past year before that (not necessarily in this order): Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros WiiU+3DS, Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate. I checked my Steam list just now and apparently I also bought Cities Skylines and Grim Fandango Remastered for what is currently "full price" but I can't remember if those were launch prices or not (they're both under $30).

[Thrik]

One thing that's definitely unfair is that I can almost always get a brand new boxed copy of games for much cheaper than on in-console digital stores. Worse, whereas retail copy pricing often drops rapidly, it's not uncommon to find the digital versions still at top price months way after release, sometimes after years.

Obviously anybody can go and buy them from a shop, but the digital convenience can be lovely so it really sucks to feel like you have to get ripped off to enjoy it. I've started just not checking Amazon/IRL store prices because I know I'll get annoyed and stop myself buying it if I become aware of how bad a deal I'm getting.

[dium]

To answer the main question of the thread, though: I don't really find any of the pay-once pricing schemes in video games to be unreasonably high. In fact it's much more common for me to find prices surprisingly low (especially with mobile, like itsamoose brought up).

 

Other pricing schemes, like subscriptions and DLC, are much too variable for me to assess as a whole. Certain examples seem exploitative maybe, but it's a case-by-case thing. The really worrying trends tend to be related to games I have no interest in (whale-hunting "social" games... or Star Citizen) so I have less to say about those.

[Zeusthecat]

One thing that's definitely unfair is that I can almost always get a brand new boxed copy of games for much cheaper than on in-console digital stores. Worse, whereas retail copy pricing often drops rapidly, it's not uncommon to find the digital versions still at top price months way after release, sometimes after years.

Obviously anybody can go and buy them from a shop, but the digital convenience can be lovely so it really sucks to feel like you have to get ripped off to enjoy it. I've started just not checking Amazon/IRL store prices because I know I'll get annoyed and stop myself buying it if I become aware of how bad a deal I'm getting.

 

I hadn't really given much thought to digital pricing as I still pretty much exclusively buy physical copies but I think that is a really good point. I have a hard time understanding why a digital copy of a game should ever be more expensive than a physical copy.

[itsamoose]

I hadn't really given much thought to digital pricing as I still pretty much exclusively buy physical copies but I think that is a really good point. I have a hard time understanding why a digital copy of a game should ever be more expensive than a physical copy.

I think the argument here is that you can't "lose" it, for example I lost the second disc in ME2 halfway through playing it. Also you don't have to worry about a digital copy getting scratched, and finally the whole retail space thing for physical copies. I would imagine the reason digital games don't go down in price is because at some point they become the only way to find the game, and companies just don't see a reason to lower the price on a game that probably isn't a real money maker for them anymore. Though nowadays basically all online stores have sales, which seem to be the digital version of a price markdown.

[Cordeos]

I hadn't really given much thought to digital pricing as I still pretty much exclusively buy physical copies but I think that is a really good point. I have a hard time understanding why a digital copy of a game should ever be more expensive than a physical copy.

 

I was at an EB games once, they had Battlefield 1942 with all expansions for $20, they also had Battlefield 1942 with all expansions and Battlefield Vietnam for $15. I asked an employee about it and his response was "I don't know, I just work here." 

I think the issue with digital pricing is that its trivial to check what other sellers are charging, which can be harder for stores. They also have limited space and try to clear inventory with sales.

[dium]

It's especially hard to understand from the perspective of someone who buys a lot on Steam, where the absolute opposite is true. Console digital stores seem so unfriendly by comparison and it's why I've never really used them. Steam has set an expectation that they don't even try to meet.

[syntheticgerbil]

I do think $60 is fair for some big blockbuster multi million dollar game, because you pay a more premium price for the graphics and it would be silly to think otherwise. Only problem is I very rarely ever buy a game at $60 because 1) I often have no money and 2) I have such a backlog of games to finish, buying a new one makes me feel guilty and irresponsible.

 

But I do think DLC chunks are a fair enough way for developers to subvert loses for used game sales, however I think it's a bit of a balance. But to this:

I would like to point out that many AAA games have unneeded multiplayer components that often don't survive long after the games launch, perhaps they could save some money by not tacking on a bad multiplayer component to a single player game.

Yeah, this annoys the shit out of me. Trying to extend the life of your game by adding some half assed multiplayer and attaching trophies or achievements or whatever for completionists is a pointless waste of money and developer's lives that I am pretty much sure they don't recoup if you add in server cost. I'm looking at you Tomb Raider 2013. Hopefully Crystal Dynamics doesn't even bother with a poorly made multiplayer mode in the new one.

 

I think the argument here is that you can't "lose" it, for example I lost the second disc in ME2 halfway through playing it. Also you don't have to worry about a digital copy getting scratched, and finally the whole retail space thing for physical copies. I would imagine the reason digital games don't go down in price is because at some point they become the only way to find the game, and companies just don't see a reason to lower the price on a game that probably isn't a real money maker for them anymore. Though nowadays basically all online stores have sales, which seem to be the digital version of a price markdown.

I feel like almost a decade ago when digital games were not really a thing people paid for, the argument for them was they would be somewhat cheaper because it cuts out costs on having to pay for pressing discs, printing covers, and shipping product. It seems like that never caught on and I am still to this day confused why a digital game costs the same as a boxed copy. Seems like a publisher would want to give incentive for that.

[JonCole]

Do you guys really have a problem buying finding (updated for clarity) digital games at a discount? Xbox and Playstation have both gotten so much better at pricing things well on their respective stores, I just bought Payday 2 for $40 (from $50) during the first week it was out. I just bought Borderlands: The Handsome Collection for $30 (50% off) about two months after it came out. Both stores have scheduled monthly sales and "free with subscription"-esque deals all the time. I just didn't have to buy Journey on PS4 again because I bought it previously on PS3.

 

I guess I could understand complaints that they don't reduce the regular price fast enough or they don't have /enough/ sales, but on the whole I don't think digital is particularly more expensive than physical.

[syntheticgerbil]

I feel like on release day, digital games should be $5-10 less than the physical counterparts, things going on sale later kind of muddy the equation.

[SecretAsianMan]

The best reasoning I can think of for digital games not dropping in price as often is the additional costs associated with it being purely digital.  The costs of manufacturing a physical copy can be built into the price of the game, are a finite and known quantity, and are a one time cost.  The cost of stocking and storage belongs to the storefront.  Digital games require server space to store the game as well as network usage to actually download it.  These are ongoing costs because you can't just shut those servers down if you want your customers to have access to it.  Since you don't know when people will get it or how many of them will be downloading it, you sort of need to maintain them indefinitely.  I would imagine the costs of server and network upkeep are comparatively less than those of physical manufacturing, but one has a known end while the other doesn't.

 

Then again I might have no idea what I'm talking about.

[itsamoose]

I feel like on release day, digital games should be $5-10 less than the physical counterparts, things going on sale later kind of muddy the equation.

Well in this case, you're basically asking developers to make less money on their game--I don't see Microsoft or Sony willing to take less of a cut. Part of the reason this isn't the case are the costs associated with digital games (patches, licensing, etc), at least on consoles anyway. It may not seem like it, but it is incredibly difficult to make money on a game, and reducing the price because there isn't a physical medium makes those margins even smaller.

On the other hand, keeping the prices the same allows you to more easily share profits with the development team, get physical retailers to participate in your marketing, and has some ancillary benefits. This probably isn't a popular opinion, but I don't see the need to artificially lower a game's price, particularly since that is what lead to the whole race to the bottom we see on mobile. In fact I'd go as far as to say that the margins on digital sales are what have kept game prices as low as they are.

[dium]

...get physical retailers to participate in your marketing...

 

 

This is where my mind immediately goes when I think about this. It makes sense to me that physical and digital pricing would be the same in part due to business relations with big retailers.

[Azniac]

I generally don't consider games as a whole to be too expensive. I have a big enough backlog at any given point that I always have something to play, so if I can't justify paying launch price for a game, I don't mind waiting for the price to drop.

 

Regarding DLC, I'm totally on board with the concept, but once I've 'finished' a game, it's hard for me to go back to it. I feel like I'd be better off waiting, in some cases, for all the DLC to launch before I buy a game. I don't mind the extra cost associated with the DLC, I just don't return to games I've finished very often.

 

I also think The Witcher 3 was discounted if you preordered it digitally on the Xbox One. I remember paying $55 for it as opposed to $60 when I preordered it the day before it launched. I liked that.

[Patrick R]

I actually have guilt about how Steam has enabled me to have such a huge library of games while paying so very little, but on the other hand there was a good 2 years of my life where I stopped playing video games altogether because I didn't have a console and didn't think my computer was good enough to run anything. Now I just buy things when there are sales and if my computer can't run them I can be confident that they'll be in my Steam library later on when I have one that can. 

 

I generally don't pay full retail price for anything. The last time I bought a 60 dollar game was Left 4 Dead 2, because my laptop came with a 50 dollar Microsoft store gift card. Other than that, last games I paid full price for were Gone Home and Spelunky and both were under 30.

[Griddlelol]

I think games are pretty reasonable. If you can hold yourself and not buy a game on release, you can get a fantastic deal. Avoiding the marketing hype is the hardest part.

I think when it comes to digital games, I don't mind paying a little extra for the convenience, but how many are technically not mine rather, I have just bought the licence to use them, which can be revoked at any time. That's what concerns me. It's working right now, but how long until a company fails and leaves the business? What happens to my stuff then?

[jennegatron]

I pay full price for WoW expansions. Other than that, I'm willing to pay full price for 3DS games, but because I get super bored of combat/violence as core mechanic games, I am never really in a position where I want a $60 AAA title. Shockingly enough, there just aren't that many $60 games where you just farm vegetables!

[Gormongous]

The last time I bought a game on release at full price was Total War: Rome 2, which has influenced my subsequent thinking on the subject. Sega is exceptionally bad with its DLC practices, though.

[Zeusthecat]

One thing I've also been wondering is if the poor state of working conditions in the game industry is directly related to the current price of games. For instance, if games were to double in price and somehow maintain the same number of sales would the result be less of a need to crunch and squeeze 80 hour work weeks out of people who are making the same salary regardless? I like to think that some of the more noble companies would apply the increased revenue towards hiring more staff and more evenly distributing the workload to allow a situation where everyone is working 40 hour weeks consistently instead of needing to crunch for weeks, months, or years on end. But of course other companies would probably just continue the same practices so they can further line the pockets of investors and shareholders.

 

I think an interesting experiment would be for a company to try raising the price of their games by a substantial amount but with the promise that the increased price would put them in a situation where it would create a better working environment for their employees. Personally, I would pay $120 for a game if I knew that everyone working on it was paid a fair wage and never had to work more than 40 hours per week. I'm sure it would result in a higher quality product too.

[syntheticgerbil]

No, the problem is if you aren't working 80 hour weeks, you just aren't passionate about games man, and you need to get out.

[itsamoose]

I toured a studio once where this criticism was brought up, and the response was "We don't pay you to work here, we pay you to live while you work here". Personally I've never had a problem with crunch time when I've had to endure it, but then again I don't have a family or anyone that really depends on me.

[elmuerte]

I quite often buy games at "full" price. I prefer to get physical copies when available, and of course I will buy from the cheapest trustworthy (online) retailer close to me. I also buy those overpriced collectors edition when they contain interesting physical parts.

But that's only for games I'm instantly going to install and play.

Games I might want to play some time will be bought when I really want to play it at that point, or when it's discounted. The latter usually happens earlier because of the huge backlog.

I also buy pretty much every humble bundle and pay at least the tier to get everything even though I might have most of the games already (this really isn't helping my backlog).

 

Do I think games are worth $60. Yes, a lot of them are. But the thing is, people will more easily buy 2 games at $30 than 1 game at $60. Especially considering how some studios have been putting out games. You cannot bank on people like me. You also needs to reach out to people who will probably give your game a try at $40.

There's a lot of price psychology going on here. At $60 you will get less sales, dropping quickly to $40 might give the indication it's not that good and they want to rake in as much sales while the title is still actively discussed. Drop to $40 too late and you will disappear in obscurity.

 

DLC has similar effects. You basically want to release your first DLC about a month after release when active players start to drop. The DLC will give you a spotlight again. But making it too expensive will scare people away. A second DLC can be release about half a year later for a short revival. If you release the second DLC too soon people will get the feeling they are being nickel and dime-d. Having a season pass construction often pushes people into the direction of "I'll wait till the goty version".

 

Conclusion... you're fucked either way with selling games.