Games cost way too much.

[Jake]

"With phenomenal record-breaking video game preorders, Halo 2 is poised to generate more revenue in 24 hours than day-one sales of any full-feature movie in entertainment history, including Spider-Man 2, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and The Matrix Reloaded," boasted Microsoft in a statement.

From this Halo 2 story, etc etc yadda yadda.

Games are way too expensive.

I dislike that MS is gloating it up as a side effect of that fact.

And yes, Halo 2 will probably be awesome etc etc, but jeez.

[Chris]

Well, I think Microsoft is more emphasizing that lots of people will be playing the game, rather than the game is expensive.

And yes, games are too expensive, but then most games aren't going to sell as well as Halo 2. Games keep getting more expensive to make but I wonder if the gaming audience is proportionally increasing at the same rate.

[Lechimp]

Games are expensive, but at least they aren't as expensive as they used to be. I think Warcraft 1 sold for $70 or something like that.

[Jake]

Hi Chris my point wasn't that MS was trying to show that games were too expensive, I was just pointing out that Halo 2's preorders = "most money made ever" is kind of extreme.

Games keep getting more expensive to make but I wonder if the gaming audience is proportionally increasing at the same rate.

Probably not But fortunately publishers seem to want to compensate for this by raising the price to $60, which will surely increase the size of the udience. Woooo(t).

[jp-30]

Well, over here a movie is NZ$15 (at the cinema), NZ$40 on new release DVD, a CD is $NZ30 and a game is NZ$100.

So if I look at a dollar / hour value,

Movie - $7.50 hour for 2 hour movie

DVD - $20 / hour for a 2 hour movie. (which I might watch once a year on average I guess)

CD - $30 / hour (which I'll probably listen 2 three or 4 times, then the occasional song on 'random' on iTunes or my CD Changer.

PC Game - well , it varies on title, but I'm not exactly 'leet' and have 3 small kids & a wife vying for my time, so an average game might take me anywhere from 10-50 hours to complete. Let's go the lowere extreme, 10 hours worth of gameplay before I finish or abandon it. That's $10/hour. Not bad value compared with other forms of entertainment.

Also factor in a new book (hardcover) about NZ$50, paperback NZ$25.

Concert Ticket NZ$75 - $120 for a 2-3 hour show.

All in all PC games are probably as good value for money (if not better value for money) than most other types of comparable (music, movies, books) entertainment available.

The issue with video games being expensive is the higher initial outlay, and the real risk your purchase may not be as much fun as you'd hoped.

[jp-30]

Yeah, jeez. Even without inflation being considered, I recall paying around NZ$150 each for Tie Fighter, DOTT & Rebel Assault back in the early 90s.

Prices have dropped by 1/3 over the last 10-15 years (here at least), though maybe the markups at retail back then were huge, as it was a less competitive gaming environment and the software shops didn't need to worry about matching the big discount chains like they do these days.

[Jackal]

I agree that games are too expensive. (So are movies). Or I'm too poor. Or both. Yeah, both.

Beyond that, what a retarded comparison. Even if they were priced the same, which they obviously aren't, there are an infinite number of possible preorders, and finite number of movie tickets for one day. I wonder how they compare on day two.

[manny_c44]

Maybe as these game projects become larger and more bloated, profitable but less expensive games will find a place to co-exist. Like blockbuster movies versus the cheaper-made but sometimes usually better movies, ie Napolean Dynomite, Memento, etc.

Or maybe it will be like music, where indie music wilts away while Neu-Cock Rock dominates the globe....I'd rather not think about it

[Chris]

Hi Chris my point wasn't that MS was trying to show that games were too expensive, I was just pointing out that Halo 2's preorders = "most money made ever" is kind of extreme.

Hi Jake sorry I'm retarded.

Probably not But fortunately publishers seem to want to compensate for this by raising the price to $60, which will surely increase the size of the udience. Woooo(t).

It is completely crappy but games aren't actually increasing in price nearly as quickly as pretty much any other entertainment product. Again, it's still lame.

[Erwin_Br]

EVERYTHING is expensive nowadays. (Sorry. Just came back from the gas station and I think I'll sell my car and buy me a bike soon. )

--Erwin

[Tanukitsune]

I think games are consifered a luxury item in Spain...

But I agree games ARE too expensive, I only spend over 60€ on Collector's Editions (yes, I'm getting HL2 Gold... )....

But it's also true that some companies are getting the idea that some games shouldn't cost as much as the others, an expensive mediocre game is painfully horrible, but if it costs 20€ it's almost good...

I also have the feeling that having more titles to choose from also affects how you "see" the price label....

If a store has 20 new games they'll look more expensive than if the store has two new games.... Or maybe it's just me....

Anyway, I say:

Why bother buying a game when it comes out when it will cost less in a few months? I remember paying full price for XIII when it came out, one week later it's price was slashed by half...

Of course Collector's Editions cost more and more over the time...

I remember when games cost 5$... Now they cost 50$....

[Ninja Dodo]

I think games should be short, sweet and affordable. Who has time for 50 hour epics anyway? Couldn't they make an equally awesome game within 30 hours? I think a lot of games are really stretching the gameplay to clock an impressive number of hours, when they could have put all the awesomeness in a shorter and more effective game (which can then be made cheaper).

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I think games should be short, sweet and affordable.

Like me?

Who has time for 50 hour epics anyway? Couldn't they make an equally awesome game within 30 hours? I think a lot of games are really stretching the gameplay to clock an impressive number of hours, when they could have put all the awesomeness in a shorter and more effective game (which can then be made cheaper).

Hell, I have time for 50 hour epics! Everyone does, but they delude themselves into thinking they don't. But that depends, of course, on the game itself. Many games nowadays, at least according to the hardcore players, clock in around 15-20 hours, some claim they beat it in 10-15 hours. That's fine and dandy, but those games were probably designed to be run through. For me I prefer to savour most any game - take in the beautiful world, walk not run, interact with every single character if possible, look at stuff.... I have every right to, it's my money. What I suspect is that many gamers feel obliged to 'wolf down' the latest games so they can stay in sync with their gamer friends and not feel left out talking about how they finished Doom 3 two days after buying it.

When I finally finished Fable last week I clocked in at over 50 hours. Was I happy? Sh!t yeah! I let that damn world of Albion wash over me like molasses (as opposed to water) and I often would stop to just enjoy the views. But my enjoyment with also had a lot to do with how much good content was crammed in, there was always something to do and things to see. Plus I plan on replaying, this time as a different kind of hero and all the planning and decisions that entails. The same applies to Grand Theft Auto 3, Deus Ex, and similar titles.

I say as long as there's meaningful stuff to do and see, let the games be longer to encourage you to linger (but not necessarily all games, of course).

[Ninja Dodo]

You have a point, and I think I play games in a very similar way to you... I too like to savour every little bit of the game world and its inhabitants. However, I don't know if it's a short attention span, lacking memory or something else, but I really, really, deeply, hate interrupting stories. If I get a book I'll usually read it cover to cover in a few days. If I play a game that's got even a hint of narrative, I feel compelled to play it for long stretches at a time, rather than just play maybe one or two hours a day. Now there's a difference between making time and having time and putting aside all other business for 50 hours of semi-continuous epic goodness, while satisfying isn't always very practical.

I can get away with this in the summer cause I've got all the spare time I want, but in the middle of the academic year it's not really doable.

[Beef]

hey, I would pay 50 euros for a 50h epic game.

What I'm much less inclined to buy are 6 hours action games that cost 60euros. Which accounts for most top games this and last year.

Check out the postmorten om Stardock's political machine, $200,000 budget and 6 months dev time. Plus they're putting it on stardock central. I call that a win.

If some games are 60 euros, that's fine, if I get for my money's worth. As long as there are a lot of lower budget games.

[Erwin_Br]

Hehe, reminds me of what I read yesterday in Gilbert's Grumpy Gamer:

But the lower price point could leave some buyers with the feeling that the game isn't worth the full price, and that somethings wrong with it. Game players are always screaming about wanting lower prices, but the truth is, if you lower the price too far, people stop buying it (unless it's a high profile game).

--Erwin

[Roderick]

I think we have websites such as Idle Thumbs to inform us and prevent us from not buying those games. I certainly hope that in the nearby future we'll change the attitude that cheaper = worse. I've got the feeling that publishers are actually revelling in that excuse. ,,Look guys, we HAVE to make it expensive, otherwise you won't buy it". Let's steal that excuse away from them.

[Chris]

It's actually a common phenomenon not just in the games industry but in retail in general. With the obvious exception of people on a specific budget, many consumers will be wary of buying the brand of a product that is the absolute cheapest, and in many cases the second-cheapest sells the best. Of course, as a college student with a severely limited money flow, this approach could not be more foreign to me, but it definitely exists.

[Jake]

People don't consider $20 cheap, though, in general. If I see a game for $10 or $15, unless it's a marked down former best seller or other sort of high profile game (eg grim fandango jewel case edition, or dvd case version of giants citizen kabuto), i generally avoid that, but things priced around $20 in standard packaging with attractive box art, on the main "new games" shelf in retail stores at least get looked at and considered by me.

[Chris]

Right, so that could be like what I described, the "second cheapest" phenomenon.

[Jake]

I hate you and I'm tired of reading your posts.

[Chris]

Lame.

[MrHoatzin]

Lame.

I salute you Chris Remo. I salute you for showing capacity to be succinct.

[Chris]

I salute you Chris Remo. I salute you for showing capacity to be succinct.

Thank you, Kingzjester, also known as S. Zivandadznedavec, thank you for your vote of confidence in regards to my ability to concisely convey my thoughts over the internet. I appreciate this newfound respect I seem to have earned despite past suggestions that I construct messages that are far too unnecessarily long, resulting in extraneous redundancy and an overall lack of clarity. I salute you, Kingzjester. I salute you for showing capacity to salute.

[Wormsie]

Chris is a bitch.