Console Games too expensive?
 

Anyone else think that $50 is too much to pay for the average console game?

Personally, I find it hard to make impulse buys on games when they're $50 a shot. There are lots of games that look good but it's too much cash to risk. I just can't plop down that kind of cash on a game that might suck. Unless I know the game is great, like HALO or GTA III, I can't get myself to do it. I usually wait until it's been out for awhile and get it on ebay.

PC games are much easier to justify because they usually go on sale shortly after release and end up being $35.

I know renting is the best option, and I do it from time to time. But I wonder if the game makers would sell more games if they dropped them to $35-$40, and still make money?

I would love to see games drop into the $35-40 range, and I would definitely buy more games if they did. I don't know if it's going to happen though. It seems like they've been $50 for a long time now.

Out of the amount of time you spend with the games I think $50 is a good number. Remember. there were times when some console games were $85-90, Sword of Vermillion and Phantasy Star, while the rest of the ranges from $40 to 50.

NN

I think its a fair price compared to DVDs at $20. I don't think I have ever bought a video game on impulse, reviews always factor into the decision.

just wait... prices tend to drop. i think $50 is too much also (even w/ the amount of time of entertainment it provides).

but compare that to decent shows like musicals and it's not too bad... just has that stigma of frivolousness.

pick up some great games for the PS2 - the best seller series (total brain freeze... i forget what it's called).

Not to defend the companies but....

Video game prices have been at the fifty dollar point for quite some time despite the rising production costs.

Still, I would love it if games were around forty. I would also go for used games in retail stores if they weren't only five bucks off of the original price!

I remember going to Kay-Bee with my friend who had a Genesis and buying "Strider" for $80 bucks when it first came out. $50 doesn't seem like too much to me.

It only sucks when I don't feel like playing the game again. Then I would rather just rent. But I usually only buy what I know I am going to like, so I've never really felt it was too much.

That said, I look for $20-40 used/Greatest Hits games as much as possible.

50 bucks isn't too bad if it's a long game and/or has multiplayer capabilities.
Something like Super monkey ball can be played an infinite number of hours, so I can easily justify paying 50 for it.
Something like Resident Evil may only be worth renting since it's not that long of game and after you beat it you're pretty unlikely to pick it up again.

I made the choice of renting Eternal Darkness, instead of buying, and I'm glad I did. I beat the game in a couple days and I feel no desire to ever play it again.

I hear Metroid is going to be a fairly short game, and has no multiplayer in it...so that'll be another game that I just rent.

I would love it if games were in the $40 range but I don't see it happening. The main reason PC games are able to be cheaper is the lack of a licensing fee (usually $10-$12) paid to the console manufacturer. That pretty much accounts for the price difference, right there. I justify the $50 price by figuring that if I play the game and beat it, I can usually sell it on ebay for $30-$35. So, I only end up spending $10-$15 to play the game. Not too bad... :)

Aren't ps2 games supposed to start retailing at 39.95 soon? :hscratch: I thought I read that somewhere. Honestly, I'm happy with the price of the games. I remember NES games were 50 bucks like 15 years ago.

I think Sony games are now retailing for $39.99 however it does seem that most retailers still price them at $49.99.

of course third party games can still determine their own prices.

I love the greatest hits titles for this very reason. if you passed on a great game due to price you can then pick it up for $19.99 6-12 months later.

I wish MS and GC did this.

Heck Halo should have been $19.99 a long time ago yet they keep charging $49.99 for this title.

I think $50 is a decent price for video games. I know we would all be glad if they dropped to $40 or less, but think about what you get.

If you buy a DVD for $10 (a good price) you're spending $3-$5 per hour of entertainment. If you spend at least 10 hours playing a video game you're cost per hour of entertainment is $5. Somtimes you spend hundreds of hours playing one game (like Morrowind for me). In that case you're getting your entertainment for $0.25 an hour or less.

I know...some games are shorter than 10 hours and others just suck and you wish you never bought it. In those cases you hopefully found a deal, but I feel for you if you spent $50 on the game.

I just know there are games I would be willing to spend $100 on and there are games that aren't even worth $1 to me. I just like to put things in perspective for myself.

How long was PS2 out before they put out "Greatest Hits"? Xbox and Gamecube don't have a big enough catalog to do that yet and Halo is still selling too well to reduce the price. All the games that are getting discounted generally have slowed or never sold well.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Xbox or Gamecube greatest hits, but probably not until sometime next year.

I payed $50 for Sega GT, but that was the first one in at least 6 months. I have about 5 Xbox games I bought for $20. I probably won't buy anymore $50 games until Xbox Live. I'm sure it will be hard to find discounts on those games for a while and I'm gonna have to pick up a couple just to try it.

I will almost never buy a new game at $50. I will usually wait to purchase it on sale or used. $50 is too much to pay for a console game IMHO.

The only game that I can think of that actually DID debut at $39.99 is Mark of Kri. You can always take advantage of a few sales here and there, but if the majority of people are willing to pay $50 for something then that's what the manufacturers will charge.

Personally renting is a better value. I don't always have the cash to plunk down on a new game. Better to rent it first and see if it's worth purchasing.

:whofart:

man, you guys dont remembr buying snes games for 70-80 a pop?

You need to read up on Greatest Hits.
The GH line is for any game that has sold more than 400,000 copies and been out for at least 9 months, not for "games that never sold well". By your definition, Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2, Gran Turismo 1-3, Devil May Cry, Onimusha, all the Final Fantasy games, GTA3(soon to be GH), and about 150 other games "never sold well". GTA3 has sold over 7 million copies, and is still number 2 in sales. I remember reading not too long ago, when inquired about a line like Sony's Greatest Hits, Microsofts response was along the lines of "we make good enough games that we don't need to do a price drop to sell them". Nintendo said they won't have a line like that any time soon either as I recall.

$50 is way to much for a bad game, but a good game is worth so much more.

There are a number. GunMetal for the XBox would be another example, and there are rare occasions when one of the loss leaders will debut a game at $40 rather than the standard $50.

And therein lies the problem. $50 is a lot to pay for a game that you may or may not like. There are some games that aren't even a quetion, they're definitely worth it (or they're not). It's the games that look cool but you're not sure about that are the tough ones.

No matter how many reviews you read (and they are helpful) it still comes down to you're own individual taste and opinion about whether or not you like a game. Because the stores won't allow returns (unwrapped), you can really get to get burned.

That's what I was thinking. I just had four SNES games, since the prices were so high.

I remember back when I was in high school, I paid $60 for the PC game, Wing Commander 2. I didn't mind paying that much for a game then, even though I was really strapped for money as a student. Nowadays PC games regularly go for $40 - even the good ones. It's interesting that with the higher production costs of games now as compared to years before, and adjusting for inflation (however slight), prices for PC games have gone down. And prices for console games generally haven't. Maybe that's a reason why a lot of developers are moving from the PC to the consoles? More money to be made?

It's either that or pay much more for the console. Games is how the companies make their money. Take a loss or break even on the hardware and make money on the games. I think something like $10 for every game goes to the console manufacturer. And the develpment costs keep rising. It takes something like 18-24 months to make a decent game and costs millions of $$$.

A game like Morrowind (even the unmodifiable Xbox version) is easily worth $50 or more. I might not buy it off the shelf if it was any more, but I'd pay $50 without thinking twice.

Same for something like Halo with good initial game length and lots of replay value.

Blood Wake on the other hand is something I bought initially before finding out how quickly I could beat it. I returned it in January the same week I bought it, and just now bought it used for $18 so I could beat it again. Nice cheap quickie until I get my Live kit. I may well sell it again pretty soon though. It's not as much of a keeper as my other games. (DOA3, PGR -- still stuck, Halo, Morrowind, NFL Fever 2k2, JSRF). I woulda been pretty disappointed had I picked up GunValkyrie at $50. A smilebit title it is, but dang it's a LOT more frustrating than JSRF ever was. Bought and sold used.

Tuan Jim

SNES and n64 games(for the first couple years at least) were horribly priced. 70 to 80 bucks sometimes.. There were even rumors that Nintendo was going to charge 100 bucks for some n64 games(they never did though). I'm fine with 50 bucks. And like teplitsa said.. the console makers have to make back the money they're losing from the system(since they sell at a loss, or with no/very little profit), plus the game development. I think I remember hearing Ocarina Of Time cost $7 million to develop.

Of course I'd like cheaper games, who wouldn't. But no, I don't think they're overcharging us at 50.

You're almost right. All first party PS2 games are already $39.99. This includes Mark of Kri, Hot Shot Golf 3, Gameday 2003 :yack: and SOCOM (if you bought it at Amazon ;) ). Upcoming first party games like Sly Cooper will also be priced at $39.99.
Unfortunately, the third parties like Square (Kingdom Hearts), EA (Need For Speed Hot Pursuit 2) and Rockstar (GTA Vice City) have shown no desire to follow Sony's lead :(

Look at it this way:

Video games have gotten much, much better and considerabley longer over the last 20 years (compare Halo to Dig-Dug) and pretty much stayed at the same price (not even taking inflation into account).

Movie ticket prices have at least tripled over the same amount of time (doubled if taking inflation into account)

So, right now video games are the best value they have ever been.

Also, other software is outrageously expensive in my view like Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, After Effects, etc. They cost hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars. I know most people don't buy this software, but look at MS Office. $300 for software that's not as fun as a game. Plus they keep on updating the software so you have to end up spending $100 or more every year to upgrade your various software.

$50 for a video game is a bargain.

It's true, games are so much cheaper than they used to be. I remember paying $60 for Phantasy Star 3 and other Genesis games. Now I pay $30-$40 for the latest PC and console games ($5-$10 for DC games :) ). And that doesn't even take inflation into account.

Part of the reason is due to the much bigger market for games these days.

The worst thing is finding time to play them.

Chris

I remember when alot of N64 titles cost anywhere between $60-$80. If memory serves me correctly, Zelda Ocarina of Time cost me $80. With that in mind I don't mind the $50 at all.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think MS Office is meant to be "fun". :)

What about...........
 

You are right about the price they used to be. I was happy when they announced that games will be reduced to $50!!!!

To me I think is worth it!!! $50 is fine with me...(without tax-wink-)

Anyone remember that Sega Genesis game that retailed for $99.99? It was some sort of polygonal racer. I rented it just to see what a hundred dollar game looked like. Answer : crap. To think in just a few years you would be able to buy GT3 for $20....wow.

How many games do we really buy at $50? For me, its only the ones that I would really really really like, and really really really want to have now. I guess I'm a cheapskate : ) I've learned to practice patience as I await the next time games go on sale. The buy one take ones of KB, buy 2 take 3 of ToysRus, the discounted prices at Costco/Sam's Club (and there's a bunch right now!), and all of the goody goody prices over the web. So games may have been even more expensive from time past, but my wallet says $50 is still expensive for the here and now! ; )

My amatuer game developer friend did some research about developing games for consoles and the game development companies have to pay huge royalties to Nintendo, Ssony, etc in order to develop software for their titles. This may account for some aspect of the higher prices. For PC games, makers need only develop games, using the codes for windows, although their is some specualtion as to if Microsoft charges fees to use their codes. Since PC games don't have to pay all of the extra fees, PC games can sometimes drop down in price quicker, although big selling items like Neverwinter Nights and WC3 stay high priced for a while.

This is a good point... but it seems like PC games, which I would think have comparable production costs, go on sale MUCH faster than console games. At BB & CC they'll chop $15-20 off prices within a month or release for many big games. Why aren't console games priced to move like that?

Edit: Oh. Guess I should've read the post before me.

As far as the higher prices for SNES and N64 games go, those were cartridges which cost more to manufacture.

I remember spending $75 on SF2 for SNES and it still being a bargain. If a game is good enough then I don't mind paying more. Many games are very elastic purchases for me nowadays. $5 can be the difference between buying it or not. There are still a handful of games that I'll buy for full price the day they come out (Final Fantasies or Mario come to mind), but there are less of these the older I get despite the increased disposable income.

For those who want to factor in inflation, go here:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/


Some personal highlights...

Intellivision: $369.99 in 1981 = $763.39 in 2001
Typical Intellivision cartridge: $30 in 1981 = $61.90
Colecovision: $189.99 in 1982 = $336.68
Zaxxon: $49.99 in 1982 = $93.51
Genesis: $199.99 in 1989 = $287.44
Tommy Lasorda Baseball: $59.99 in 1989 = $86.22

You'll never see me complaining about today's pricing. We're getting far more for far less than ever before.

I have no arguement about the MSRP's. I do wonder, however, why it's so hard to find anything at even a little discount. Think about it : Monsters, inc has a MSRP of $29.99, yet every retailer is selling it for $15- $17. That's a huge markdown on a big item. I assume it's being used as a loss-leader. Video games have some A-list titles that would certainly work as loss-leaders, but except for GBA titles, almost no new games are released at discount prices. I wonder if this is a result of pressure from the console makers?
Any thoughts?

The $10 Sony cuts from their prices could be cut from 3rd party prices if they didn't have to pay so much money to Sony just to release the game.