[Ultimate User]

Quote

Valve's Gabe Newell gave the keynote address at this year's Design, Innovate, Communicate, Entertain (DICE) Summit about the cost of games, the effect of piracy, and how to reach new players.

Valve undertook an experiment recently to test how price affected the sales of their popular survival-horror FPS, Left 4 Dead.

They Reduced the price by 50% on Steam, which "resulted in a 3000% increase in sales of the game, posting overall sales that beat the title's original launch performance."
They also tested various other price drops over the holidays, seeing spikes in sales that corresponded well to the size of the discount.

This will undoubtedly add to the speculation that game prices have risen too high for the current economic climate. G4TV ran a live blog of Newell's presentation, providing a few more details.

[Source : Slashdot]


If, as is widely acknowledged, the game industry is now outgrowing the film and music industries put together, maybe the prices should now start to reflect the sales figures.

[Mephisto]

As I don't mind paying $60 for a good 360 game I also wouldn't mind paying less.

There's a ton of hard work that goes into a game, so I can see why they chose $60, but the times now are crucial and these days people jump on things they want that have been reduced in price. If they were smart they would start reducing games about $20 and move more units. But that's just me.

As I've seen in GameStop units of games or even consoles just move a ton more when the price is reduced $15-$20 (for a game) or $50-$70 (for a console). Not much of a difference for the company, but a huge difference for consumers.

[c0lin]

Same prices as 10 years ago, same prices as 20 years ago.

[.William]

I think the average price of PC games here is fine - about £25.

However, I don't think the price of console games is fine. Take Call of Duty 4, for example. On PC, it costs about £25. On the PS3 (and probably the 360 too), it's a whopping £44. WHY?

If console games came down in price, it'd be a nice change.

[.Jamie]

It is odd that PC games are cheaper than console ones, even when you can get the exact same (more or less) experience from the PC as you would the console. Although some games aren't as 'pretty' in terms of graphics on PC in comparison to their console counterparts, but most are on the same par or better. CoD4 is a good example of that. I got the collectors edition just after the Christmas it came out for £15, which is stupidly cheap. My Step-Dad recently bought it for the 360, as he prefers console gaming, for £30, which was just the regular game. Comparing the graphics of the game on PC and the 360, there isn't much difference.

Perhaps its because there is more of a risk of piracy on PC games than on Console ones, so they keep the price low to try to influence people to buy the games.

[PepsiDude002]

.William, on Feb 21 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

However, I don't think the price of console games is fine. Take Call of Duty 4, for example. On PC, it costs about £25. On the PS3 (and probably the 360 too), it's a whopping £44. WHY?

OffTopic Comment:

£44? I found one here for £19

[.William]

I'm basing the price off what I saw in-store about 6 months ago.

Also, the graphics quality issue is a bit....stupid. GTAIV, for example, can be made to look super high quality, and you can run it at 1080p or higher, yet it's cheaper then the console version, so....why?

[.Jamie]

I had an idea, I believe money has to go to M$/Sony whenever a game is made and consequently sold under their respective platforms, but you don't need to pay M$ anything if you want to make and sell a game for the PC. Unless, I'm assuming, you stick a 'Games for Windows' bar at the top, which adds a 360 dashboard type thing to your PC games. I got the idea whilst I was shopping today, when I noticed that 'Games for Windows' games are generally more expensive than games that don't bare the banner at the top, even though the games are of a similar age and quality. Another thing I noticed, is that CoD: WaW is £10 more expensive than CoD4 was at launch on the PC, and that is a 'Games for Windows' game whereas CoD4 wasn't. Which wasn't reflected on the consoles.

Even still, Games for Windows are still cheaper than console games when new. A new 'GFW' is about £35, whereas a new console game is usually £45. Of coarse it depends on the game. When I bought The Sims 2 on launch day, it was £35 which was quite expensive for a PC game at the time, but I found some old PC games from the turn of the century, which were much closer to £40 and over. One of them was even on sale for £39.99. This is obviously when PC games started getting a kick.

[Carmen©]

I used to be in auto sales. We were a "volume" dealer. Meaning, we practically gave out cars away, but we were always nu,ber one in sales because we sold so damn many of them. Profit by volume I say. $30 - $40 is a reasonable price to pay for a game, but $60 is just TOO close to $100 IMO. I have only ever bought one game at $60 and that was Afro Samurai because I am such a huge fan of the anime. I bought Street Fighter 4, but quickly returned it, as I did not feel it warranted a $60 price tag.

[Lara]

I don't have a console and I'm glad. The prices for console games are ridiculous imo. I stick to the PC.

After all, I don't play much to care, either way. I was obsessed when I was younger, now I spend more time on the internet. lol

[Zeppelin]

Sixty dollars for a video game is down right ridiculous. I love how GameStop and EB advertise new games for $60 and the used versions of those games for $55. Classic. Economists speculate that publishers will begin to revert to the $50 price tags we saw last gen.

This post has been edited by Zeppelin: 23 February 2009 - 02:07 AM

[The Vista Forums Win]

I think it's funny you're all complaining about $60 and such. We pay anywhere from $100 - $120 for our games here. Lot's of us have to borrow money to buy games.

[.William]

Not that much of a difference though.

$60 USD is $92 AUD.

[Barabus]

I think its ridiculous that console games are so much more expensive than PC games but in the long term you probably end up spending as much money on both. If you think the PS2 has had almost a 10 year life span and Sony want the same out of the PS3 (and no doubt Microsoft have similar plans for the 360) and you make a one off payment for that console (provided it doesnt break) so they charge more for games to make up the difference. Where as with a PC you buy a decent PC that can play current games at full or near full graphics and you have to spend about £600 - £800, then a year down the line all your hardware is out of date and you have to buy new hardware to play the new games at full graphics.

Just depends how many games you reckon you will buy and how much use you will get out of it i suppose as to whether or not its value for money. If your gonna play a lot then PC is probably better because the games are cheaper. If you are more of a casual gamer who only buys one game ever couple of months or something then it probably makes more sense to buy a console.

[The Vista Forums Win]

William although you speak the truth. There are 2 ways to value a currency.

The value and availability of the currency in its OWN country.
The value and availability of the currency in other countries.

Although 60 U.S. dollars = 92.236741 Australian dollars

Making $60 here is hard work. VERY hard work. I am sure it is anywhere but like I said. The value of currency in its own country is far different to the value of itself compared to others. If you know what I mean.

So in turn. I think we are paying more then what you are.

I hardly see any games here for $90 anyway. Most are like I said from $105 - $120
Which is: $70 - $85 USD.

So in actual fact we are paying more. That extra $20 is a big difference to us when we already find them to hard. Sad thing is, the prices wont be dropping any time soon.
What with our economy crash and everything. GTX 280 went from $550 to $900 3 weeks after release.

[Vikings4Ever]

Very rarely do I spend $60 on a game...only major games like Gears of War 2, Halo 3, etc. have I spent that much. $60 is ridiculous for a video game. Games rarely remain at $60 for a long time, however. Because games have gotten so expensive, game previews and reviews are all the more important.

[Mephisto]

I don't really understand what's so bad about the price tag now.
There's a ton of hard work going into it as opposed to last gen stuff.
They were simple and mediocre at best compared to the quality of game now days.
meh....maybe it's just me

[Dajaro]

YES, way too much. I live in England and when good games come out they are usually about £50 for PS3. But it really depends where you go, I get them for £30-35 where I go.

[.William]

Rakastaa, on Feb 23 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

William although you speak the truth. There are 2 ways to value a currency.

The value and availability of the currency in its OWN country.
The value and availability of the currency in other countries.

Although 60 U.S. dollars = 92.236741 Australian dollars

Making $60 here is hard work. VERY hard work. I am sure it is anywhere but like I said. The value of currency in its own country is far different to the value of itself compared to others. If you know what I mean.

So in turn. I think we are paying more then what you are.

I do know what you mean - I used to live in Australia. And I do agree, they need to be cheaper there as well as here and elsewhere.

[.Jamie]

Mephisto, on Feb 23 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

I don't really understand what's so bad about the price tag now.
There's a ton of hard work going into it as opposed to last gen stuff.
They were simple and mediocre at best compared to the quality of game now days.
meh....maybe it's just me

Yes, previous gen games weren't as 'snazzy' as the current gen, but that does not, in any way, suggest less effort. The games look better because the technology has improved and become easier to work with. And to be brutally honest, a lot of the previous gen games are better than the current ones, in the sense that they are a better game to play. They may not look good, but any true gamer wouldn't buy a game because it looks good, but because it's a great game to play. I found more games on the PS2/Xbox were better to play than some of the current gen ones, which seem to focus on looking pretty rather than delivering a good game. Few manage to get both in good order.