Thoughts on XBOX 360 Game Prices
Disclaimer: This is in no way, shape, or form an attempt to complain about current prices on games. I am not looking to start an argument or incite a flame war. I am simply looking for answers and input on questions that I have been thinking about.
I have been casually playing the single player demo for Rainbow Six: Vegas and have had fun with it. I enjoyed the new gameplay mechanics (cover system, health regeneration) and would very much like to hunt some tangos co-operatively with my friends and fellow Goodjers. However the $69.99 (CAD) price tag has stopped me dead in my tracks from picking it up.
While $69.99 will not break my bank account, it seems rather to be a psychological barrier that has been crossed that keeps me from picking it up. $69.99, to me, seems like a lot of money to spend on a game. Why is it that these next-gen games are so expensive?
I know one reason cited is that because of the extra capabilities of the XBOX 360, PS3, and what not, the developers can cram more content in (better graphics, physics, etc.) which can lead to longer development cycles resulted in more dollars to make the game. I can accept that fact. But what I find odd is that right now I can go and purchase Rainbow Six: Vegas for the PC for only $49.99. Why is there such a large price difference between the two platforms? In the end, it is the same game isn't it? There are the same graphics (as in character models, level design, etc.), physics and production values that went into the 360 version, but the PC version is $20.00 cheaper. This next part may be my own ignorance, but I honestly thought that the PC version would cost more or the same, since extra programming time would have to go into it. After all, the 360 version of R6 just has to be coded for one platform (the 360), while the PC version has to be coded to handle different hardware configurations (to varying degrees of success).
This lead me to the following question: Why are 360 (or PS3 for that matter) games more expensive and would it not be in everyone's best interest if the games were cheaper (equivalent to PC games say?)? If R6 was $49.99 for the 360, I would have it by now. I would also pick up Lost Planet on launch day if it retailed for the same price. The $69.99 price means though I will not be buying it right away.
Perhaps it is just me, and the $69.99 is more of a psychological barrier than anything else. After all, I was strictly a PC gamer for a long time and was used to buying games for $49.99 and under. To me, it just seems more advantageous to price a game in a range (whatever that may be) that would make people less inclined to mull over the purchase, and instead say "Oh, well it is only $X9.99, I might as well pick it up).
As a result of the higher prices now on 360 games, I am more inclined to pick up games 2nd hand now (currently looking for R6:Vegas 2nd hand). From my understanding (again could be my own ignorance here), the game developers see no money from a 2nd hand purchase of their game. When I bought Dead Rising 2nd hand, I could not help but think that if the game retailed new for the 2nd hand price I bought it at ($69.99 new, $49.99 2nd hand), I would have picked up it without hesitation.
So what does everyone else think about this? Am I a victim of my ignorance (if so, please fill me in), or are games more expensive on certain platforms than they need to be?
A Mind Without Purpose Will Walk In Dark Places
"I may be out of ammo but I ain't out of chainsaw B*TCHES!" - Sinister's warcry for Gears of War



Some SNES games went for $60-70 15 years ago (e.g., Crono Trigger), so what's the big deal now?
Xbox Live: JediJurist
Wii: 0973 6525 9083 7326
PSN: JediJurist
Yeah $59-$69 price tag games arent anything new.. I paid $79.99 for that crappy Sega Genesis "Role Playing" game Sword of Vermillion (something like that) WAYY back in the day.. so thats probably over $100 with inflation.
Aint nothing new about the world order..it's been playing since the day they put George Washington on a quarter
85's face the truth you're too dumb.
http://www.myspace.com/armyofthepharaohs
Honestly, it's just supply and demand. Developers spend what they think they can recoup, not the other way around. Prices reflect what companies think people are willing to spend. I agree that the the new higher prices have stopped me from purchasing some games. But the market really will set prices.
Xbox Live: JayhawkerGWJ
last.fm: JayhawkerGWJ
I vote with my wallet, and refuse to pay $59.99 for a game. I buy them on sale, or I wait until they drop the price. It unfortunately means I miss out on a lot of launch week fun. However, given that my game backlog is already too long, it behooves me to avoid adding to the stack!
Skriss: lvl 70 undead mage - Bloodhoof
Kyrator: lvl 63 night elf rogue - Blackhand
Thadryn: lvl 70 draenei mage - Blackhand
Licensing.
btw, anybody remember the first version of Virtua Racing for the Genisis? It retailed for $99.99 because of the chip they used. Even back then, we rented it and said "$99.99? For that?"
MaxShrek .. The reason you keep falling, is there is no bottom.
Horror Vacui
I hear ya, I feel the exact same thing, because after tax it's around $80. That's closer to $100 than I'm comfortable with. What I end up doing is picking up the game the week it's released, as Best Buy and Future Shop regularly drop the price $10. That way I'm a lot more happy spending $59.99.
I also remember when cartridge prices were insanely high. 15 or so years ago I remember dropping $90 CDN or so for Super Street Fighter 2 for the SNES, and I remember the first party N64 titles going for $80-$100 CDN.
XBL/PSN/STEAM/WAR/SPORE/RAPTR
I think if a game legitimately needs to be more than $40 to be profitable, there's something intrinsically wrong with the way it was developed. We don't need graphics that hit every rock falling down the uncanny valley. We don't need Sean F*cking Bean giving us quests when it could be some amateur VA that sounds just like him (or better) for about 1% of the cost.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Rage of Evil Certis in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
Xbox Live: Nei HD | Playstation ID: Nei_GWJ
I don't think developers have to pay licensing fees for PC titles the way the do for console games.
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
I'm comfortable with the 60 dollar price point. Thats just sticker shock and I think the deeper question is how many hours of enjoyment do you get out of a game.
If you get 100 hours of play or more out of a game... was that worth 60.00? Probably, its pretty cheap entertainment. With LIVE games, the countless hours of online play sweeten the deal.
On the other hand, many people will pay 150 or more for cable, but how many hours of it do they personally watch per month. They pay for the opportunity to watch it, but when life's busy, who has time for tv.
For those who can wait, the prices drops back down to more reasonable prices and of course at that point you get a lot more bang for the buck.
Personally, I have noticed I look more closely at the local gamestop inventories when they run a used B2G1F. I gotta admit, I snagged six nice to have titles during december... the B2G1F on already discounted games and the condition of the discs hit my pricepoint. I've got them waiting for when I finish up some of my current games. In my mind this has balanced out some of investment in the full price games as my average spend per title is pulled down a bit.
Dont over analyze or critique this.. I'm happy! Don't shatter my house-of-glass illusion.
Xbox Live: Irongut | Playstation ID: Irongut_GWJ
Ah, I was not aware of such a thing. That is what I was looking for. Thanks.
A Mind Without Purpose Will Walk In Dark Places
"I may be out of ammo but I ain't out of chainsaw B*TCHES!" - Sinister's warcry for Gears of War
for me, its not about how much it will cost total,.. its about how much I will play it.
Like this game, I give 120 hours tops in the next three months. That's about fifty cents an hour I play. My ultimate limit for video games is 60 cents, but I like to stay a comfortable 23 cents an hour if I can, so I have some video game budget for sudden deals, unknown titles, and the occasional impulse buy.
I will wait for the Crackdown demo, which comes out in a week. How Crackdown and Armored Core 4 pan out will help me decide when I get Lost Planet.
And even if I don't pick LP up right away, I still got the action figure for my pre-order.
That being said, Rainbow Six Vegas is a great game, as long as you don't know anything about actual military equipment, and expect to always play with the same calibur of people. Most of the guns in the game are "balanced" beyond the point where they are practical, and some choices don't make sense. To be honest, your "elite" unit has some of the most "hollywood" guns, and Marines in Iraq and suits in the Dept of Homeland Security are outfitted with better weaponry than your domestic counter-terrorism team. There are also other advantages to some of the weapons as well, like the combat advantage of a close physical attack with a shotgun. The game seriously lacks physical attacks and most close-in combat is laughable.
Give me a Benelli 20 guage, a Sig P210, and a Anschutz .222 with a 8x scope.
There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia. - Kurt Vonnegut
For most SP games, I just wait until it hits the bargain bin. I only play full sticker on the couple of games I simply must have. This applies regardless of the platform (console or PC).
Most titles drop pretty rapidly after release anyway. At least an initial sale of some sort.
Your Quote Here!
I paid $60 for Tecmo Super Bowl "back in the day". So the prices don't seem out of line to me, especially given development costs of some games these days.
XBox Live: DSGamer GWJ | PSN: DSGamerGWJ
I realize that this is an exaggeration, but still. You get what you pay for, and with all the time and money you waste finding the one amateur voice actor who will deliver Sean Bean caliber performance and consistency you may as well just hire Sean F*cking Bean. If you want quality, you have to pay for quality.
Xbox Live: CrankyBaby
baggachipz: Who cares about Japan, let them have their silly pointless dog games and countless re-hashes of anime-based dragon princess super lucky crapitty crap.
I'm with you on this one Dr. J. I find it pretty hard to drop ~$80 on a game. I'm all about finding a good deal, and for the most part, I'm willing to wait a while until something hits my price range.
I've never been a huge game buyer, I usually just rent games, and if they're good, I'll look for a deal on ebay.
You're looking at a guy who bought the french version of GoW to save $30. Well, the only difference between the french and english versions was that the french version had a french cover and manual lamely shrink wrapped to the outside of the english version. Score one for the cheap guy.
"It's time to kick ass and drink tea......and I'm almost out of tea" - Dr._J
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
Here's a great article on the cost of video games:
Why Gears of War Costs $60 - Forbes
This was interesting as well:
Cyrana Mage 80 ~ Artesia Druid 72
Cyranna Shaman 62 ~ Acereri - DK 61 ~ Artasian - Priest 59 ~ Lenna - Rogue 60
For me, rental is solving the problem. Between Gameznflix and demos, I think my jones is cured for a while. A whole year of 3-out gameznflix is $200, which is about three games. I can't see how this isn't a huge deal given that there are very few games that have held my interest for an entire year. If you figure the attention span of a game is 6 months, that means I'm essentially getting 6 games for 33 bucks a pop. The reality is a lot better than that, if you are a game-browser like me.
If rental services really take off, it puts pressure on retail prices. This forces game companies to try and make games that have legs. I can't see how this isn't good for consumers.
Gamertag: GWJ Rabbit | Last.fm | Twitter
"In other news, Miyamoto pissed on my head, and gave me a forecast of rain." - *Le
I used to buy every game I wanted to play up until this console generation. Now I rent stuff through a direct-to-home service and only buy it if reviews/community opinion is high and it will have enough legs on the multiplayer side to keep me playing it for many hours. I bought Gears of War and Vegas, though I'm likely not going to keep Vegas much longer. If it's a game I don't have to have right now, I'll also often buy stuff used or when it's discounted over time. It does strike me as odd that the PC version is cheaper if it was built using all the same assets and technology of the 360 version.
The problem I have with Vegas and other titles like BF2142 is that I do not believe we should be subjected to the same price tag when there's advertising in the game. I also believe said advertising should be announced on the box somewhere. I didn't find out until I beat Vegas that it uses Massive dynamic advertising technology. If Ubisoft is taking money from advertisers to help fund the game (particularly a game they can confidently predict good sales figures for), the price should be lower or they should say the ads are there so I can make up my own mind before buying the game and not being able to return it. Lately, many developers have also been pushing games out with large bugs (even on consoles) that have to be patched later so they are clearly cutting corners in QA. When the cheaper console games used to typically be almost bug-free, there's no excuse for them having large problems at the higher price point.
"We're taught from a young age how to dodge rock hard objects moving at incredible rates of speed while simultaneously beating folks half to death with sticks. We do this for fun." -kung fu grip
http://blog.digital-lifeline.ca
Wasn't that before most of the security measures that keep you from walking out with things under your sweatshirt?
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
Fewer consumers spending money on games that try to ride solely on glitzfest graphics, preferring to rent, means more studios fold under the crippling financial burden of making glitzfest graphics.
Which means either big studios bail them out, or they go away (looking glass, we miss you), and it's in the big studios' best interests to churn out shovelware.
Mystic Violet wrote:
The cost you are willing to pay for games is extremely subjective, at least with me it is. Take for example, Dead Rising. I desperately wanted to pick this game up on launch but stopped myself, assuring myself that there would be a good sale in little more than a month. It didn't happen. Two months later, the game was still $60 and I was bored as hell so I picked it up. Was it worth $60? Absolutely. This didn't work when I bought Just Cause at launch, its a great game but not worth the $50 I payed for it. Your best bet for getting games for good prices at or near launch is to check out Cheapassgamer. Thanks to CAG, I got Vegas for under $35 USD at Best Buy last week.
I'm more of a sausage smoker myself. - Yoyoson
XBox Live - PSN: SneakinAround - Last.fm - Flickr
Retail: 20% ($12)
As someone who works for the largest electronics retailer in North America, I can tell you now that this is very suspect. I can see what's called the "true cost" of any item in our system and the average console game makes the company about $2-$5, while PC games make between $4-$7. That's why places like EB Games are trying to come up with the "gamer protection plan" to boost their margins. I also know someone who owns a franchise of a Canadian specialty games retailer called Microplay and he says that if he wasn't contractually obligated to sell new games, he wouldn't even bother. However, I will say that the cost value I can see doesn't take into account any "back end funding" that the company may receive from the publisher to give the game a prominent spot in the store or a special end-cap display. But with the number of games coming out lately that I just see on the shelf with no prominent placement at all, I don't think the retailer is necessarily takign as much as the publisher claims.
"We're taught from a young age how to dodge rock hard objects moving at incredible rates of speed while simultaneously beating folks half to death with sticks. We do this for fun." -kung fu grip
http://blog.digital-lifeline.ca
Theres more in that $12 Retail figure than just the profit a retailer makes on a title.. there are a combination of costs associated to the Publisher in getting that title to retail.
Aint nothing new about the world order..it's been playing since the day they put George Washington on a quarter
85's face the truth you're too dumb.
http://www.myspace.com/armyofthepharaohs
Yep. Don't forget distribution.
Me, I offset the cost by Ebaying stuff I only play once (single player games, mostly).
Xbox Live: StaatsM
A guy I know in the UK is lucky if he makes £3 to £5 on new 360 releases. He also gets gouged by the distributors in the UK, who mark up on big releases so he has to order huge amounts of stock just to turn a profit. He makes the money to keep the company running from the second hand market.
Requires 2 non-replaceable LR41 button cell batteries for the monkey (included)
On the subject of retailer markup, I remember hearing the same thing about Halo 2 when it was released - some Gamestop or EBGames exec was quoted as not caring much about the special launch activities because they only earned a few dollars per sale.
It makes me wonder if one of the reasons for the prevalence of used games lies with the fact that retailers' profit margins have been squeezed to the point where they can't operate a game-specific business without offering used games as their primary product. I have a feeling the concentration on used vs. new has risen as their margins fell.
Everything can be debated, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's debatable.
--Chuck Klosterman, Fargo Rock City
From Forbes.
For those interested the article's pie animation has more detail on each slice...
Cyrana Mage 80 ~ Artesia Druid 72
Cyranna Shaman 62 ~ Acereri - DK 61 ~ Artasian - Priest 59 ~ Lenna - Rogue 60
I like your system. Some have disparaged analyzing the cost per hour ratio, but I find that the amount of free time and play money that come my way largely remains consistant. If I don't casually think about this ratio then there's a good chance I'm going to end up bored, broke, or both. The increase in the average cost of games with the 360 has coincided with Live's ease of use tending towards more multiplayer action. More multiplayer means more hours out of a game and so the cost per hour stays the same.
Not doing so should be illegal.
Danjo Olivaw Lives
Well when I was younger price never seemed a factor. Once I bought the japanese version of street fighter 2 for the super nes just to have it a few months early. That cost me $120 then... Lets just say I wasn't as patient as I try to be now.
Now that I'm older I'm less likely to outright just impulse buy a game and give it a try. I'm not so sure that the price is the sole factor behind this, but it surely is a part.
I would have thought console games would be cheaper than pc games too just because consoles do not come in the variety of configurations pc's do.