Videogame prices set to rise on next-gen consoles

...or driving a revolution toward developer distribution rather than publishers?

i hardly get games these days, im still playing DOD in the afternoons because i simply cant afford to buy them. A price increase could stop me playing all together.

I wonder if publishers are digging their own grave with their increased prices? How much would piracy increase when the RRP rises by 20%?

The price for a new release game in NZ for xbox / ps2 can reach up to $109.95 - 119.95 as well. So I imagine that they would cop some additional heat probably pushing it up to 140 - 150 bux for a new release [:O]

I was going to post what I think about the price hike, but [url="http://www.cliffyb.com/"]Cliffy B[/url] sums up pretty much my thoughts...

quote:NO!

Videogames need to be CHEAPER! They need to get down to the $19.99 price point you fucking morons! Damn. I do decently here at my job and fifty bucks is still too much of a barrier for me to spend as an impulse buy on a game. But... twenty! Sign me up! Perhaps if we focused on figuring out ways of growing our audience and making our games more accessible we'd sell more units and finally arrive at the magical new price point instead of shooting ourselves in the damned foot by RAISING PRICES?

FOOLS!

And I agree, if there's one thing that could lead to a games industry crash, it's when games cost way too much...

In anycase, with the terrible markup of games here, it's probably cheaper to just import the darn thing yourself from America.. [:p]

Maybe it's a chance for indy games to become more mainstream :)

The industry?s based on the ability of people to spend $100 on games, but what would happen if the economy takes a turn for the worst (as many economists predict it will in the years ahead)? If people are struggling to make ends meet, less people will buy games and the high-end games industry will go into a financial tailspin. The only developers that could keep making games in those circumstances would be indie developers.

Less advancing in complexity and stunning but costly graphics, and more advancement in productivity to make games more affordable is what?s needed. The focus should be on gameplay, not endless content creation.

unfortunatly the casual gamer wants more content. at leas that's how i see it anyway. i have friends who only recenty got into games and are only casual gamers still. and what they get excited by are the latest visuals, etc. just like i used to be when i started playing games way way back when. now i want something more than pretty content, but i think a lot of the new gamers that came in with the PS and PS2 are at the stage i was back with the nes/snes when i first started playing games.

It's a cleft stick alright. I mean, look at the difference between the last couple of Prince of Persia games? One was universally acclaimed by hardcore gamers as revolutionary, beautiful, great content, etc.; the next pandered to the "more bling" market with hack-em-up/last action hero dialogue. (Try [url="http://www.edge-online.co.uk/archives/2005/02/prince_of_persi.php"]This article[/url] or the ever tactful [url="http://penny-arcade.com/news.php3?date=2004-12-04"]penny arcade[/url])

...but which one made more money for the studio, I ask?

Given that [url="http://www.lunabean.com/news/000889.php"]Warrior Within outsold Sands of Time 2:1 in only the first two weeks[/url], I think we all know what the answer to that is.

Investors want results, not art.

Games should be cheaper, shorter and more compact. Lean more towards a movie, tv time model, rather than trying to create 20hrs of entertainment for US$50. It would be better to create 5 x 4 hrs of entertainment for US$10-15 each (the price of a 1.5-2hr DVD). The biggest obstacle to this is of course the console giants (charging their flat? rate license fee) and the publishers fear.
The other major issue is producing the content 1 20 hour game, but having to make the revenue back off 5 games, instead of one. This would be a problem for games where most of the content/assets required for the game would exist in the first release, however it could also be a boon to companies that can either create the content incrementally for each episode, or can spread the content creation among a number of series. That way you can put out say, 3-4 5hr games, and only continue sequels for the ones that don't flop. If it's done right there is a lot less risk involved in each game.
Also, if you look at the sales charts, the highest selling games are sequels, to me this says "Produce a great game, then produce as many great sequels as possible". Making more sequels with shorter time frames will keep audiences in suspense over your next product, rather than 3 years between sequels.
People are starting to turn away from watching TV and playing videogames more. Give them the episodic model that TV entranced them with for so many years.

...aaand i thiink thats your lot. I don't think these are new ideas, and i think it is mainly the publisher/console manufacturers who are preventing some people from trying it. Or maybe there is some other flaw in my otherwise brilliant plan >.>
CYer, Blitz

I know I'm gonna get flamed for this but as mentioned in the GDC keynote developers and publishers need to find other sources of income, think about how a movie is funded do you really think the budget of a $200mil movie comes out of one companies pocket no they find other outlets to raise funds.
I'm all for tasteful product placement, While surfing the other day I saw a MOD for GTA that placed real adds on billboards instead of the generic "rockstar" one's.
Games like Grand Turisimo should be getting paid to include real cars, even Rage Racer featured Yokohama tire?s I didn't hear anyone complaining.
Sorry for getting a bit off topic but games has always been expensive, I remember paying up to $100 for a SNES title.
The prices have never gone up through the generations; you?re still paying $70 for a DS game.
At this stage we can only speculate, but having two competitive products will keep things in check e.g. If an Xbox2 title costs $60US, do you really think that Sony will increase their price?

Interesting topic,

Prices are on the rise, costs on all dev fronts seem to be on the rise in some way too, the problem I see is most gamers keep wanting better graphics, and more content in there games, and are never satisfied with whats offered, reguardless how impressive we as developers see it too be, and realy why should they think otherwise?

They have been trained into this thought, after a decade or more of rapidly advancing technology within the industry, developers striving to build the bigger faster prettier game each time, eventually we had to reach the limits of what the majority of developers could achieve with the money and skillsets within there company, so the only way to keep it afloat is to raise prices eh...

This is bound to continue to spiral out of control, to where a handful of developers/publishers have complete market control over everything but maybe the indie routes, and you all know what that means :P The only way to fix it is to stop winging and ranting about the situation and invest some resources into fixing it, or just go indie ;)

Ultimately the age old rules of supply and demand control the cost of a product. If they raise the cost of the product will they still make a greater profit taking into account the amount of people who will cease to purchase the product due to it being too expensive? If the answer is no then such a price rise is unsustainable and will drop again in short order. However if it is sustainable, if the market can support the increase then it is logical that they will do it.

This is how commercial enterprise works, why is anyone surprised by this. There is no ?morality? involved in the pricing of a video game. We are not making games to be handed out to your poor and homeless in soup kitchens. Games are made to make money, that is how and why they receive funding and no matter how altruistic the average game maker no matter how much they claim it isn?t the money its making games that?s important. I don?t see them taking a pay cut so that the game they are working on can be sold cheaper. So why would people and cooperate entities further up the ladder behave any differently.

Ultimately if you are truly outraged by such a price hike, for whatever reason, then to quote captain planet ?The power is yours?, boycott the products, and if enough people do then the price rise becomes unsustainable and comes back down.

Pantmonger

Some interesting points have been made, some of which are really about the greater topic of how the industry is (or is becoming) structured. Not surprisingly things seem to be following the Hollywood cinema formula of creating stunning 'blockbuster' titles that are increasingly expensive to make, and aim to pull in big dollars. Sounds like lots of people here think things should go more like the Hong Kong and Indian cinema industries - much higher volume at lower costs - an industry model that has many good points for both the final customer and industry its self.

I guess ultimately Pants is right though - if I learnt anything from Captain Planet, it is that the power is ours! the only repercussion that the price of $120 per unit in the Aust market may be required for a predetermined profit margin. If it can't be met the titles may be pulled entirely from the Aust market. Is this a problem? those of us with credit cards who can join larger markets via the internet, not really.

Maybe this would be a blessing in disguise! With no 'blockbuster' titles on shelves here retailers might look at filling the void with cheap locally made titles. The death of the old might giving birth to a new section of the industry!

Hmmmmmmmmmm? ya know.. I kinda buy a game thinking on how much I?ll be paying for it an hour.

Example wise.. Average game takes 20hours to complete. $100 so $5 for an hour of play.. I myself try to find games that achieve 40+ hours? 9/10 times though these games don?t have the best graphics but have some really nice game play to them.. (thus why you?d play it more then 20hours)

Dark chronicle is a good example. A solid game with LOTS OF DIFFERENT REWARDING THINGS TO DO. All up the game lasted 80hours.. Don?t ask how. It just did O.o $1.20 per hour of fun play.

I think we as customers are getting to demanding of games in terms of graphics (or belts and whistles however you look at it) and that demand is taking an economic toll on the industry.. Then again because that?s the one sure-fire why to please the lowest common denominator of buyers the trend wont change.. Not in the next two to four years anyway.

I wish we lived in a world where excellent game play was the focus and not the belts and whistles that have to go with it if you want to impress Joe somebody.

quote:Originally posted by Caroo

I think we as customers are getting to demanding of games in terms of graphics (or belts and whistles however you look at it) and that demand is taking an economic toll on the industry.. Then again because that?s the one sure-fire why to please the lowest common denominator of buyers the trend wont change.. Not in the next two to four years anyway.

I wish we lived in a world where excellent game play was the focus and not the belts and whistles that have to go with it if you want to impress Joe somebody.

I think that's being a little hard on the consumer. After all, why should Joe Average expect to see parallax corrected normal mapping with dynamic lighting and shadows and full scene anti-aliasing without the developer having first included it in the first place. In that respect I don't think anyone is to blame but the incredible pace of the advance of technology. As a programmer, I'm thinking, "Now that I've a few more clock cycles free, I can implement proper Fresnel light diffraction rather than use the horrible approximations I've had to put with until now."

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a faster computer, or wanting to make your game look as good as possible. And I think the consumer is more discerning than a lot of developers give them credit for. Personally, I won't even look at buying a game until I've read a couple of reviews or got a recommendation from a friend.

What needs to be remembered here is the power of marketing. Would Halo 2 have sold even half the number of units it did without the Microsoft marketing behemoth behind it? IMNSHO, not bloody likely. How many little gems of gaming goodness can you think of that quietly sat on the shelf constantly being overlooked for the "blockbuster" title sitting next to it?

I don't mind paying a little extra for quality. I object to paying extra for marketing hype.

Firstly I have to mention that I recently bought a copy of Rome Total War (It came with Meidval Total war + the expansion) for about $79. Now that's kept me going for about 2-3 months easy of gameplay. It doesn't have the best graphics, but it's got a tone of gameplay - if you like that sort of strategy game - and I do. :-D I'll probably be playing it for the next several months or so easy.

Secondly in response to Blitz's comment (that games should be shorter and cheaper) I have to bring back up the issue of episodic games, much like episodes of sitcoms or dramas. There have been several discussions on this topic on these forums already. Making many short games of about 3-5 hours of gameplay wouldn't be too hard since the same world could be reused for each successive game just like an episode on tv. We could use CD's again for distribution, with a single CD per episode (as opposed to the multi-CD installs that we're currently faced with). Things like steam would also make this relatively easy to implement (though I shudder in saying it).

Now imagine the first Deus Ex game in an episode format (though the original game would be like a feature film that starts the series). Then imagine having a new adventure each quarter, possible a new location to explore, new characters to encounter etc. In theory all that would be required would be a few level designers, artists, and a writer or two to construct such games (once the initial coding has been done).

But finally, I do think that the games are more expensive than they should be, especially in Australia. Realistically the prices should have dropped since the Aussie dollar has been performing better against the US dollar. Though I think part of it must be that stores have gotten people used to paying ~$100 for a game, and they're reluctant to drop their prices and make less profit.

I also agree with the quote that Souri posted, finally Cliff_B has said something intelligent.

quote:How many little gems of gaming goodness can you think of that quietly sat on the shelf constantly being overlooked for the "blockbuster" title sitting next to it?

to many.. and it's very sad indeed. its not very fair to both the cunsumers and developers who are making some awesome games that we'll never know of. i own dark cronicle.. by far one of the best PS2 games ive ever played. And over here it sold horrably.

quote:I don't mind paying a little extra for quality. I object to paying extra for marketing hype.

that i agree with.. i think no one can disagree with a statement like that. theres nothing worse then feeling like a consumer whore.

i was told that EA has a marketing deal with retailers to ensure that their products a placed on the top and center shelves at stores. i think it was the marketing head for Oceania that told me that, or someone similar. his way of telling us (a class a qantm) "if you want your game to sell, you have to get published by us"

quote:Originally posted by LiveWire

i was told that EA has a marketing deal with retailers to ensure that their products a placed on the top and center shelves at stores. i think it was the marketing head for Oceania that told me that, or someone similar. his way of telling us (a class a qantm) "if you want your game to sell, you have to get published by us"

.... is there nothing EA wont do.. there like a cheep whore mixed with godzilla.

They may be a cheap whore mixed with godzilla - and although I dont agree with alot of the recent crap about working conidtions etc - alot of the marketing I simply couldnt agree more with.

If the public wants a new Icehockey, Basketball & American Football game every year ala NHL '96 thru 2005 then give it to them. Build the foundations for a good system, and then focus on churning out new content and only updating the 'engine' for many years to come. Cha Ching Mooooooo.

Whilst I barely agree with the mentality - EA is the one with shitloads of money.

I put EA in the same category as MicroSoft ? I think it?s more marketing then software engineering prowess that put them on top. They both made some great business moves and focused on getting a large portion of the public to believe their hype, and now they almost have a monopoly. Meanwhile little known development companies could have the best software in the world but that software doesn?t make it to the light of day because they can?t compete with the marketing giants.

Can anyone else see a problem with this system?

whilst on EA (again!) ...I came across this - thought it sums up the current attitude toward them ;)
http://www.subliminaldissonance.com/eanazi3tm.gif

I'm not sure if this has any basis in fact or not, but when I was in the US, it seemed that just about EVERYTHING was cheaper... not just games. Could it be the fact that seeing as the games are made there, and thus massive import costs etc. are not a factor that they are able to keep the prices down?

hyperswivel: You're right, *almost* everything is cheaper in the US than here in Australia. Even if you count in the exchange rate things are still cheaper by 25-30%. It's probably due to the fact that we're just (less than) 20 million people, of whom only 10-12 million actually have enough money to buy things, therefore we're not a big market and thus the cost is higher to bring things here.

*(teenagers ~5 million in Aus, working population of ~9 million are the statistics I'm working from, allowing for some overlap)

Is anyone aware of the estimated price point for the next-gen consoles themselves? It's my understanding that companies lose major dollars just to get the machines in peoples homes, and it's the software that recoups this money. One wonders how much the console manufacturers reap from each game sold and how that compares to the publishers and developers slice of the pie. Anyone know?

I'm throwing a guess that consoles generally launch at around $700-$800 (PS1, PS2, Xbox)? That doesn't mean that new consoles will be introduced at that price range, but that seems to be the trend so far.

I remember reading a magazine from the old Amiga days which showed a pie chart on who received how much from each game sold. The distributor/publisher got a hefty slice, the retailer got the largest slice of them all, and the game developer got an extremely small percentage (something like 5-10%). It was quite alarming.

10% is about standard percentage for larger publishers such as EA. Also they try some other nasty tactics to try and trap you into a bad deal.

I think many developers, including the one I work for, are exploring alternative means of financing as opposed traditional to publisher funded titles. There are many reasons for this aside simple percentages. Having publishers along for the ride while developing a title can be painful in more ways than one, I'm sure other devs will agree.

If you have a title that is already developed you have a much better foothold when cutting a deal with publishers. For instance if I spend 4 million developing a game, your going to spend 6 million marketing the game if you want your 60% cut. More importantly developers can make games that they are happy to put on the shelves rather than getting pressured into releasing a title before it's ready.