Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 1:24 PM
Wed Nov 25
54 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/05/09
The PS2, Xbox, GC price range was $50, with the occasional 1st part or special release at $40 (Like MGS Subsistence).
PSX (PSone) 3rd party titles were $50, and 1st party were $40.
Before the disc based systems it was highly based on cart size, with Squaresoft games being $75+ on the whole, and other titles being in the $60 range.
Simple answer: someone sets a price, others follow suit.
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
Playstation was making bank when it moved the RAM to the hardware and we all know how cheap CDs are to mass produce.
I think companies are just trying to use that as their argument because it really makes sense. But we'll never know until we see a breakdown of all their costs.
10/04/09
source: [www.bls.gov]
The price of games has not kept pace with inflation. We're actually getting a better deal than most gamers realize.
Everybody thinks games are getting more expensive when they are sort of getting cheaper. It's fun to say the big companies just want to rip off consumers. It's fun to complain. It's NOT fun to know your game history. Nobody thinks about the economics involved.
It doesn't really matter how much the games cost anyway. If new games were $50 this would be a thread full of complaints and half baked theories about why games should be $40.
10/04/09
The only real difference, then, is that you can always watch a movie at a budget theater and pay a much lower ticket price, or go hit the nearest IMAX and pay through the nose for a bigger screen and better sound.
10/04/09
Leaked demos or early (alpha) versions of games are similar to vidcam versions of movies recorded in sneak preview screenings and availiable weeks before they are officially released. Certainly not the best quality: you might get a headache watching vidcam movies, or have to put up with some bugs in a beta, but you still get to try them either way. I don't think I'd turn up my nose at a TOR alpha if I could try it right now, and I would still definitely Day 1... but I doubt I'd pay to watch a movie I saw a crappy vidcam version of again unless it was REALLY good.
Hmm... re-reading this, I'm not sure exactly what you said that I was replying to, but something you said struck a chord in me and started this ramblimg... so I'm blaming your post and attaching it to yours haha.
10/03/09
the $10 difference in price is a little too much. I could buy a game from the US and it would still be cheaper after the exchange rate. plus the taxes are higher in canada.
10/04/09
Also, there have been less MUST HAVE games coming out recently...
10/03/09
But as time went on, as Microsoft started to release its "big" games... they, too, were at $60. In fact, unless a game was meant to be a budget title (i.e. Oneechanbara), I don't think a single NEW 360 title has been under $60 since then.
Plus, you can get the PC version of PS3/360 games for $10 less all the time (unless ACTIVISION decides to change that...).
10/03/09
Halo 2 comes out with a $50 price tag and a $60 price tag. The $60 one sells like hotcakes. Other games try this by adding a figurine, art book or fancy case and, too, succeed.
Publishers have an epiphany: If this many people will buy a $60 dollar game, why don't we charge that much for every game? So the new generation rolls around and they say it has to do with development costs and other miscellaneous fees. Thing is, games have always cost a lot to make. True, they have been getting increasingly due to licensing fees, voice talent and 'teh high-defs', but c'mon. If Metal Gear Solid and Halo 2 can be sold for $50, why can't current-gen games?
So now we run into an even bigger problem. The basic, no-frills edition, rings up at $60. The collectors edition at $80 and the Super-Duper Edition at $150+ (Legendary Halo 3, Rock Band/GHWT, Prestige Edition). And guess what? Those super limited and hard to find editions are still selling.
Come next generation, it's going to be $70 minimum and even more for extras and garbage. We have no one to blame for this price increase but ourselves - or at least the people who bought Halo 2: Collector's Edition.
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
People bitch about price no matter how much it is. Hell it CAN be free and some will still find a way to bitch.
10/03/09
On the other hand I'm also surprised I didn't see any comments saying 'see this is why I pirate games'...
10/03/09
10/03/09
Some games clearly give you enough bang to be worthy of your buck, but as the play time gets shorter and prices get higher on new titles people are going to ask themselves if they're getting their money's worth much more often.
10/03/09
I only buy games that offer value in accordance with their price. Games such as Halo 3, Gears of War 2, Killzone 2, etc offer countless hours of gaming for $60, where you have some similarly prices games expire after 20 hours.
Length isn't my point, rather, it's how much I'm willing to put into a game and how much the game can give back for my entertainment dollar.
10/03/09
10/03/09
Saywut?!
I think $45-50 is the ideal price point for games. I find that a lot more people this generation are staying shy of new games right away and instead opting to go to the used section for them. PC gaming has the advantage of the lower price point and really if we're going to consider $60 to be a fair price then $45 for PCs sounds right because of the delicate nature of the PC environment. That does not however make the PC a second-rate system nor any of the handhelds.
10/03/09
That being said... If we're paying for what we get, then the added cost of ease should be in the console itself. The console manufacturers would rather keep the cost low, but if their platform really has an advantage, then people will pay a little more for it. But game development does not cost more on the 360. (OK - it might cost more on the PS3 because you have to learn how to program the damn thing...) In fact, I would bet the cost is either even or more on a PC since the specs, and, therefore, expectations, have surpassed current gen consoles.
Truth is - games cost what they cost because people are willing to pay.
10/03/09
i have bought a few of those game at full price and those games turns out to be either a game i play only once and rarely touch it ever again or i don't even finish the game
for example Lost Odyssey(never finished it) and Timeshift(played it once and haven't touch it since)
10/04/09
I agree however when I mentioned the volatile nature of the PC environment, I was speaking of how bugs and so on are more common in PC games, not neccisarily because they haven't been tested rigorously but because it can be hard to have a perfect PC game that doesn't suffer some conflict on someones machine. The price of the game should then reflect that and also the price should be lower since PC games can't be returned or traded.
But game development does not cost more on the 360. (OK - it might cost more on the PS3 because you have to learn how to program the damn thing...) In fact, I would bet the cost is either even or more on a PC since the specs, and, therefore, expectations, have surpassed current gen consoles.
Game development on the 360 and PS3 is more expensive for a couple of reasons. In the case of 360 development and possibly PS3 development (I'm unsure), developers have to come in line with certain standards as well as pay for license fees for dev kits and approval, etc. On the PS3 as you mentioned, there might often be an added cost due to retraining.
The PC, however, is an open environment for the most part. Developers don't need to pay for a dev kit and they don't need to comply with certain standards, etc (unless maybe they're going through Steam). Also, the whole higher specs = higher development costs is a bit of a fallacy. While higher specs can contribute to more expensive development, it's not an ultimate fact. Game development isn't expensive nowadays for the sole reason that graphics are better but because the whole development process is larger. Graphics have contributed to that but there's larger teams across the board. You've got bigger foley and sound teams, bigger programming teams, etc, etc. That doesn't mean that development will cost more everytime the system requirements rise because the teams will generally be able to cope at the same size.
10/03/09
10/03/09