article on game prices - set to increase?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Adagio
IF they release the games with less bugs and more hours of fun, than what the average (proffesional) game has these days, then the price increase could be tolerable... but I doubt it'll happen

If they want to discourage pirace they should lower the price

And for God's sake, please lower the money spent on advertising

try buying historical wargames then. They spend next to nothing on advertising, and dont even buy shelf space - theyre mainly distributed by direct mail from internet orders. Of course their sales are minute, and so they charge just as much OR MORE than mainstream games. The $50 price point was broken long ago in THAT niche.

[Moral Hazard]

Lowering money on advertising would be a collosal mistake. Advertising makes the more casual gamer buy your games. LOTM showed an industry which doesn't advertise much, and while it makes sense for them because their products don't appeal to casual gamers. Other games do; and since games have a far greater fixed cost than marginal costs, each additional sale actually allows them to charge less for their product.

50% has been standard for advertising for at least 5 years. I think it's safe to say that above a certain point, spending more money on a game will only marginally make a better game. A company should be very wary of trying to make a better game, by adding features etc once it's deep in development. Where as extra money spent on advertising will increase sales and can be done late in the development cycle meaning less risk for the game company.

so their statement that $50 was the standard price for 2 decades is NOT correct? Ive only been playing PC games for 6 years, and never buy first release games. Are we getting into the distinction between the first release price, and the price later on? IIUC $35 is still not an uncommon price for most games once theyve been on the market a couple of months - only the biggest sellers stay for long at their release price, no?

Your correct that most games prices will drop quickly a few months after release. Especially after the main selling seasons (begining of summer, Christmas) . I'm going to find some old magazines, to verify my statement concerning release price.

I haven't bought a game at release in years. 1999-2001 produced a lot of great games, but it also taught me to wait a few months for patches and game players opinions and for the price to fall. The only games I still purchase around release are sports games and since ESPN now sells their games for $20. I don't plan on spending more than $35 for a game, again.

[alva]

Spend nothing on advertising and customers wouldn't have to choose which game thsy want as they could buy both.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Given the choice of games that you had when the X-box launched, then I can't really be that surprised that things are getting better for you.

Halo?

Pwned.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Your argument falls on the fact that the original Deus Ex was released in 2000 and is therefore basically in the same 'age' as the sequal. It was just a bad sequal, not indicative of the quality of games.

4 years is considered the same 'age' in the computing world?

[Moral Hazard]

A counter example would be the Total War series. The consolification of games is problematic though (Deus Ex). As is the price a company needs to spend per game. It flushes most creativity and inovation out the window. The only people who are allowed to innovate are those who are already established(Molyneux). Where as the greatest creativity comes from new minds.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I purchase a game on the basis of how much I'm going to play it - a dollar per hour. Thus, if it gives me at least 20 hours worth of playing time, I'll pay 20 dollars for it.
Most games do not reach this level.

Thus, I don't buy most games

IMO, a game that can't give you 20 hours isn't worth playing at all. I either have games give me low-average totals (say, 30-40 hours) for simply good games I get bored with, or some games give me incredible amounts of time. In my case, Civ would cost more than a car by that standard .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns

4 years is considered the same 'age' in the computing world?

We're talking about an alleged period of 20 years without a price increase - though some dispute that. Are games better now than 20 years ago?

Compare that to movies - are they better now than 20 years ago? Enough to justify the increase in ticket prices?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Are games better now than 20 years ago?

In ~10 years, would you play a game released these years, like some do with games now released ~10 years ago?
I doubt I will play Doom 3 or Civilization III in 10 years, while I do play old games from time to time (C64 and Amiga games)

I wouldn't say games created today are much better than games created 10 years ago... most new games are more fun than classic games, but only for a short time, then they get boring. Most classic games are almost as fun as they where when they were released...

[CapTVK]

What price increase? I picked up SimCity3000 from the bargain bin for 6 euros!

If it's too expensive wait a bit longer or get something that's cheaper or free instead.

[CapTVK]

P.S
I picked up Deus Ex for 4,-

[DrSpike]

A good buy.

[CapTVK]

It just goes to show. With a little patience good games can be had for a very fair price.

Plus they run fine on my almost- 7-year-old- but-upgraded-PC.

[lord of the mark]

im a bin diver too (like you i have an old PC) but i dont think its reasonable to expect everyone to wait till games go below $10 US, which usually takes some years, except for total flops.

Still, theres enough out there very cheap to reduce sympathy for pirates.

I mean anyone whos pirating a just released PC game has a reasonably modern PC. Pleas of poverty just dont fly.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Adagio


In ~10 years, would you play a game released these years, like some do with games now released ~10 years ago?
I doubt I will play Doom 3 or Civilization III in 10 years, while I do play old games from time to time (C64 and Amiga games)

I wouldn't say games created today are much better than games created 10 years ago... most new games are more fun than classic games, but only for a short time, then they get boring. Most classic games are almost as fun as they where when they were released...

True words well spoken

I'm having a blast with Xcom UFO(and .....cough...the second and third xcoms games - this is the first time i've been bad like this, but thank god for the site we cannot mention ), its been a while since i last played this(lost cd's) - its still an all time classic, and i'd pay £50 for something like it today, maybe £100 if it was at least its equal.

And of course civ1/2 the reason we have this here Aployton site in the first place.

I've been having a blast with my xbox - but even the 'deep' and potential classic games on that format won't be being played over and over in a few years time, well its very unlikely anyway.

Are we more of a 'throw away' society these days, say compared to 5-10 years ago, maybe thats one possible reason why our games are becoming the way they are??

And good luck to the industry if it wants to increase prices

Another nail in the coffin of computer games. They should just make good games. Good well designed games that offer good value for money and stop ripping(for the most part) Joe public off. May they all rot in the cesspit of their creation. I dont think many people appriciate paying 40 bucks now for a game they have finished before dinner. They wont learn untill its too late though. oh well.

Still we have a glorious history of some very excellent games that are still worth playing, and most can be found very cheap in bargin bins etc