Analyst: Publishers potentially slashing $60 pricing

by Majed Athab { Feb 3rd 2009 at 8:35PM }

In this day and age of economic downturn, people are holding on to their hard-earned greenbacks. For some, the $60 price tag on new gaming software is a bit too rich for their blood and – as if sensing their trepidation – Signal Hill analyst Todd Greenwald says it might be on its way out. Greenwald points to this trend using retail and publisher-supported price reductions during the past holiday season (Mirror's Edge, Madden NFL 2009) as examples of what could become stationary in 2009.

Consumers might be smugly smiling at the possibility of future software price cuts; however, such a move to counteract slowing sales would only be a brief riposte. In the long run, it would cut the industry deeply and would be "devastating for margins." That means more of this and less of that. In the end, it's a double-edged sword for both the industry and consumer alike.

Tags: economy, industry, price-cut, recession, signal-hill, todd-greenwald

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

greg @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:41PM

This would cause me to buy more games. Maybe 2 at a time instead of 1. 100 dollars is a little easier to swallow than 120. People wouldn't be so inclined to buy used copies either.

suicycle.com @ Feb 4th 2009 1:22AM

Right. However, what we will probably see more of are publishers shifting resources to creating games for the Wii. With that huge and ever-expanding user base, pubs with decent wares can probably save some of their margins if they can control development costs better on the less-advanced platform. That could be a sad state of affairs for PS3 and 360 in this console generation. The next generation could suffer even more.

qsq @ Feb 4th 2009 5:25PM

50bucks max

Longhorn4Life @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:42PM

First up Killzone 2...

Alien Lord @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:42PM

While I'm all for saving a few bucks not if it means we gamers lose out on good games in favor of cheap squeals.

SuckItTrebek @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:55PM

Perfect response, with that icon. ;)

Deeznuts420 @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:02PM

^awesome username, 2nd only to therapistsfor500

JuanDHexen @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:08PM

Correct,Just Leave The 60$ Price Tag Alone.

DarkNessBear @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:51PM

Yes, all games will be garbage if they are 50 bucks. What-ever. Games are way to fucking expensive and they need to rework this entire pricing structure;

Epic Games with multiplayer - $50
Single player/sports titles - $40
Minigame type games (boom blox for example) - $30
Downloadable smaller games- $5-15

It's utterly insane paying 60 bucks for games like Mirrors Edge or Uncharted, they are both games I HIGHLY enjoy, but 60 bucks is asking a LOT.

Sean @ Feb 4th 2009 12:02PM

Sorry, slight typo in your post.

Sports games: $20

There we go.

baconaholic @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:39PM

Sports games for $20 makes perfect sense to me... 2K Games had a lot of success doing that on Xbox 1 and PS2.

Alien Lord @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:48PM

Single player/ with multiplayer - $50
sports titles - $5
Mini game type games (boom blox for example) - $30
Downloadable smaller games- $10 - $20
This is a better pricing structure

PSN: slycooper_rocker (The Agent of Orange) @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:49PM

darknessbear, you summed it up perfectly. if the industry wants to survive the recession, they have to make some cuts. if they're not making as much of a profit, so be it. its better than the industry dying as a whole. gaming is a whole media in and of itself. if it died, it would be no different than the movie, music, or book industries dying as well. and what is society without expression? if sacrifices have to be made in some areas, i won't complain TOO much.

finnith @ Feb 3rd 2009 11:00PM

@Alien Lord
You're setting sports games at a price lower than DL games. $5 seems to be a stretch, unless you're arguing that only a simple update would be needed to upgrade a game for the next year.

Alien Lord @ Feb 4th 2009 12:12AM

@finnith I wouldn't even pay $5 for a sports simulator but since they do exist they sure as hell shouldn't charge what they do, but you point about just updating is still valid.

BigD145 @ Feb 4th 2009 12:28AM

Would you rather have expensive shitty sequels and DLC? That's what we get right now.

phil1017 @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:42PM

Yeah $60 is too much!!! $50 is better than $60. Anyone agrees with me?

Crusty Magic @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:43PM

I wish they would just return to $50 flat out.

Economic downturn or not, I've always thought that $60 is too much to pay retail for a game.

Throw in state tax (California) and the price comes out to be almost $65 for a new game.

Alien Lord @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:44PM

I guess California's tax rate is close to BC's as that's about what a new game often costs here.

Foetoid @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:43PM

Ouch. I forgot in the US your on-shelf prices don't include tax. Here in Australia, when you see something on the shelf for $100, it's $100 at the register.

CH3BURASHKA @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:45PM

For most people, 50 dollars is nice round number. Although 60 dollars is only 10 more, the thought of going from the mid 2-digits to high 2-digits is a very strong psychological factor. I'm sure for this reason alone they will get the sales needed to subsidize the 10 dollar price drop.

Bailers @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:46PM

Would it really mean less good games? Or just less shovelware? If you are going to make less money off of each game, why not put your resources into the few games that are more likely to be hits?

Dyson @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:50PM

AMEN to that!

Noshino @ Feb 3rd 2009 11:39PM

uh, that theory would work on a perfect world.

But on this one, slashing prices would most likely mean that the amount of shovelware will increase, after all, they are the cheapest games to make, they have more room for price cuts without sacrificing much of the profits.

Al2x @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:45PM

I think I speak for everyone when I say I love to buy great games that are cheap, but what I can't stand is to buy a game at full price, and then nearly a day or two later it'll be slashed, half price.

I bought Saint's Row 2 the second week of January for $60, just to see that next week it was slashed to $30 at Gamestop and Bestbuy retailers.

Alien Lord @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:49PM

Really it's that cheap now, I might pick it up as I just finished the first and wow that games is what GTA should be.

Xta Large (Formerly Fatass) @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:52PM

Saints Row is what Saints Row should be. I like the whole pre-GTA4 zaniness that Saints Row 1 and 2 both had, but I also like the direction GTA4 went in. I'd welcome a future with both series continuing in their respective directions.

Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:03PM

Al2x

You know the great thing about Best Buy is if they have a price drop on any item within 30 days of you purchasing it they will pay you the difference back. I bought a BT headset for my cousins 18th birthday and then they had for about $30 less on a black Friday deal and I simply brought in the receipt and they gave me the money right there no questions asked. I'm not sure about Gamestop but I know thats a Best Buy company policy. Another reason I like Best Buy if for their rewards zone program. It's free to join and they pay you for buying their items. They have a new program called Gamers Club where you get an extra $10 certificate for every $150 you spend on videogames in addition to your regular rewards zone bonus certificates which is $5 for every $250.

Sean @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:57PM

Where the hell do you see Saints Row 2 for $30?

JayA @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:49PM

Good news. $ 60 is too much for a game.

Course I've never paid more than $ 20 for any of my Xbox 360 games (all 31 of them).

There is no game that I need to have right now so I can wait for them to drop in price and/or get them used in great condition.

InFaMoUs1- @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:49PM

as much as I really want to see this happen... i dont think it will knowing the way of the gaming industry. back to look for cheap deals and price drops for me

time @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:53PM

I hate paying 60 dollars for a video game. 50 dollars is much easier to swallow, even though it's only a 10 dollar drop. Hell, even 55 dollars seems better.

one @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:53PM

The way I see it is that you sell a game for less and more people will buy it on release day and less people will wait for the price to come down or buy it used from GameStop. So, selling for $50 on release date is better than having more games on the shelve until there is a sale for the game.

pibs @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:54PM

Dropping the price could potentially lead to less used game sales.

stromm @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:54PM

$50?!?!?! How old are all you people. Take the price back to the $29.99-$39.99 days.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem spending $60 on a game if it lasted more than 10 hours. THAT is the injustice of the current gaming industry. Console games just aren't worth the cost. Sure, they look pretty, but there's no meat to them. Most are just the same button mashing crap through the whole game, nay, through the whole series.

Current games are like a Diablo kit car powered by a 2.8L V6. Looks pretty, but a total joke.

Drop the time spent on graphics which most people don't have TV sets capable of displaying and come up with better games.

Maybe the current devs need to start playing games from the 80s and 90s. Back then, they HAD to rely on good story, game play, etc. because they couldn't rely on graphics.

SuckItTrebek @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:57PM

80s games, good stories? We must be remembering different 80s.

Maybe even the 90s too. "You spoony bard!"

rick @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:58PM

your old LOL

DangerMouse @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:26PM

Games on the SNES were $70 at times. And if it wasn't an RPG, good luck finding a game with a decent story.

Draco @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:36PM

I bought Final Fantasy 3 retail for 120 CDN. NES games were selling for over 50$ which with inflation is damn near $100. and those games were made by 2 or 3 people in a couple weeks.

prices aren't bad... that being said I would be more inclined to buy if it was cheaper :P

tmmoore_nc @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:55PM

I'm going to guess developers will demand the big 3 cut the disc production costs or risk losing their business so they can maintain these margins by making the games $50 each here.

Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:58PM

If a developer puts enough development time and resources into a game it is absolutely worth the $60 price tag. Obviously the nature of the beast is to push games out before they are ready and in doing so we get allot of games that released broken and would have greatly benefited from an extra amount of time and resources.

I like to think of what Square is doing with Final Fantasy 13 as a game and a developer that are taking the time and spending the money to make the product the best it can be. I also feel this is what Sony and Guerilla did with Killzone 2.

What I'm saying is that there are some games you have to worry about being worth the full retail price when they are released. There are some other games (very few) that you know have had adequate development time and are going to be worth your money.

I spent quite a bit on games last year and bought all the games I wanted and took chances on a few others. I am going to be way more tight with my spending on games and DLC this year because of the economic outlook. Where as before I might have taken a chance on a game (Mirrors Edge, Dead Space, Valkyria Chronicles etc ...) and it turned out great this year I will only buy games that I know with 100% certainty that I will enjoy. This also leads me to only want to purchase games with lots of replay value. That means I might miss out on experiences like Bioshock over a game that has co-op or competitive multiplayer. Now, if a game launches at a lower price but still has high quality I would certainly be more apt to considering it.

This is bad for developers no matter how you slice it because I can imagine myself purchasing more games on the second hand market for 33-50% off the original retail price.

Ungamer @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:26PM

Vesper can't post an intelligent comment to save his life

what else is new?

Johnny's comment made sense and was thought provoking. I know you like to hold grudges around here (hell, everyone does - I'm not just picking on you this time) but come on, at least give him that.

Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:36PM

Thanks Ungamer I appreciate your comment. Just trying to put my personal example out there about how this could affect my purchasing decision.

Vesper must be in an agitated state today. I suppose he just got the news (of his sexual escapades with multiple male internet partners) that he contracted some horrible sexually transmitted disease. Either that or he is all out of meth and is taking his rage out on everyone else. He hasn't been getting much attention lately so he has to do what he can to be noticed.

Ungamer @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:40PM

As stupid as I believe Vesper to be, that response of yours just now wasn't much better

and yeah, I've seen some of the things the guy said before. No need to stoop to his level to get the point across

Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:42PM

duly noted

Ungamer @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:46PM

"Again it's okay for you to say offensive things like I take meth and I am riddled with stds yet if I talk about your dead relative and tell you to go cry about him or her in the corner I'm in the wrong? YEAH that's hypocrisy at it's best."

Aren't you the one who is always saying that, once someone crosses the line, it's supposedly perfectly OK to continue to cross the line back?

He may be a hypocrite, but hey, he's a hypocrite who makes smart posts.

You're just a hypocrite.

"I think anyone who takes the time to visit this site is above your average intelligence for the most part. I'm not saying write using a 3 year olds vocab. I'm just saying it's sorta ridiculous how you write this expansive huge ass posts and expect people to read that crap."

Now, if you had simply posted this, I doubt things would have gone too far. I'd probably have defended you if you said this and he reacted in an offensive way. Since you responded by actually explaining your feelings for once, I'll post a response free of insults or the like.

First, Johnny is certainly one of the smarter posters around here, and he continually shows it. Now, some of us appreciate intelligent comments - myself included. Why should he have to dumb down his post simply because there are people out there who aren't as interested in reading a well-thought-out opinion?

Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:49PM

Vesper

Playing the victim again are we?

If you don't want to read my post just skip over it. It's a pretty simple concept. You don't go stirring a hornets nest unless you want to get stung.

Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:57PM

I hate to rain on your parade but you were the one that replied to my post.

Ungamer @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:05PM

"Same for xta, tmac, maverick, duke, and other sony fanboys."

I know that Tmac is a bit of a Sony fanboy, but I know the other three aren't.

Then again, as I've said before, you have this standpoint where, if anyone dares to defend the system or tell you that you're an idiot, they must be a Sony fanboy.

Grow up.

Xta isn't a Sony Fanboy. He was a Wii fanboy long before you even started posting here.

The Duke I'm thinking of doesn't even OWN a PS3. He has a 360.

Maverick has both the PS3 and 360 and prefers the 360.

Man, it's like you NEVER know what you're talking about, lol