MSNBC asks analysts if $60 is too steep for games

"MSNBC asked several analysts -- but not a single consumer -- "

Here Joystiq, I'll save you alot of strain on the noggin wondering the answer to that one.

Us consumers say HELL YEAH $60 is too steep for a video game.

Here in Australia we pay $100 or more at retail for games. No it's not the Aus/US dollar difference we paid the same before our dollar got fucked over.

Quit your bitching.

The only reason Australia pays more for games is because you've been willing to pay that much for games. Same as anyone else.

Our RRP is actually AUS$119.95 for 360/Ps3 games and AUS$99.95 for Wii/Ps2 games, double what the US pays. You have to remember tho, that we only have a population of 21 million people. When distributing a game to the US with like 300 million people, there are more gamers there than there is people in Australia, so the costs of distributing the game is less as the country's retailers can 'buy in bulk' and the costs are divided up amongst a greater gaming community. Shipping and distributing games all the way down to Australia to a smaller gaming community will increase the price of games so distributes get the same profit they would elsewhere.

Our price also includes all taxes. In the US, they see a game on the shelf for $60 and pay more at the register cause each state has different taxes (kinda backwards i know). Our countrys tax system is unified, and the price on shelf is what we pay at the register.

RRP means nothing tho. I know JB Hifi retailers often sell brand new games for $20 less than RRP. Also when the Aussie dollar goes back up, buy games through Steam, then you get a great price. When the Aussie dollar was like 97 US Cents, PC games on Steam could be had for $65 brand new.

All the more reason to gravitate towards the "digital distribution" model I suppose.

Exactly, I still buy through Steam because it's still cheaper, just not as much anymore.

How much is the US willing to pay for games and why is $60 too much? What's the average weekly wage over there? How much do movies cost to buy on BluRay or DVD?

Give me a break, dude.

If the new price drops to $50, the used price falls to $45 (or less) and those same people would still prefer to wait until they could find a used, cheaper copy of the game. People who like saving money will remain inclined to save money irrespective of how much a new title may cost. Dropping the price would make zero difference in terms of used sales.

And I really wish that gamers would put a plug in their bleeding hearts for developers and publishers when it comes to used sales. CDs, DVDs, cars, textbooks, basically any tangible good that could be sold on eBay or Craig's List .... the original manufacturer doesn't see a dime. Quality is and forever will be the defining criteria for any company's products and I can assure all of them that if they make a quality product and market it effectively, they will have no issue with sales.

At some point gamers and game companies need to realize they are part of the rule, not the exception.

Yes, but you have to realize a lower initial price also means more people will buy it on launch, or soon after while there are no used copies available.

Also, when you sell/ buy a used item of ebay or amazon or craigslist, its practically a private transaction. They may take a small commission, but they aren't making tons of money off of used item sales like Gamestop does. You're dealing with an independent individual, who isn't lowballing you only to mark it up a day later.

It is NOT the same, give us a break.

yah, dropping the price doesn't mean much, because customers know that when those cheap games become old and are sold back, they can buy them at an even cheaper price.

Example? the Greatest Hits line, despite the fact that they are less than $20, people still wait til they are old so they can buy a cheaper used copy

It really depends with me. I'll buy a AAA title that I know cost a zillion dollars to make for 60 bucks, but I won't pay 60 bucks for some B title that I only want to play for fun, or for a Wii game, or for a new PS2 game (like Persona 4 which was like 40 bucks, Yakuza 2, etc). I don't think 60 is insane though, especially when you consider the enormous cost of producing a AAA title.

I don't think I'd buy even one more game at the 50 dollar price point. I would at the...say...greatest hits price point, in which case I can pick up three games for the price of one though.

You are a fool WiredKnight if you actually believe an initial price point of $50 instead of $60 would make an appreciable difference in terms of initial sales. Again, it all goes back to quality. If the game is solid, even the penny-pinchers will find that extra $10 and purchase it new at $60.

This experiment has already been run ad-nauseum in the past year alone. PoP and L4D are but two examples of games that priced below $60 initially this past fall and assuredly sold the same amount of copies that they would have were the starting point $60. To the target audience of males ages 18-34, $5 or $10 doesn't make a bit of difference. To think otherwise is to expose one's own lack of understanding, candidly put.

Finally, whether you are dealing with an independent individual or GameStop or Carmax or your local college bookstore, the transaction is unequovically the SAME from the original manufactuer's perspective, as they see NONE of the money from the sale of a used item no matter WHICH parties are involved. Take your ignorance and bias off display for a moment and soak in the logic that's been laid before you, dummy.

iiijeremy, you really don't have to call people "bleeding hearts," "fools," and "dummies," just to get your point across. From now on when you comment, pretend you're actually talking to the person in front of you, not hiding behind the internet.

Excellent argument iiijeremy. You totally supported it with the fact that nothing that you said even makes sense. PoP and L4D were still $60 titles MSRP despite the fact that yes, they eventually went on sale when sales were lower than expected. Good job comparing the sales of those games to figures that don't even exist. "They bought as many copies as they would have before"? What? How would any of us know how much they would have bought the game were it cheaper or more expensive unless there were some parallel world where we actually ran that experiment? Or do you just get by in arguments by lacing your arguments with insults and repeating things until the other person stops caring? If so, I believe you have a future on Fox News.

But hey, maybe you feel like $60 is a great price for games, and you'd pay even more if they wanted. I hope that works out for you.

lasersanchez,

at least there is some truth to iiijeremy's argument, but crap like this

"Make all games $20 out the gate. I doubt I'd be buying used then. Make up for the difference and with episodic downloadable content (hell, even disc unlocks), take away incentives for selling a game back by releasing this over the course of a month or several months."

I mean, SERIOUSLY?

To begin with, good luck being able to afford making games and selling them retail for $20 each, hell, I would say Sony doesn't make much from Patapon or LocoRoco and are just releasing them to push hardware/other software.

Second, even if they are to release DLC over a whole year, after that year is done with, some people will sell their game, don't say they don't because even when they know that they will only get 3 or4 dollars for their 30 dollar game, they still sell them. And guess what? there will be people buying those used games.

Not only that, but you want them to make DLC content, I really hope you aren't expecting them to develop DLC for free, because they are barely making, if they even are, any profits.

And last but not least, many people hate disk unlocks and/or DLC that should have been available on the disk from the get-go.

So yah, all I can say to you is, I think you picked the wrong hobby. If you don't like the prices, which are not expensive by any means if you take in mind the actual development costs (shovelware excluded), then you are better off with freeware.

That, and the fact that PC games are $50 would make more people see it as fair. Also, when a game like Crysis is $50, they can't use Dev cost as a reason since that game probably cost more to make than most other games.

Better yet ice~, $49.99.

When you cross that line, you're fucking with the consumers mind.

I think that publishers should take advantage of the 20 to 60 dollar pricing that goes on now. It makes sense for AAA titles to be 60 bucks, they cost a lot of money to make. A solid game that is quite not AAA could easily compete by being priced at fifty or forty dollars. Look what happened with ESPN NFL back in the day before EA got the license, they sold the shit out of that game.

Banjo launched at $40 and it didn't really help with sales much at all.

Buh? I haven't seen any $69 games here in Canada since the N64 era.

SFIV @ FutureShop: http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0665000FS10117678&logon=&langid=EN

SFIV @ EB GAMES: http://www.ebgames.ca/rc_2.asp

I'm sure the Capcom games are just the beginning.

What the hell? That's retarded. I refuse to ever pay that much money for a game that doesn't come with a controller or something. Fuck that shit.

66% off MSRP = $20.40
66% of MSRP = $39.60

Which were you referring to, because 66% _off_ seems pretty unreasonable.

What I meant was that I'm not going to be taking chances on games unless they are on a special sale or used. Let's say a game like Godfather 2 launches at the regular $60 price point. Since thats not a game I can be 100% certain I will enjoy or that it will be as polished as say KZ2, RE 5 or FF 13 I would wait to purchase a game like that (considering it gets good reviews and positive hands on from others who's judgement I trust) for $30-$40 either discounted new or used.

The point I was trying to make is that while last year I did take some chances that paid off (Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, BF Bad Company etc ...) there were others that I also took chances on and didn't like at all like Prince Of Persia, Left 4 Dead & Devil May Cry 4. It's not that those games weren't quality titles (they were) it's just that I didn't feel they were a good value at the full retail MSRP. Now, if I had paid $30 for them I might have had a different opinion. For example, I bought that Bourne Identity game for $15 on clearance at Target and absolutely loved it at that price but I can imagine if I paid $60 I would have been disappointed.

When I look at current games like Fracture & Legendary selling for $20 & $30 new I might be more apt to consider them at that price opposed to the regular MSRP. So, this is kind of what I'm talking about in terms of some of the newer games that I'm sort of iffy about. Games that come to mind are The Godfather 2, Red Faction Guerilla, Fear 2, 50 Cent Blood On The Sand (actually looks fun), Matt Hazard, HAWX, Command & Conquer Red Alert etc ... If some of those games launched at $40 or $50 instead of $60 I would certainly consider purchasing a few more. At the full retail price I am pretty much just going for the can't miss titles that have allot of replay value like co-op or competitive multiplayer. The same reason why I think Resistance 2 is a great game compared to say Bioshock is because even though any one part may not be as good as the experience of Bioshock the entire package offers me more replay value for my money. I have a decent campaign, co-op and competitive multiplayer. That total package of a game that may not have any one feature that blows you away is a better value all things considered.

Not sure why this one is modded down, but it's the truth. I'd like to see $50 games just as much as everyone else, but in reality the publishers aren't going to lower prices if sales are going up. It's just not good business. If you want cheaper games, you need to stop standing in line to dish out your $60 every year for each Madden update and Halo sequel.

Honestly, I think we are in the middle of a "gaming bubble". There is a flood of poor quality games out there, and what we need is a re-balancing of the industry where companies can focus on quality titles rather than crapware sequels to mediocre games.

You are absolutely right. Game prices, along with the prices of everything else, will shift based on demand. But with the entire industry up nearly 20% (granted much of that is Nintendo) I am not sure we will see prices come down soon.

There must be a developer out there running matrices to determine how much money is lost on the used games market vs. selling at an initially lower price, but moving more items...

click the picture. Also, directly underneath the tags is little source button that will also link you to the original article.

Actually it was missing but they added it in after the fact. Thanks though!

I won't say it's the only game that deserved its $60 purchase price, but oh man Fallout is good. Possibly the best game I have played in years. Time spent playing per dollar invested can't be matched.

The only games that deserve my 69,95 € are Fallout 3 and Fable II.