Campaign for cheaper videogames

[Lumpbucket]

This probably only applies to the UK, but it seems like a good cause, with some support from game development studios!

 

http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/front.htm

[liveinabin]

I'm all for saving money, but thats a daft site. Their Xbox hardware example is totally wrong. M$ dropped the price of their console, yeah, but they're making a huge loss on it now. But the idea is that they get this back in games revenue. Consequently, if games come down to £20, they won't get it!

Not that I care one jot for Microsoft, but this applies to everyone else as well. If it was possible to create games and make a good profit at £20, there'd be a lot of companies doing it and selling a much wider variety of games at a more desirable price point. It isn't though. I'm not too bothered about games prices at the moment (apart from £45 for the Xbox games!). Remember the heyday of the SNES and Megadrive when Street Fighter 2 would cost you something like £60-£65!!

[Gunstar]

A "loss" compared to what? What they were expecting to make?!?! These so called "losses" that big companies post are based SOLEY upon PROJECTED (i.e., EXPECTED)GAINS. The video game industry is a burgeoning industry that is currently making larger profits than HOLLYWOOD, the benchmark for greedy profits. Yes, it is true that new technology is expensive to develop&produce when it first comes out, until it's successful enough to MASS PRODUCE, which makes costs lower&they re-engineer to be more cost effective. The fact is that if games were cheaper, they would sell a LOT more to a LOT MORE PEOPLE. I know plenty of people who would spend more if it was cheaper! Someone would gladly spend $200 or $300 on a console if they knew they could build a sizable collection of games for the same price. As it is, the are lucky to get 4-5 games for the same price as the console. The cheaper the prices, the more is sold, the more is sold, the more profits are made...the companies would make their money back EASILY in revenues of games sold if they sold more games due to cheaper price points. I don't buy new systems and games anymore AT ALL becuase of prices. I wait until I can get used systems&games or until the systems fail due to company greed and I get them new in the bargain bin. This certainly doesn't help the companies at all, but I probably end up spending a lot on bargains&used stuff , and the game companies would get this money early on to help them make a profit and survive if they charged less to start with. I'm talking software, not hardware. I'd definately spend the original $300 on an XBOX if I knew I could get the games for $15 or $20 apiece! Microsoft would be making all that money off of me, but right now, they aren't making a single PENNY off of me because of the prices. But once the games go to the bargain bin or I buy them used, Microsoft STILL isn't seeing any money from me, they've already lost out and it's the store that buys used games from the consumer that is profitting, or Microsft's already cut theire losses when I buy the game for $4.99 to $9.99 out of the bargain bin. Microsoft is my example, this is true of any console&game company. Sega could have made a lot more money off of me if this were true of them as well, but now they are making games for new systems that I won't buy because of the high price, hence, not buying their games, but instead I'm buying Dreamcast, Saturn and 32X games long after Sega will ever see another dime on my purchase of the products. Whew! that's enough, I've made my point.

[sdstuff64]

I think games are bit too much $$$,but what can I do,I'll still buy them.

 

$20 is too cheap for a game.Sure,it may sound good but game developers have to eat too.I like how some new games these games are $40,that's sweet.I think games should be $35,like GBA games.That would be cool.

[Fretwobbler]

If it was possible to create games and make a good profit at £20, there'd be a lot of companies doing it and selling a much wider variety of games at a more desirable price point.

 

There is a host of companies already doing this, for the PC. Sure a pc game will game £30 on release (already £15 less than a new release console game). Within a matter of months, sometimes even weeks if hugely succesful, the retail price just plummets to £20 and even less.

 

 

I agree 110% with everything Gunstar said. The only *new* new games I buy is for the PC, other than that its Dreamcast and Megadrive all the way, with the occasional 2nd hand PS2 game for £10-15.

 

Yes I'll get my x-box, and I'll get a gamecube, both will be purchased when Game(Elec Boutique) need to get rid of their stockpile because the PS3 has just come out and they are selling of old stock at £50 each brand new, just like we have just seen with the DC.

[somePUNK]

hey dude thats not 20 americian first off and second supply and demand guys there right but what we should instead of not buying games is not buy games to send a message and than buy more games to show that they can bring the price down because there is higher buying power int he industry but that we wont pushed around other wise it'll just be another crash

[liveinabin]

The more they squeeze the profit margin on games, the less variety you're gonna see. They're going to need practically every game to be a hit as it just won't be worthwhile putting the development time in for 'lesser' projects. You could just forget all those new 2D games that a lot of people on this site still want- it'd just be EA type popularist crud.

[Paul Slocum]

I really don't have a problem with game prices. Even if you buy games right when they come out, I don't think $40-$50 is that bad for hours and hours of great entertainment. Plus most games retain some value and can be sold for $10-$20 on Ebay.

 

And if you have a lot of time to play, renting makes it very cheap entertainment. But I usually don't have enough play time in a given week to make renting worthwhile.

 

-paul

[Pie]

Personally I think games are getting better and better value. The price of games (this relates to pc games, but I assume the same applies to consoles) has not risen for ten years or so. The amount of game you get for your money, as a rule, has.

 

Games look nicer, and often have more depth than they did a few years ago. Now of course there are many exceptions, and there are many shallow bland games produced today.

 

If you don’t like paying the price for new games, for around £10 you can get a game that’s a couple of years old but very playable (how about Thief, Dues Ex, Operation Flashpoint, Fallout I & II?). In fact, if you were to buy a Dreamcast, you get a pretty current console with great games for the price of one new game.

[Gunstar]

All I know is that movie companies spend millions and millions, into the tens and hundreds of millions, on movie production and they can sell VHS and DVD's for a LOT cheaper, so there is NO reason why a major game label couldn't do a high quality game, even spending millions, and still sell copies for under $20 or $30 US-especially now that games are on CD &DVD too! IT IS MOST CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. This would create a much larger customer base, as with movies, in return driving manufacturing cost down and profits up. This would also cut WAY down on piracy if the stuff is cheaper to start with...If Hollywood can keep a DVD under $20 after spending so much on movie production, even if it's a box-office disaster, then SilconValley can too! Video game development costs a hell of a lot less than movie development, especially since they don't have to pay millions to actors alone, the programmers and artists on the Dev. team certainly aren't making that kind of scratch, for the most part, I know they make a lot though, if the game is a hit...But prices aren't THAT big of a deal to me, I'll just continue to buy used and get the games at the price point I want, and the game companies will continue to lose my revenue because I'm buying second-hand. I can wait a few months to get it cheaply...

[christianscott]

what you really need to do is just wait 4 months and buy the game used for a third off the new price. i hate the high prices too but i dont see any change in that coming soon. you're at this site because you're a classic gamer, i'm assuming, perhaps finding old games so cheaply has made it hard to pay full price?

[Gunstar]

perhaps finding old games so cheaply has made it hard to pay full price?

 

that's partially true, but a lack of major funds is the main reason. I will continue to wait and buy the games&systems used or at clearance prices, but if game companies ever want to get initial revenues from me that will help their bottom line, they'll have to lower prices, otherwise they'll never see a dime from me. I just think there are a lot of people out there that do the same thing as me, or don't buy games at all because of cost. This is money from concumers that the industry is losing, and I think it's enough lost revenues that they could still make more than they are now from additional sales if the prices were lower. I know this must be true because I have a lot of friends that ask me "how you can afford all those games and systems, I only have the one system with a couple games becuase that's all I can afford, I'd love to get a lot more." Then I ask them how much they pay for the games and they answer $50-75, and I say, "well that's your problem, I pay $20-50 for the systems and average about $5-15 for the games on clearance and used. You spend $500 and get a system and 4 or 5 games, I spend $500 and get multiple systems and 40 or 50 games."

[liveinabin]

Well thats fine, half the people will pay the full price to have the latest thing and the other half will be satisfied to pick it up later when the price drops. The industry gets its due cut and everyones happy - no change needed.

[Atari-Jess]

perhaps finding old games so cheaply has made it hard to pay full price?

 

that is somewhat true with me, the rest being that I just cant afford new

games. with a low paying job and a low allowance, even saving up takes

a few months, I can't wait that long.

[Lost Monkey]

All I know is that movie companies spend millions and millions, into the tens and hundreds of millions, on movie production and they can sell VHS and DVD's for a LOT cheaper, so there is NO reason why a major game label couldn't do a high quality game, even spending millions, and still sell copies for under $20 or $30 US-especially now that games are on CD &DVD too! IT IS MOST CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. ...

 

This would be a valid comparison if there was such a thing as a theatrical release for videogames... By the time most films are released on VHS & DVD the studios have already recouped the cost of making the film and have already seen some profit. The home video release is usually just gravy...

[goatdan]

that's partially true, but a lack of major funds is the main reason. I will continue to wait and buy the games&systems used or at clearance prices, but if game companies ever want to get initial revenues from me that will help their bottom line, they'll have to lower prices, otherwise they'll never see a dime from me. I just think there are a lot of people out there that do the same thing as me, or don't buy games at all because of cost.

 

Actually, if we go back in time when SNES releases came out, they were $50ish. When NES releases came out, they were $50ish. When 2600 releases came out, they were $50ish.

 

Someone bought them, or else we wouldn't be collecting anything... You are doing the only thing that you can do, which is not buy. But as you said yourself your friends have the system with four or five games that they paid $50 for apeice, and those are the people driving the industry right now.

[jsoper]

And what's funnier is if you take that $50 people spent on 2600 games back around 1980 and adjust it for inflation, it will be much more than $50 in today's money.

[Raijin Z]

I got Chopper Command when it was still new for $25... H.E.R.O (purchased about 4 years later) was $19. I don't remember Atari 2600 games ever being $50, but I most certainle to remember every OTHER system's. Final Fantasy 3/6 for $80....

[Atari-Jess]

20-30 bucks US seemed to be what the cost of a new 2600 game was

at least according to stacks upon stacks of comic books from that era.

[Fretwobbler]

I really don't have a problem with game prices.  Even if you buy games right when they come out, I don't think $40-$50 is that bad for hours and hours of great entertainment.  Plus most games retain some value and can be sold for $10-$20 on Ebay.  

 

-paul

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you there Paul however that isnt the case for the people that made that site/started that campaign.

 

I will pay $40-50 for them, thats usually what new release PC games cost here, but they arent $40-50, they are more like $65-70

[AtariDude]

Like Nolan Bushnell said, Sell the razors cheap but also sell razor blades. In order words, even though some of these companies are selling the consoles at a lost, they make it in the selling of software. You are not going to find new games at $20 and have them be really good games. Mathematically it doesn't work out.

 

Only after games have been out for a long time do you see them get down to $20 and that is usually if you buy them used and not if you are buying them new.

 

Myself, I just wait for games to drop in price. I don't rush out and buy the latest, greatest game because I know that at some point the novelty will wear off and I will be able to get the same game for less.

[Ze_ro]

As far as I'm concerned, current consoles are too expensive to own. Obviously, there's millions of people who disagree with me, but when I can get a NES game for 1/10th the price of some crappy PS2 game, or an Atari game for 1/20th the price... then what's the point? Hell, I get more enjoyment out of a lot of the older games than I get from all the rehashed stealth and "reality" games (The Sims, Animal Crossing, etc) that are around lately.

 

What pisses me off is that they keep lowering the price of the system. What incentive is this? Smart people will realize that this is a small savings compared to your overall cost for collecting. If you buy a Gameboy Advance and 6 games, the Gameboy Advance itself only makes up for a small portion of the total cost regardless of how much Nintendo dropped the price. Of course, I guess this is their strategy now... but I will have no part of it. Lower the price of the games, and then you might get my interest. I know I keep mentioning this all the time, but Sonic Advance was selling for $60 CDN here. I don't think I can adequately comment on that without swearing.

 

I really hope more people will take my lead and STOP buying these games for such high prices. Trust me people, if people stop buying them, the price will go down. If that's not good enough for you, then at least wait for a month or two before buying the game... find it used or on discount. It's the same game, and you'll have the same enjoyment from it... plus you might just gain some character from exercising your patience.

 

I know that the industry is here to make money, and that games cost more to make nowadays than they did 20 years ago, but you can't possibly tell me that Half-Life wouldn't be making a profit if they were selling it for $10. If the game is good enough, even a cheap price will make the producers a fortune. Hell, if it's good enough, and the price is right, I'd buy it.

 

Until the prices come down, my newest system will continue to be my Dreamcast. If that means waiting until the Gamecube is obsolete, then so be it.

 

--Zero

[goatdan]

Trust me people, if people stop buying them, the price will go down. If that's not good enough for you, then at least wait for a month or two before buying the game... find it used or on discount. It's the same game, and you'll have the same enjoyment from it... plus you might just gain some character from exercising your patience.

 

I know that the industry is here to make money, and that games cost more to make nowadays than they did 20 years ago, but you can't possibly tell me that Half-Life wouldn't be making a profit if they were selling it for $10. If the game is good enough, even a cheap price will make the producers a fortune. Hell, if it's good enough, and the price is right, I'd buy it.

 

While I agree in spirit to what you are saying, I don't agree completely. Gamers in general expect so much more out of their games nowadays, and many companies figure that a higher production value means people will pay more to get it.

 

When the 2600 was the popular system, it would take one, two or maybe even ten programmers six or so months to churn out a decent game. They didn't need to hire voice actors for characters, create an hour of FMV, get the symphony to compose and play a soundtrack or anything like that. Programming teams tend to be bigger, and development cycles of over a year seem to be the norm.

 

I'll agree with you that Half-Life selling at $10.00 a pop probably could've turned a profit, but what about the games that are not as successful as Half Life? Selling your game so cheaply could bury them.

[AtariDude]

Actually getting a console inexpensively is good for the casual gamer who maybe looks at paying $200 for a PS2 as a system that could play games, play DVD movies, and audio CDs. I know that part of the reason that I got my PS2 is the fact that it could play DVDs since I was always using my PC to play DVDs and having to wait for the boot up process of my PC was too slow if I wanted was to watch a movie.

 

But you do have a point if they over charge on a game to make up the cost of console. That ultimately forces people to wait till the game is older to get it a lower price or to buy it used.

[Ze_ro]

I'll agree with you that Half-Life selling at $10.00 a pop probably could've turned a profit, but what about the games that are not as successful as Half Life?  Selling your game so cheaply could bury them.

 

All the more incentive to make good stuff instead of crap like "Deer Hunter"...

 

--Zero