Topic: Are games too expensive?

[idolminds]

Article thingy

Gabe Newell (ugh) talks about how awesome Steam is at allowing them to, you know, lower prices. And guess what he found? Selling a game for LESS money means MORE people buy it! Shocking, I know.

He does make an interesting case, though. They made more money this past weekend selling L4D at $25 than they did when they launched it at $50. Of course there are more factors involved, like the fact that the game currently lacks in content and people may feel its not worth $50, the mentality of people finding stuff "on sale" pushes them to buy now (see Circuit City liquidation "sales" that are flocked to despite the same items being cheaper elsewhere at regular price), and its Valve and people would buy anything they release.

The other thing is you still have dev costs to make back, and with those skyrocketing you better make damn sure you'll sell the volume you need to make back your cost. Plus companies are greedy and would rather charge more and hope it sells just as well. But with money being the way it is, I can see cheaper games doing well. This is a perfect opportunity for indie devs to make a name for themselves.

I think I was going somewhere with this but its late and I have a headache so...here it is.

[Quemaqua]

I'd read it, but you said Gabe Newell, and he's against my religion and belief in personal hygiene.

[idolminds]

Oh yeah, now I remember a point I wanted to make: If Valve really believes this, then they won't raise L4Ds price back up.

[Pugnate]

They should raise the price back up of course. There will always be people who will buy the game for full price, because they don't care. I mean look at Intel. The performance difference between their flagship and their second fastest processor is about 2-5%, as it has always been. Yet, as always, they charge over $1000 for their flagship, while they charge $400 for their next in line. With the performance difference so minute, you wouldn't expect those $1000 processors to sell as well as they do, but many people are wealthy enough to not care.

Selling L4D at $25 had a greater psychological impact because it was a 50% reduction in price.

As for the question in general... are games too expensive?

Well, if you compare buying a game to going to a movie, and look at it purely in terms of hours, you might think games are more than fairly priced. You pay what, $10 for a 2 hour movie? At the same time, there is a LOT more unique entertainment in a good 2 hour movie experience, than there is in most two hour portions of a game.

Sure you can enjoy a two hour playing session of Bioshock at any time, but most of it isn't as unique as a movie; there isn't nearly as much happening constantly. And if you look at a game like Halo, at least the single player aspect of it has a lot of monotonous portions.

So are games overpriced? I think so. But it is difficult to compare it to the movie going experience. While a game can in theory provide endless periods of entertainment, how many gamers even finish games? While watching a great movie only provides entertainment for a couple of hours, the quality of that entertainment can be far more exhilarating.

Taking Portal for example, which I really liked, and thought it was worth $10. If I had a choice -- pay $10 for six two eight hours of Portal, or pay $10 to watch The Dark Knight, or Transformers in the theaters with my friends... I'd most definitely watch the movie.

Still, it is a difficult question, because there are plenty of other factors. Do games cost more to make than movies? Also, games with free quality multiplayer experiences can be very valuable.

I think something like the original Unreal Tournament was outstanding in terms of the hours of quality entertainment it provided.

[scottws]

I think $50 is a sweet spot.  Games have cost that amount for quite some time and I don't have a huge issue buying them at that price, though I often do wait to see if GoGamer has one of those $10 - $20 off sales a few weeks after release. 

I get sticker shock at the $60 360 games and haven't bought one in two years.

But idol brings up a good point about the cheaper prices and indie games.  XBLA, Steam, and Impluse have given indie devs a more prominent and trusted storefront.  I think it's a huge boon for the industry.  Recently there was a thread I crashed that lamented the fact that the extremely high production value games are seeming to give way to the more simplistic indie and casual games.  I'm the opposite.  I'm rediscovering what videogaming is truly about: fun.  I don't care anymore about how many polygons or normal maps are in a game.  I loved Call of Duty 4, but World of Goo has left a deeper impression after I've finished.

I'm much more inclined these days to spend $10 - $30 on a game on XBLA, Steam, or Impulse than I am to go to Best Buy and spend $50 or $60.

[Cobra951]

Funny thing about price is how it affects people's prejudgment of quality.  The $50-60 tier is expected for big game releases on disc, and when something comes out well below that, people may assume there's something wrong with it.  The right psychology there seems to be to release at the expected price, and later reduce it to reel in more business.  (On sale!  Woo!)

Releasing big games on services like Steam is still new enough that maybe people don't yet have such a rigid mindset.  They might even expect a hefty discount because of no media, printing, packaging or shipment costs.  (I sure would.)  As more people get on board with online distribution, it makes even more sense to discount the unit price.  Bandwidth costs aside (which I have a feeling don't go up linearly) it's all gravy.  Once you make your nut, bring in all the buyers you can at whatever their increasing numbers will pay.

I don't care anymore about how many polygons or normal maps are in a game.  I loved Call of Duty 4, but World of Goo has left a deeper impression after I've finished.

Excellent point.  Graphics are sort of a given anymore, aren't they?  You can't sell a game now based on how big a 3D world is or how pretty it looks.  That's old hat.  Bring on the new experiences in whatever format serves them best.  The more machines that can run it, the better for everyone, starting with the dev.

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, I don't know where scott gets the impression we're lamenting innovation or good gameplay.  Graphics mean very little to me.  My complaint is that we're getting more casual games not in the vein of World of Goo, et al.  If something comes along which is innovative and unique, I'm all for it.  Despite my seeming angst at Braid in the other thread, I think it's one of the games heading in the right direction by trying something a bit different and achieving a consistent level of artistry, and the three games I'm most excited about right now are Mount&Blade, Flower, and Noby Noby Boy.  There are a few other big ones on my radar, like Street Fighter IV and Dawn of War II, but the others have my attention more right now.

[Pugnate]

Scottws' post may result in my purchase of World of Goo!

[K-man]

As someone who vividly remembers the days of paying 75-80 bucks for a SNES game, I still can't find too much fault with 60 dollar titles.  I've been choosy with what games I buy new for quite some time now.  If I pay full price now, it means that I really want the game day one.

[Cobra951]

I thought of mentioning the common $70+ price tag for Genesis games, and later N64 carts.  I left it out after all (until now).

Pug, there's a demo of the entire first world.  It's maybe too generous.  Try it.

[MysterD]

Yeah, games are probably too expensive, honestly. And honestly, companies are spending too much cash on making them, too. Hence why I wait for many games to hit $20 or less; some games I buy at $30 or less; very few I spend $40-50 -- unless the game is a very long game (such as an RPG, which usually are over 25 hours AT LEAST) or is very highly replayable, you won't get my $50. Price drops -- especially on the PC -- occur very often and very fast here, anyways, as is; especially when you have places like Gogamer.com around.

I recently bought Mass Effect PC -- and the voice-acting in this game is stellar. But, there's even voice-acting when looking through and/or reading the Codex / Background Info about races, location, etc etc -- which I think the narration is excellent, but I asked myself the question - "Is this even necessary? Plus, I read at a much faster pace than what the Codex is talking at, too."

About L4D, My parents bought it for me as a somewhat belated X-Mas present. They only paid $10 for it, so... Damn right it was worth every penny. Got an Amazon credit card, automatically knocked off $30.

[MysterD]

No surprise really here.
Retail PC games are down over 50%, though digital downloads seem to be taking over the sales.

NPD Says PC Retail Sales Down 50%
By Luke Plunkett, 8:30 PM on Fri Feb 20 2009, 3,379 views

Speaking at the DICE Summit in Las Vegas today, Anita Frazier of the NPD Group has revealed an interesting little piece of information regarding the PC market, saying retail sales are down by over 50%.

That's over the past seven years. Grim reading, then? Not really. Although NPD "has been having trouble with is digital downloads" tracking, Frazier was able to announce that, as a rough estimate, the PC gaming market is "at least twice what retail shows".

Which, after a quick spot of dodgy mathematics, means the PC market is pretty much...well, stable, digital downloads replacing the decline in boxed-product sales.

With more digital download up-jumps like Steam, Impulse, Metaboli, GOG, etc and more retail stores such as GameStop with increasingly smaller PC gaming sections, this is definitely expected. I mean, look at how well Steam did with L4D this past weekend ALONE (3000% increase in sales w/ its $25 weekend sale) and how well they did during their After X-Mas sale.

The only real local place I know with a huge PC gaming section here is (chain store) Best Buy around here -- with racks and racks of PC games, on both sides. You're lucky these days if you go into WalMart's, Target, or any other chain store and see more than one single-sided rack of PC games.

[Cobra951]

This realization shines a brighter light on the danger of Steam's dominance.  That's a distribution monopoly, and I don't trust the DoJ at all anymore to enforce the anti-trust laws.

[Quemaqua]

You nor me.

I keep wanting to pinch myself so I'll wake up.  I don't understand why people think all this is a good thing.  And it's mostly because I don't understand why it's the opposite of my own preference.  I *like* brick and mortar stores, and I don't enjoy at all the experience of downloading something (unless I'm getting a hard copy at some point in the future).  I just don't understand why other people do.

[idolminds]

Its only a matter of time until Valve does something bad with Steam. They are not immune to failure, closeouts, or even buyouts. Sadly it will take people losing their entire game catalog to realize the pitfalls of Steam and putting all their eggs in one basket.

[Pugnate]

Come on, with Steam the leading PC digital distribution by miles, a collapse wouldn't happen overnight. Valve had said a while back that in the unlikely event that STEAM were to shutdown permanently, they would release a perma-offline fix.

So I am not worried about Steam going south at all. What I am worried about, is the opposite. With Steam gaining in strength -- especially this year --, it won't be long before they are tempted into abusing that power, and sit on what they have, ala Intel during the Pentium days.

With absolute power, they are going to have more opportunities to abuse that power in order to increase their profit margins.

The only positive thing is that they are a fiercely independent company. What that means is that they feel far less pressure to abuse their power, than say a company like EA would.

Still, buy outs happen very quickly, and a blank check could perhaps see someone like EA buy Valve. That's why it is vital for services like Impulse (even though I think Wardell is easily more full of shit than Gabe Newell) to take off, so that there is competition.

What I don't get is why these brick and mortars like Best Buy and EB launch their own services.

And yes, I hate downloading games.

Buying a game digitally, rather than going retail is like swallowing a 600 calorie food pill, rather than eating a nice tasty double whopper. 

[W7RE]

You nor me.

I keep wanting to pinch myself so I'll wake up.  I don't understand why people think all this is a good thing.  And it's mostly because I don't understand why it's the opposite of my own preference.  I *like* brick and mortar stores, and I don't enjoy at all the experience of downloading something (unless I'm getting a hard copy at some point in the future).  I just don't understand why other people do.

I resisted the idea of digital distribution for a while, because I like having a hard copy of my games. With my currect living situation though, I've got very little room, so most of my PC games are boxed away in the garage. I don't have room for the box anywhere, so I have to go dig it out every time I decide I want one of my old games. Sometimes I'll grab a stack of 5 games, but then there's more I wish I'd grabbed and my desk becomes cluttered. So partially because of this, I've grown tired of needing CDs and DVDs lying around everywhere, and having to switch the disc in my drive with each game. I was really excited about the idea of being able to copy my Xbox games to my system's hard drive, but then I was seriously disappointed when I realized I still had to put the disc into my Xbox.

So I've kind of shifted to the idea that as long as I can re-access a game if my computer blows up or something and I lose my data, I'd rather just avoid a CD/DVD. I remember when RPGs used to come with cool maps, and when Max Payne came with a mousepad. If you're getting a box, a paper sleeve with a DVD, and a manual if you're lucky, why bother with the box and disc? However, I do think it's a bad idea to let Steam take over the entire world of digital distribution, if just because of the need for competition to keep people in check.

[idolminds]

Come on, with Steam the leading PC digital distribution by miles, a collapse wouldn't happen overnight. Valve had said a while back that in the unlikely event that STEAM were to shutdown permanently, they would release a perma-offline fix.

See, I can't trust that. It's impossible to know if they will actually do such a thing. In the event of Valve closing shop, Steam is large enough that someone will buy it. It's too big with too many users for it not to be worth something to someone. With new rulers will come new rules.

Even if Valve was able to "set it free", there are already too many companies involved to make it a realistic expecttion. As I said somewhere else, if Valve releases a patch that removes the need for Steam...what does that really involve? You can't patch EVERY game, so it must be a generic Steam client that simply allows you to play everything. Trouble with that is you could very easily download the files for games you don't own and this new Steam client has no idea if you should run it or not, basically turning every Steam game into a DRM free release. I'm not sure every company would be happy with that. If Steam was truly shutting down the game archives would hit torrent sites (since that would be the only way to acquire the games you leased bought if you didn't make any kind of physical backup). I mean, all these games are pirated anyway but this wouldn't require any cracks or anything.

I mean, you're right. The chances of Steam having to close up shop is slim and gets slimmer the more companies latch onto it. Of course, Circuit City was a big national chain and its gone now.

We just need to prevent it from becoming a monopoly. I'm not really happy that I'm forced to deal with Steam if I buy DoW2...no matter where I buy it. Its built in. Gah.

[Pugnate]

Trouble with that is you could very easily download the files for games you don't own and this new Steam client has no idea if you should run it or not, basically turning every Steam game into a DRM free release. I'm not sure every company would be happy with that.

The only events where I see Steam unable to exist anymore are filled with world catastrophe, where I don't imagine game companies giving a shit about DRM, because their owners would be more interested in self preservation.

But again, if we do have a hypothetical situation where Valve slowly goes out of business, and has no choice but to shut down Steam (for natural economic reasons, and not due to a world war, or a zombie virus outbreak [which would be a bit ironic]), then it would only be natural to assume that that breaking point would come slowly, with gaming companies having enough warning not to release new products on that service. The only games affected by the sudden lack of DRM would be games that had been out for a while.

Besides, I think companies realize that rather than faking Steam installations, it would be easier for pirates to simply torrent and crack the games -- far less effort.

But I do agree that it would be very dangerous if Steam were to be purchased by a large company that were willing to easily change the rules. Like EA for example, who are quite happy with disallowing downloads of legally purchased titles after a certain period -- which is absolutely crazy.

While the sale of Steam to a larger publicly traded company is more likely than Steam shutting down at some point, it is till I feel, unlikely. Steam is making Valve money hand over fist. Would someone really be willing to bid more money for Valve than what their combined projected net margin is for the next ten years? While it is unlikely, I guess you never know. I mean Tom Clancy sold his name since he grew too old to write etc...

Again, I am not particularly fond of Steam, love retail copies of games, and am too weary of this upcoming monopoly... but I do see some of these fears as unlikely events... well except for the one where Steam gets bought... in that situation, we'd truly be helpless.

I'd love to hear from a lawyer on this actually. What if EA bought Steam... could they suddenly start charging a dollar for every time a game was redownloaded? Would they be able to change the rules for games that were bought at the time when they didn't own Steam?

[Quemaqua]

Don't write those fears off as unfounded.  Business news of that caliber comes up and surprises on a regular basis, with companies that you thought were doing great announcing that they're having problems or whatever.  Don't ever let yourself get that comfortable.  Valve closing up shop is certainly unlikely, but it's very far from impossible, especially in an industry like this where consistency doesn't necessarily guarantee you anything and big changes can happen in short order, especially when a lot of it is dictated by fickle consumer whim.

In any case, what idol says is right.  There are things to fear.  But it's true, the biggest thing we have to fear right now is Steam becoming a monopoly.  I really do not like the way Valve has done things, and I don't trust them.  Not because they haven't generally been okay, but because I see leanings in the wrong direction at times, leanings that to me are indicative of a future direction that will not sit well with me.  I saw the same thing with Google before, and they've already gotten heavily into stuff that I don't trust.  But guess what?  Too late now.  We need to make sure Valve has a lot of good, stiff competition to make sure the same thing doesn't happen there.

[Xessive]

Reminds me of 3dfx.

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, good example.  Great, solid company with a lot of loyal customers and fantastic customer support, and a couple of bad decisions spelled their demise in pretty short order.  Valve is doing very well for themselves now, but if a few bad decisions turn out to cost them a whole lot, somebody could be ready to scoop them up.

[beo]

oh wow, another anti steam thread. totally didn't see that one coming.

[Xessive]

It's not anti-Steam per se. It's anti-negative-bits-of-Steam.

It's like "I don't hate Bob, I just hate it when he gets drunk and harasses me."

[Quemaqua]

It's not anti-Steam, it's (at the moment) a discussion about what could happen to it.  That has nothing to do with the service itself either positive or negative, it's just a speculation on what could or couldn't potentially happen to it.

[MysterD]

There's a lot of things to hate about Steam -- required activation for SP games; updates forced on you to run a game; offline don't always work for some people; etc.

And there's a lot of things to love about Steam -- achievements; excellent community; games update for you automatically without searching everywhere for a patch; No disc needed in drive; etc.

I think if Steam does go under for some reason -- whether Valve's service gets bought out or Valve somehow goes broke -- it's gonna be really up both 1st (Valve) and 3rd parties to deal with this. Valve really should release an executable to run all their games without Steam -- especially SP-based ones that never should require Steam (and its activation) in the first place.

3rd party companies who supplied their games to Valve to support their customers who bought their games over Steam. If Steam goes down for good, they should provide a patch or a disc-version of the game not requiring Steam to make Steam owners of their games happy. Last thing we need is another incident where like the Wal-Mart situation where one's virtual library won't work b/c the service and servers are gone.

3rd party companies that still exist, some games come w/ CD Keys that you buy off Steam. Well, having that CD Key, that should be enough for them to ship them a copy of their game for free. Or do like M&B does -- download the demo from the game company's site and if you do own a CD Key, input it into the demo to unlock the full game.

[Xessive]

I was just going through Steam's list of available games and I spotted Prince of Persia (2008) for $50! And I thought "It doesn't cost that much!" I checked at Virgin Megastore and it costs about $30 USD, I checked across the board at online retailers and it generally costs around $35 everywhere with GoGamer selling it at the discount price of $29.99.

Pug and Scott have already explained Valve's pricing in relation to the titles' publishers but does this make sense?

[MysterD]

You know, Valve takes a long time to make games.

I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a long time for them to switch to some sort of new pricing scheme over Steam.

[idolminds]

Maybe the publishers are lazy and don't update the Steam prices. Or they know people are sheep and will pay the inflated price anyway for the "convenience" of Steam.

[MysterD]

Maybe the publishers are lazy and don't update the Steam prices. Or they know people are sheep and will pay the inflated price anyway for the "convenience" of Steam.

Very true, if we're talking 3rd party games prices over Steam.

But, my comment was more directed at Valve's own games. This is *their* service, so if they want to price their *own* 1st party games cheaper, what the hell are they waiting for?

Is Valve they afraid they gonna piss off retailers if they price say L4D PC at $30 over Steam from now on and forward?

[Pugnate]

It was $25 a few days ago.

[gpw11]

I was just going through Steam's list of available games and I spotted Prince of Persia (2008) for $50! And I thought "It doesn't cost that much!" I checked at Virgin Megastore and it costs about $30 USD, I checked across the board at online retailers and it generally costs around $35 everywhere with GoGamer selling it at the discount price of $29.99.

Pug and Scott have already explained Valve's pricing in relation to the titles' publishers but does this make sense?

PoP 2008 is a strange bird in and of itself.  At release it seemed to have two price points - $29.99 and $49.99.  Some places had it at one, some at the other and this includes both online and brick and mortar stores. Amazon Canada had it at one price, and Amazon USA at the other.  Fucked up.

[Pugnate]

Yea I don't get that either. That's something weird with PoP.

At retail it is going for both $50 and $30, without any discounts. I think some places just confused the PC with the console version, in terms of price.