$60 titles for next-gen

[GameSeven]

Ok, so we all remember the first time we heard titles may launch at 60 bucks in the next generation, but now that the release of the 360 is imminent, how are you all feeling about this?

Do you think this is going to be a viable business model? Clearly every participant in the next-gen will make their own judgements with some adjusting their purchases more than others. For myself, at launch, I'll probably grab only two titles at $120 when I might likely grab three if it were only $150.

Simple inflation would suggest that it is probably not reasonable to expect the price of games to remain fixed while the price of everything from eggs to gas continue to rise. And as producers increase staff sizes to meet the demands of the next generation, costs of production rise which inevitably get passed on to the consumer.

However, one would think this is possibly offset by the increased customer base of games in general. Each generation of consoles sells through more than the last over the lifespan of the console and with more potential buyers in each successive generation, the potential rewards are greater for those producers that can deliver quality titles. Also, while trends will almost certainly show an increase in the cost to produce titles, continuing development of tools and techniques should continue to improve productivity.

It will be interesting to see how quickly disounted prices are offered, particularly at the Targets/Walmarts/Best Buys. I got accustomed to going to EBs and Gamestops when their return policies were more accomodating, in the next generation I think price competitiveness will become a key component in a seller's success.

-G7

[anchester]

$60 is nothing to get angry at. If you feel its too expensive (hell most games are not worth 40 or 50), just wait a bit. Generally game prices drop quick.

Although with a new system, people are so excited, they tend to be impatient and buy everything at top prices.

[LAking]

I'm only getting two games at launch and the $60 price does play a role in that decision. I do think $60 is overpriced. I do think it's ok to expect games to stay at a peak price of $50 because i think we've been overpaying for years. I don't pay $50 to go see a movie or buy a DVD and those cost hundreds of millions to make. I'm kind of pissed that i will be paying $60 for NHL 2k6 for the 360 when it won't be all that much different from the $20 xbox version. I'll get NHL 2k6 because i'm a hockey addict and i'll get another game that is truly "next-gen" (ghost recon, pgr3 perhaps?). Then i'll wait to see what happens with prices and probably start a gamefly account for the time being so i can try out the other games.

[James_E]

Here's my perspective.


Round of golf, 18 holes: takes 4-5 hours, easily $60 if you're lucky, usually closer to $100. Let's say $80. $20/hour of entertainment. Usually it's fun, but if it drags on due to slow play or you have a terrible day, sometimes it's more aggravating than fun. (although personally I just enjoy it anyway.)

Buy a DVD, which you'll watch once, maybe twice (except special classic movies). $20.00. For probably 4 hours of entertainment if watched twice, so it's around $5.00/hour.

Go watch a pro sporting event live. $50 at a bare minimum. Maybe around 3 hours of game... so about $17/hour. You have no control over whether it will be a good game or not.

Buy a videogame. $60. Probably play it AT LEAST 20 hours, if not alot more. (unless it's a total dud... but then you should have done some research before buying then!) Let's say 20 hours. Entertainment cost is $3.00/hour. Can do it at home, in the evenings without interfering with family time at all. (Same goes for DVDs but not for golf or going out to a sporting event.)

All in all, $60 is not bad if you ask me. That's MY perspective. I understand not everyone has the same ideas...

[10spro]

Well, one of the reasons MS decided to launch their Next-Gen system ahead of Sony is to cut a piece of the pie that PS owns. If that's their true motive, bringing out games at $50 would help that cause a long way and in turn bringing the interest of more people towards the 360, including current loyal fans that think there's a lot life left in the current xbox.

[Diablo25]

Here's my perspective.


Round of golf, 18 holes: takes 4-5 hours, easily $60 if you're lucky, usually closer to $100. Let's say $80. $20/hour of entertainment. Usually it's fun, but if it drags on due to slow play or you have a terrible day, sometimes it's more aggravating than fun. (although personally I just enjoy it anyway.)

Buy a DVD, which you'll watch once, maybe twice (except special classic movies). $20.00. For probably 4 hours of entertainment if watched twice, so it's around $5.00/hour.

Go watch a pro sporting event live. $50 at a bare minimum. Maybe around 3 hours of game... so about $17/hour. You have no control over whether it will be a good game or not.

Buy a videogame. $60. Probably play it AT LEAST 20 hours, if not alot more. (unless it's a total dud... but then you should have done some research before buying then!) Let's say 20 hours. Entertainment cost is $3.00/hour. Can do it at home, in the evenings without interfering with family time at all. (Same goes for DVDs but not for golf or going out to a sporting event.)

All in all, $60 is not bad if you ask me. That's MY perspective. I understand not everyone has the same ideas...

Some very valid points James. Well put. I'd still rather pay $49 or less

[James_E]

Some very valid points James. Well put. I'd still rather pay $49 or less

Indeed, so would I. But I still think games are an entertainment value at $60.

[Jimmydeicide]

I know its only 10 bucks but when a game gets closer too a hundred bucks like this it just sounds like a lot.
I will deffinately be more weary of purchases at these prices,gonna rely more on reviews and friends hear say before i buy, it may be a shot in the foot for developers we'll have to wait and see i guess.

It may be they just cant price games this high, its not like they're getting much better.

I dont buy many games at 50 never mind 60 i always used to by the doom 3's the Cod's on release day untill they hiked up prices too 54.99 or 49.99 now i wait for sales or just use a friends when their done.

[LAking]

Buy a DVD, which you'll watch once, maybe twice (except special classic movies). $20.00. For probably 4 hours of entertainment if watched twice, so it's around $5.00/hour.

For me a DVD goes a long way. I can keep a movie for years and years and it will never lose it's value while a game will be completely outdated in maybe a year or two. I've watched nearly all of my dvd's at least twice and some maybe 10 times, and i have around 260. When it comes to comparisons i think DVD's and video games are the most appropriate to compare. The way they are made and how you watch/play them is fairly similar. They both set out to deliver similar experiences. Drama, comedy, action, story, characters, all that stuff. Sure, video games are interactive and put you in the "movie", but movies make up for that when it comes to depth of characters, story, etc. Until i can play a game with the emotional impact of let's say City of God or Boogie Nights then i don't think it's fair that i pay over twice as much for a video game compared to a dvd. And there are plenty of games out there that clock in at around 10 hours, even some GREAT games, like most FPS.

[SoMisss2000]

The sporting even analogy is a good one. I go to Maverick games paying $70 a pop for a seat on the lower level. Basketball games go buy so fast that afterwards, I feel cheated. Especially after a Mavs loss. It never fails, i'm always like, I could've done something else with that money.

[kevinpars]

While I will pay $60 for a game I know I want, I will stay away from titles that I am not sure about. In the past, I would get most sports titles just for grins and giggles. But with these prices, I will pick one game from each genre and stick with it, unless pursuaded to do differently. There will be less spur of the moment purchases.

Part of this is due to the fact that paying even 49 has been rare over the past few years with the 2K pricing falling below that. I got used to the 19.99/29.99 prices!

[matthewk]

If you are going to throw out the sporting event analogy as a comparison, then you have to include watching one on TV. That's more comaparable than going out to one.

At the bare minimum, you get to watch games for free on network TV. If you have cablce or a dish, you're paying about $45 a month. let's keep it simple and say that the only thing you watch are NFL games. So you catch 2 games a week, at about 6 hours. That's 24 hours a month, or close to $2 an hour.

In the end, the only thing that determines if it's too high is if they can make money off it. If enough people buy games at $60, then they will stay that high. If people refuse pay $60, then prices will likely come down. The worst part is that the games that suffer the most are the really unique ones, like Oddworld. Prced at $60, people are less likely to take a chance on someting different. price it lower, and people view it as being lesser quality.

[reeche]

while a game will be completely outdated in maybe a year or two.

If you are talking strictly graphics then yes. If you are talking gameplay value then no. I think that says more about the problem with games and their prices than anything i.e. gamers only tend to buy graphical show piece games and those graphics come at a high price.

[ScoopBrady]

I'm obviously not happy about the $10 increase in third party games but I still think it's long overdue. We've been spoiled rotten as gamers for the past 20 years. I remember games costing $50 on the NES. The only increase we ever really saw was the N64 which had games upwards of $70. Videogames have pretty much been $50 for a long time.

Just look at the ticket price for a football game 10 years ago. Look at the price of cable tv 10 years ago. Look at the price of movie tickets 10 years ago. I don't remember hearing too many complain about the steady increase for those. In the grand scheme of things this is really the first increase for videogames so it doesn't really bother me.

[wco81]

The only problem with the argument about game prices not going up for all these years is that those prices were determined by the market. If they thought they could get $60 or if they were forced to buy higher manufacturing costs, they would have raised them.

When games went to CD and DVD, it was a huge boon for publishers. They make greater margin off even a $40 game than probably they did off a $70 cartridge game.

While prices may not have risen to keep up with inflation, you have to consider that they had much higher margins than DVDs and CDs for years.

Look how much cheaper DVD movies are compared to VHS. And the studios are making more money off home video than ever.

I believe the first party games may remain at least $10 cheaper. So the third parties trying to pass off $60 will have a higher bar to customer satisfaction, if a significant number of titles are priced cheaper.

Average selling prices of games had been falling for the last few years, as games had to be quickly discounted or else they were going to lose shelf space to newer games. Hopefully for consumers, the same market dynamic will continue.

[pk500]

I guess it depends on the quality of the first-generation games.

If there's a decided leap in gameplay and graphics, then $60 probably is worth it. If the game is nothing more than a graphics update worthy of a beat-off session, then it's not worth it.

There are exceptions, though. I don't give a sh*t what features 2K Sports is adding to NHL 2K6 for the Xbox 360: There's no way that game is going to be worth $40 more than the excellent Xbox version, which retails at $20.

I don't think ports are worth the extra $10 just for graphics' updates, especially in the case of a game like Madden, for example, which doesn't have all the features of the PS2 or Xbox 360 version.

I'm a little more tolerant of a $60 price point for games developed from the ground up for the new systems, even if they're sequels, like Perfect Dark Zero or Need For Speed Most Wanted.

But straight ports from this-gen console games released just a month or two ago, at prices of $10 to $40 higher? Nope. That's wrong.

Take care,
PK

[GridIronGhost]

For myself, at launch, I'll probably grab only two titles at $120 when I might likely grab three if it were only $150.

That kind of money will get you a Gamefly/BlockBuster pass for 6 months. I'm sure you can do with 2 games out at a time with gamefly, return them when your done, get another one. You don't even have to worry about losing so much money trading the games back in. If you rent and finish 2 games a month, you're still way ahead of the game saving $$$. Unless you like to collect games, I think renting is a good way to game these days, of course you hurt the industry doing so, but that is an area I'll stay out of. I have 60+ games in my xbox collection, 25% are still unopened and 45% will never get played. This time around my time is going to be spent on A+ titles only.

[dbdynsty25]

If there's a decided leap in gameplay and graphics, then $60 probably is worth it. If the game is nothing more than a graphics update worthy of a beat-off session, then it's not worth it.

Except that many guys have spent much more than 60 bucks on an orgasm.

[pk500]

If there's a decided leap in gameplay and graphics, then $60 probably is worth it. If the game is nothing more than a graphics update worthy of a beat-off session, then it's not worth it.

Except that many guys have spent much more than 60 bucks on an orgasm.

That's pretty sad, if true!

Take care,
PK

[dbdynsty25]

If there's a decided leap in gameplay and graphics, then $60 probably is worth it. If the game is nothing more than a graphics update worthy of a beat-off session, then it's not worth it.

Except that many guys have spent much more than 60 bucks on an orgasm.

That's pretty sad, if true!

Take care,
PK

So you've never taken a girl out on a date because you wanted to get laid? You've never spent more than 60 bucks on dinner, drinks and a movie? Come on man...you are not THAT cheap.

[pk500]

I've taken a girl out to dinner, yes. But I didn't do it to get laid. Never needed to ...

Seriously, every casual f*ck I ever had came at a girl's house, at college, just hanging out, at a party, etc. Never wined and dined a broad in my life for the purpose of getting laid.

Take care,
PK

[dbdynsty25]

Then you haven't lived yet...nothing like shelling out 50-100 bucks and going home with blue balls. It's a wonderful thing. Thank god that era in my life has passed.

[anchester]

yeah, i agree guys that 50 or 60 clams for a game isn't bad considering the # of hrs of entertainment relativie to movies, events, etc.

But, like anything in life, if you delay gratification just a bit (like waiting 1 month for the game to drop buy 50% or more) you get a lot more for you gaming $$ plus you have more $$ left over to satisfy other things.

[anchester]

yeah, i agree guys that 50 or 60 clams for a game isn't bad considering the # of hrs of entertainment relativie to movies, events, etc.

But, like anything in life, if you delay gratification just a bit (like waiting 1 month for the game to drop by 50% or more) you get a lot more for you gaming $$ plus you have more $$ left over to satisfy other things.