matthewk wrote:C'mon, you know what I meant. I cannot believe you had to be so anal with that. I mean really, a chart? IT'S A FREAKING VIDEO GAME MESSAGE BOARD, not a test run for the space shuttle.
I was only being silly with the chart, but I forgot you take things so seriously even though it is IT'S A FREAKING VIDEO GAME MESSAGE BOARD.
I was grateful I actually learned something yesterday! This board continues to be an educational experience: gaming economics, California real-estate prices, intellectual property laws, street racing habits of semi-literate 20-somethings, and the psychological problems of emotionally stunted Boston sports fans.
Not to forget the semantic/linguistic/cultural/social differences between the US and UK, and new and more vitriolic ways to abuse Man U and their fans by someone why might not be completely impartial.
"The players come from all over the world, the money from deep underneath the Persian Gulf, but, as another, older City poster campaign put it, this is their city. They may now exist in the global spotlight, but they intend to keep it that way."
I'm not sure I buy the "it costs a lot more to make a game now than it did before" argument (no pun intended). Madden sells 5 million copies every year. At $60 a pop, that's $300 million, or almost as much as some professional sports franchises are selling for. I know that EA doesn't pocket all $300 million but still, I don't think it could cost anywhere near that much to develop Madden EVERY YEAR. Especially after the first year on a new console, when EA is only adding the Superstar Modes and Truck Sticks and what not.
I'm also in the camp that thinks companies would do better (or at least the same) by releasing at a lower price point. If 3 people out of 10 would impulse buy a game at $60, and 7 or 8 out of 10 would impulse buy a game at $19.99 or $29.99, doesn't it make sense to take "the VC route" and release at the lower price point? We know that there were a helluva lot more people who tried ESPN Football this past year because of the $19.99 tag. Before, VC would usually sell somewhere around 500,000 copies of their football game at $49.99. This year, I think the number was over 3 million units sold at $19.99. If my math is right, that means ESPN Football generated total revenue of $60 million this year as compared to the $25 million generated in years past.
Then again, I'm not a business major (or an accountant) so what do I know.
I, for one, have no problem with the price increase...as long as it stays around $10 more on average.
If most everything else media related has increased in price over the last few years, why should video games not follow suit? And for those of you who may have forgot, quite a few of us have already shelled out more than $60 for brand new games as long as 4-7 years ago (N64 games anyone!?!?!).
Spooky wrote:everything else media related has increased in price over the last few years, why should video games not follow suit? And for those of you who may have forgot, quite a few of us have already shelled out more than $60 for brand new games as long as 4-7 years ago (N64 games anyone!?!?!).
Ahh, but those $60 N64 game costs were due to the format. The carts cost much more to producs than discs. Speaking of which, the cost to produce the materials (discs, case, and the ever-shrinking booklet) is pennies.
As for everything else increasing, have music CDs increased? I thought they actually went down a little last year? They are stil $10-$14, just as they were back in 1990. As for DVDs, those have actually dropped. You can find new releases for $15 the week of release, and many DVDs are $10 or less.
But that's capitalism for you. As long as enough people are willing to pay the extra cost, they will do it. If there is a revolt (which is doubtful), I'm sure they will magically find a way to reduce prices and still make money.
I think using Madden is an extreme case, EA has us by the balls(pun intended), especially now with the NFL exclusive deal. We'll have pay $60 for roster updates.
The business model currently most widely in use (although there are exceptions) is based upon the music industry model. It involves the payment of development costs by a publisher and a back-end royalty payment once those development costs have been recouped from the royalty. Unfortunately for most developers, recoupment rarely happens. For example, assume a game cost $7,000,000 to develop (about average for a new console game) and a 20 percent royalty is to be paid to the developer. The retail price is $49 and the wholesale price is $32. The fees payable to the console manufacture, marketing and distribution average around $11. That leaves $20 to be split between the publisher and the developer. It would take a sale of 1.1 million units of the game to recoup and start paying royalties to the developer. While most developers are careful to build a profit margin into the "development costs" component, only a handful of game titles in any year will actually sell sufficiently to allow royalties to ever be paid to developers. Thus, at most, developers earn a modest profit. More often than not, however, developers are disappointed in the profitability of their game development efforts.
Spooky wrote:everything else media related has increased in price over the last few years, why should video games not follow suit? And for those of you who may have forgot, quite a few of us have already shelled out more than $60 for brand new games as long as 4-7 years ago (N64 games anyone!?!?!).
Ahh, but those $60 N64 game costs were due to the format. The carts cost much more to producs than discs. Speaking of which, the cost to produce the materials (discs, case, and the ever-shrinking booklet) is pennies.
As for everything else increasing, have music CDs increased? I thought they actually went down a little last year? They are stil $10-$14, just as they were back in 1990. As for DVDs, those have actually dropped. You can find new releases for $15 the week of release, and many DVDs are $10 or less.
But that's capitalism for you. As long as enough people are willing to pay the extra cost, they will do it. If there is a revolt (which is doubtful), I'm sure they will magically find a way to reduce prices and still make money.
Great points that I was expecting to see in a response. Really have nothing to argue this...But I guess one fact remains...Regradless of the reasons for the higher costs on N64 games, the general public shelled out the cash. I really don't think that your average joe said to themself, 'damn, this price is really high, oh well, that is expected to cover the cartridge cost. I guess I can justify the extra $15 now'.
How come we never had a standard 10 dollar reduction in game prices this generation as we did with ps1? The only games reduced were sports games because of the 2k v EA thing.
Weaver2005 wrote:How come we never had a standard 10 dollar reduction in game prices this generation as we did with ps1? The only games reduced were sports games because of the 2k v EA thing.
Because there are more video gamers than ever, and those gamers are having little trouble spending 50 bones for new games.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
