Turn on thread page Beta

"Games should cost £70 in the future"!! watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This is why I have A Wii and a PS2
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'd pay £70 for a FF7 remake. Hell if it was a PS3 exclusive I'd buy a PS3 to play it on(I have a 360).

    bar that...GTFO!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i would buy games that have amazing graphics for that price.... i am amazed by killzone 2 graphics.... i am glad i bought a ps3
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FAILINGKID)
    i would buy games that have amazing graphics for that price.... i am amazed by killzone 2 graphics.... i am glad i bought a ps3
    You bought a ps3 for KZ2? :eek:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bigmo7)
    You bought a ps3 for KZ2? :eek:
    not just kz2... i mainly bought it for mgs4 and then i was amazed by all the exclusives... lbp kz2... final fantasy... blue ray...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In a way they already charge £70 for some games.

    I never really got into CoD so I'll use Halo as an example.

    The game cost between £30 and £40. I think there was then 3 Map packs each at 800 MS points which is about £8 or so.

    That means some would have paid £64 for Halo 3. If you bought CoD4 and £15 worth of maps, then you shouldn't have much objection to paying £55 for MW2?

    That being said, I don't like buying additional maps. I appreciate they take time and money to produce however communities would happily create them for free if they could, so why not release the map making tool on PC and let those who like that sort of stuff make them for nothing?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Raising the price so much isn't going to do much for their battle AGAINST game piracy. Sigh.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ToastyCoke)
    I study computer games programming. As a programmer £40 is stupidly low, as a consumer it's high.

    You do realise that the actual studio only see about £17 of a sale? The rest is distribution and shops.
    Sell direct, take out the middle man. It's what the music industry suffered with but these days you can buy direct from record labels to save, as they sell them to you at roughly what they get from distributors and shops. Raising the price will fuel piracy as well as consistently screwing gaming fans over with 'warranty' issues with consoles lasting a fraction of what older games consoles.

    I don't know if the PS3 has been hacked to play copies but the 360 is easily done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    crysis was the only game i bought worth 70£
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    o.O Wow. I liked crysis and it was mega pretty but I'd never say it was worth £70.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    It's a shame the exchange rate is pricing many people out of Digital Distribution because from a publishers perspective it's the right thing to do, no manual or box art costs, no costs of shipping and above all else no second hand retail which is a move i'd support whole heartedly.

    What the developers need to issue though is price/fun factor comparison. If games were priced at £70 you wouldn't see me picking up games like Prince of Persia (new one) because effectively its a linear fest of been there done that. Fallout 3 on the other hand is well worth it (in my eyes) given the wealth of options at hand. It is very difficult to justify a 6 hour single player game priced at the same level of one with limitless options, and very few developers (only Team ICO and Sony Santa Monica Studios and possibly Grasshopper in my eyes do).

    Publisher's are being throttled by the retailers and pre-owned purchases (which consumers expect these days unfortunately), and the situation isn't right for a full on digital download fest (give it time). It's a sorry state of affairs to be in the world of video games in this nation at the moment.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by James09)
    That means some would have paid £64 for Halo 3. If you bought CoD4 and £15 worth of maps, then you shouldn't have much objection to paying £55 for MW2?
    That doesn't really work, because there'll only be a games-worth of maps in MW2 and then it'll have map packs aswell, so it'd be like paying £80 for Halo 3 and its map packs.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dfjr)
    I wish they would stop trying to focus on better graphics for games these days. It's no substitute for a good storyline and complex strategy. Graphics are so good these days anyway, I don't really have any urge for better graphics. Same thing happening with films, too much focus on special effects, not enough focus on storyline.

    It's really annoying that the best games I have played are old nintendo 64 and playstation one games (and Age of Empires 1 and 2. Age of Empires 3 was crap).
    What people don't understand about game development is that the graphic designers aren't the guys who write the story or gameplay. They're different jobs. A game with great graphics that turns out poor isn't poor because they spent too much time on the graphics, it's poor because the guys working on the story and gameplay got it wrong.


    And as for digital distribution, they can keep it. You often pay more than you would in the shops and since there's no physical copy you receive less.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    What people don't understand about game development is that the graphic designers aren't the guys who write the story or gameplay. They're different jobs. A game with great graphics that turns out poor isn't poor because they spent too much time on the graphics, it's poor because the guys working on the story and gameplay got it wrong.


    And as for digital distribution, they can keep it. You often pay more than you would in the shops and since there's no physical copy you receive less.
    This reminds of the overhyped game so called "Assassins Creed" lol, amazing graphics but worst storyline and gameplay (mission wise).
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    And as for digital distribution, they can keep it. You often pay more than you would in the shops and since there's no physical copy you receive less.
    I think digital distribution has a lot of potential. The problem is that game developers get greedy (before you judge me, read on) and charge the same as you would in the shops, and don't drop the price as readily. With digital distribution, the developers could make a lot more money, while making the price lower than retail, since the only parties are the developer and the distributor, no publishers, or physical copies to produce and ship. There are also other added advantages. Steam for example has completely eliminated zero-day piracy (ie piracy before the game is released), because even the physical copies don't ship with the executable. That's only delivered to the user via Steam on launch day.

    I do understand how difficult making games can be financially however. Take Half-Life 2 for example. That's a game that came out almost 5 years ago, and even then it cost $50 million to produce. Because of this we see less companies making their own engines and licensing others (which I see as a good thing), in order to save costs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fosters88)
    Games should cost far less now than ever before IMO as they are all re-hashes these days, its the same old principles underneath.

    Games sell for whatever people are stupid enoguth to pay. If people did not fall for the hype then things would be a lot cheaper for us all. But instead patience is the key.
    :eyeball:

    Sorry, but what? That's simply the most ludicrous justification that I have ever read in my entire life ever for games to be cheaper now than they were.
    The teams which develop games in modern studios are much larger than ever before because it is the excepted norm that games should have more environments, better quality and more varied textures, dynamic lighting, facial animation, a high quality soundscape, accomplished AI etc. (provided the game is aiming for this of course: there are plenty of fantastic, really fun releases that don't need these elements: but there are also plenty that owe a large portion of their enjoyment to their presence). These developers are spending longer working on bigger games, and (shock!) need to be paid.

    Do you honestly believe that there is less work put into modern games such as Assassin's Creed 2 than, say, even a release as large as MGS, or perhaps Monkey Island? (I just found a source which says ICO had a team of ~10 people working on it. I refuse to believe that -.-); regardless of how much you may feel that Assassin's Creed 2 is just a "rehash" of old ideas.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I try to buy games when they hit the £30 mark, if that means I can't get it on release day, no problem I will wait.

    I will wait for CoD MW2 to drop in price to £30 too, I simply can't justify to myself paying that much for a game at the moment when I need that extra cash for uni.

    Although back in the day I am sure I payed something like that for Resident Evil 2 when it came out.

    Hopefully if all the major studios increase prices across the board it will mean people looking to smaller devs and indie studios who are generally knocking out great games with fresh ideas and intellecutal property for a fraction of the price.

    Obviously these smallers games might not have the graphical prowess or massive multiplayer support of a "major" game, but they usually offer great gameplay! Check out the free/shareware game thread!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What about the rest of Europe? Since they're not using the pound.

    Import from the ROI? Haha.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fosters88)
    They charge more on what they can get away with and where the most consumers are i.e. console version.
    Price has nothing to do with quality of build but where the market is.
    You buy into a popular product i.e. xb360/ps3 the publisher will penalise with a greater price to pay regardless of the fact that the grapihcs have been slightly downsized and you can’t run that product maxed out as the developer intended!
    Actually the developer receives the same money from the console version as they do the PC version. The reason that the console version is more expensive is due to the license.

    In order for a developer to sell a game on the Xbox/PS3/Wii/PS2, the game needs to be licensed by the console manufacturer. If the game doesn't have a licence, then you're not allowed to use the console's trademarks and, more importantly, the game won't actually play on an ordinary console (since they'll only run games with valid licenses). In order to get a license, the developer has to submit the game to the console manufacturer where they will assess the quality (ie does it crash?). If it passes those checks (which can take around 8/9 weeks) then they get a license and they can sell the game.

    The catch? It costs an awful lot of money for a license to be issued (the exact costs are only discussed under NDA), and the developer has no choice but to pass that cost onto the consumer. The PC does not require a license so the cost is lower (in fact, the only thing stopping developers raising the cost of the PC version to the same price as the consoles is that someone would slap a lawsuit on them for 'platform discrimination' or something like that most probably)

    Most console manufacturers make a loss on the actual console itself, and make up this loss and get their profit from game licensing (The PS3 if I remember correctly has a massive loss on every console). The exception is that Microsoft do not make a loss on the Xbox 360, and are one of the few console manufacturers in history to do so.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bucky!)
    Most console manufacturers make a loss on the actual console itself, and make up this loss and get their profit from game licensing (The PS3 if I remember correctly has a massive loss on every console). The exception is that Microsoft do not make a loss on the Xbox 360, and are one of the few console manufacturers in history to do so.
    I'm not sure how true this is any more. Whilst it's certainly true that both consoles made a huge lose on launch, recent Sony figures (as of two days ago) indicate that unit cost may be as low as $240. The latest data for the 360 was three years ago, and suggests that the manufacturing cost at the time was perhaps $330, though this has clearly deprecated HUGELY since, and will probably still be profitable despite the lower retail price.
    The Wii is known to have always been profitable, and in that regard is certainly unique, in having been the only console to be profitable at launch.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: August 28, 2009
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered gaming threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.