Topic: Why are video games priced so high?

I'd guess advertising adds to the cost a fair bit.

@Tasuki: Digital is a different argument entirely.

Digital gaming stores on console currently have an issue in that console manufacturers are beholden to brick and mortar stores and can't run the risk of falling out with them. Putting games up on the store for a reduced price, which would be entirely feasible since they'd be cutting out packaging and retailer costs, would cripple physical gaming shops. Sony and Microsoft still need those real life stores for the time being to drive hardware sales, and so they can't risk it. But you better believe, they're watching the sales numbers, and the second that either thinks they can survive selling their hardware through department stores and online retailers only, they'll flip the switch and the prices of games will drop dramatically on PSN. Until then, expect to see games remain expensive on PSN despite technically offering less to the consumer.

Steam effectively killed the market for physical PC games. PC gamers are traditionally ahead of the curve, and so the same can be expected to happen within the console space. It just needs online infrastructure to be ready, and for Sony and Microsoft to have faith that they can make more money after upsetting the likes of Gamestop etc. Once that happens, dedicated gaming shops will likely crumble practically overnight.

@johncalmc: Physical is unlikely to die overnight! Whilst there is a growing trend towards digital media across the board, Physical is still thriving. People still buy books, CD's/Vinyl, DVD's/Blurays and of course games and not just because of pricing. Virtually every 'big' game now release a special/limited/ultimate edition with 'physical' bonuses like art-books, statues etc and these are very popular - often selling out before a game is actually released. These are big business for a lot of publishers! Just because Steam is a successful all digital platform, I can't see Sony or MS following suit.

By removing the Physical option, you also reduce the functionality and 'choice' for the consumer. Just look at the media outcry when Sony unveiled the PS4 Pro without a 4k Bluray player! Look at MS and the advertising of its XB1s as a result - 'the only console with a 4k Bluray and cheaper than a dedicated player' - which seems to be working for their sales.

Sales of Physical may have dropped a lot as digital has risen but in all media thus far, physical still remains and I have no doubt that it will continue for the foreseeable future.

@BAMozzy: Physical media won't die overnight, but I would expect that dedicated gaming shops will struggle, and many will close quickly after Sony and Microsoft start selling games more cheaply than they do. If you look at other media that has made the shift to digital, you can see how the transition will probably work. Before the Internet became a thing that everyone had, there were dedicated music shops in every town. I live in a small town and there were two. They were great, actually. But then iTunes happened, and once people got over the initial hesitation and gave in to digital because it was cheaper and more convenient, music shops suffered. Today you can still buy vinyl if you want, so physical music still hasn't died, but a lot of music shops have struggled due to lower demand. Today, there are no music shops in my town, and in many towns like it, and if you want to buy a CD you go to Tesco, or buy online. Even big shops like HMV have felt the pinch.

Gaming, I would expect, will be the same once people adopt it. Price is a huge turn off for digital gaming because games cost more on PSN than they do in the shops, and the games have no resale value. Eventually, prices will drop, and people will have to decide whether resale value and the enjoyment of having a physical box on their shelf is worth the extra cost. I don't expect that to happen in the immediate future, but it's on the cards. Physical releases will undoubtedly still be a thing, but once demand lowers due to the convenience and lower price point of digital games, it'll only be the dedicated collectors and the people who refuse to adopt the new model that will want physical media, and as a result, dedicated gaming shops will likely suffer. I would think that shops like Gamestop will struggle, and while you might see stores remaining open in big cities, the ones in smaller towns will be the first to shut up shop.

I've heard this a couple times, maybe its a UK thing? Here in Canada shops seem to sell for the same price as PSN at game release at least, and the shops have a 13% tax, where PSN has no tax... which makes PSN 13% cheaper pretty much all the time.

Also, there are a lot of significant sales on PSN.

Edit: case in point, check out canadian stores if the links work (prices are before 13% tax):
EB Games

BestBuy

@Dichotomy: Best comment on this thread so far.

I have a strong view on this topic; Saying games only have 1 income stream is just not true anymore:-

Kickstarter
Pre orders
In shops
Over PSN
Season passes
DLC
Microtransactions
Keys / Crate unlocks
Rereleases
Remakes
Soundtracks
Clothing
Competitive tournaments
Plastic tat

I hear this same old argument everytime too;

"Snes / mega drive games were like £60 / $70" yes they were however any comparable product on the Amiga was £15-£20 at release. The Amiga games market was absolutely tiny by todays standards and those prices should be the barometer we use as the storage media costs are practically the same. Once the PS1 hit prices tumbled in most stores, £20 games were common place.

AAA games are a rip off like loads of things in this day and age. Everything's a gamble, everyone's a few deals from getting the sack at any one time. Whys everyone such a defender of staggering prices? Fight for your consumer rights and great prices. Dont defend £60 pieces of heated sand coated in binary numbers which are more often than not unfinished by old cartridge game standards. Its a rip, and gamers are hit in the wallet. But as they say fools and money are easily parted.

Games are fantastic value for money. And if you wait a while you can pick them up for dirt cheap brand new.

Console gaming is a great value hobby, all in all.

I don't know about other countries, but in the UK when a game is first released you'll probably see it on PSN for £54.99, but you'll be able to pick it up in shops for less than £45 usually. It doesn't make any sense to buy digital here until there's a sale on in almost all cases.

Games can be tremendous value for money depending on what you get and when. If you pay an average new game price of between £30-£40 and the game lasts for 12+ hours, I think you are getting a fair deal.

Indie games are probably, on the whole, less value for money if bought at a release cost of between £10-£15 depending on the game because many aren't the length of larger releases. I am generalising massively and not knocking indie games. I pesonally have paid full price for some indie games that lasted a few short hours and don't regret it, but if you are looking at time invested versus expenditure on items of limited replayability. That said, compared to a movie or something, they are still pretty good value.

Pre-orders and day 1purchases are, in my mind, not value for money. Paying up to £45-80 for pre-release or special editions ec. is not good because you risk getting burned or having a defective product. Your game also loses value within days as the price will drop within weeks (unless you are GTA V). I also think it encourages overhyping and poor delivery.

Of course, I can see why people want to pre-order (I'm not immune to it, for example Uncharted 4) as the industry is geared towards sales and talk about a title dies out within 1-3 weeks. So to be part of the convo, you need to get the game. That is the same with all entertainment mediums. No one cares about The Force Awakens now, it's Rogue One you need to talk about.

If you are savvy purchaser, which I think most people on here are, gaming is a pretty economical hobby. I remember last year I was a bit strapped for cash so got MGSV. Boom - one game lasted me nearly 3 months (and I still haven't finished everything).

@Kidfried: I don't really think the length of a game is a good argument for a game's cost, there are plenty of other mediums of entertainment that are cheaper than computer games, but offer potentially far more hours of gameplay (i.e. you can pick a chess set up for a few quid, but I've been playing that since I was about 6 years old). Conversely if we take something like Mafia 3 or No Man's Sky they may take tens of hours to complete, but in both after a few hours they become very repetitive - I'd prefer a shorter, yet tighter experience for the same price.

Price should be based on the cost to produce a game and the market size. In America it has obviously been researched and found that the optimum price point is $60 for maximising profits of new AAA releases and after that I'm sure they have a sliding scale planned out of price based on sales data (the reason I picked America is that pretty much no store in the UK sells for RRP as it is too high - on release day of a game we usually see some places charging about 40% less than this figure). This also means a game should be produced to a cost that fits in with projected sales of the product, in Tomb Raider's case they got this wrong as they predicted more interest in the game than it had in reality.

The game industry has a lot of parallels with the movie industry and one of them is the 'all in' mentality - gamble that a game is going to make a profit and put all your resources into it. In the movie industry this has led to smaller studios being absorbed by larger ones to the point we now only really see a few companies releasing 'major' films, the ones that are so big now they can take a hit on a poor performing release. The same has also increasingly become true with the gaming industry to the point we only have a fraction of the companies we had a decade ago in the AAA space. The problem here is that people will argue games are cheap because you only have to look at all the companies that folded instead of looking at the business model and seeing that it was similar to betting all your money on a 6 not turning up on the roll of a die - it may well be successful for many rolls, but eventually that 6 is going to turn up. The reduction in companies has led to the AAA sector being filled with franchises as name recognition sells with very few new titles of which I'm hard pressed to think of one that wasn't just a reskin of another game which, obviously, helps keep programming costs down. I don't personally think this model can be sustained, although it is an issue I was probably talking about a decade ago, only it seems worse now. Any innovation in the industry usually comes from indie developers and they make their games at a fraction of the cost.

Personally though I'm happy, for the most part, people are impatient in buying their games - if companies noted too many people were waiting for a reduction in price, they would stop reducing them as early (this has already happened once in the UK in the PS3 era - there was a point when it wasn't uncommon for a game to be significantly reduced within a fortnight, but now it is usually about 2 months before we see any decent discounts).

As I've been around since the Atari generation...I can say that the games are not much higher than they were back then. I still have the receipt for Mortal Kombat 2 on the genesis...paid $70 for it at launch. There were also Atari games that were $50 or more during their era. Technically, and if you add price to what they were back then and add it to what that dollar amount would be now...they were the same prices, and consoles were pretty expensive back then too (again, figuring prices and time periods). $200 in the 70's-80's would almost be like $300 or more nowadays. Other than figuring out all of that, go figure in not buying on 'day one'. The prices always go down later...the only problem with not buying some of the games on launch, is that if they flop, you may never find them at all (hence, almost every platform title and kiddie title for the PS3 and even Afrika for PS3).

@Dichotomy: Its very difficult to gauge 'value' and relative price - particularly in Video Games. Comparing it to chess is completely absurd. Some Chess sets may cost £6 but others can cost £1,000's depending on the pieces.

Comparing a Video Game to a Movie isn't that ridiculous as many games share a similar production and development structure - especially for linear stories. Whether the actors just voice the characters or as we are seeing more and more of these day's, act them out (mostly for cut scenes with mo-cap type technology). Stories are still scripted, storyboarded, concept art drawn, directed etc etc too. However with games, they have to add more to it than just a 2D image. They have to build into the 3D environment a sense of presence. In a movie - even a digital movie, things can be 2D - like a shop front for example as the script doesn't warrant going into the building. Scripted camera angles may mean that the details seen in the window are not necessary. In a game, the player has freedom to look into that window from multiple angles. Characters need AI and a physical properties - they are not walking on scripted paths so need AI to move naturally and (in FPS games for example) often need hit detection and various animations - some that may never be seen. In a movie, its scripted if a character jumps behind cover, gets hit in the head - they don't need AI, various animations or even a physical presence as their whole action is scripted and drawn. In games that cover may not be available, the player may not shoot that character in the head and could throw a grenade - they need a physical presence for hit detection, not only for the bullets but for the world and other characters on screen. I could go on and on about all the differences needed.

Of course RPG's are quite a bit more complicated than that. Its difficult to story board a non-linear story and incorporate all the different dialogue options - especially if they depend on what side quests and outcome of those could be. Most RPG's have many times more dialogue to be recorded and animated and quite a bit of it may never be seen depending on number of playthroughs and options taken.

When a game is 'finished' so to speak, its still not 'finished' as it needs many play throughs to make sure that the world behaves as expected. In some cases, because the team that makes them are too close, they don't find every issue.

A game like FFxv has been 10 years in the making yet Fifa 17 has been a year (roughly). Both charge the same and arguably people could spend more hours on Fifa. I don't know how long the Order was in development for but it was a very short game. People criticised Destiny yet in Cost per Hour its by far my vest value game - I have all content on BOTH PS4 and XB1 and spent a LOT of money to do so but its still been much better value in cost per hour than any other game in recent years - Doesn't make it better than Uncharted 4, which I have played through once and beaten with all collectibles - don't really like the MP that much, so cost per hour is a lot higher.

Games, like Movies, CD's etc have a set cost. For some, spending £40 on the latest Fifa is a no brainer as the amount of entertainment that will give them is far more than any movie, CD or other game can deliver. Others may think that paying £40 is a lot for a little bit more than Fifa 16 gave them. Some may get a lot from a very linear story that takes them on a rollercoaster ride of emotion and the journey through that action whilst others prefer to make their own journey through an RPG. Its impossible to say that one offers 'more' than another to everyone.

The way I see it, is that games eventually find their own value to an individual. By that I mean that the prices drop relatively quickly and as soon as they reach a point that you find acceptable, you will buy. If you have no interest in something like Doom's MP (for example) then paying £40 for the campaign may seem high but if you wait until it drops to say £20, that maybe the price point you find value in it.

@Kidfried: I wasn't actually trying to compare a poor video game with a good board game, so sorry if it came across that way, I just wanted to get two points out the way in one paragraph. I was trying to say that I've probably put a few thousand hours into chess (most of that time would admittedly be from my younger days - it is a lot harder to find people to play anymore), yet you've always been able to pick it up for less than £5, so it doesn't follow that the cost of something should relate directly to the amount of use you get out of it. The average video game may compare favourably to the average film for length, but in the previous example I showed video games don't compare as favourably to all other forms of entertainment. In each case though there is a correlation between cost to make and expected profit.

The second sentence was just to point out a game being longer than a film doesn't necessarily mean it offers more value. Even between games that are classed as good I've played games that last a few hours and others that last tens of hours. I've enjoyed both, but I usually find a good short game leaves more of a lasting impression than a good long one, just because the experience can be more focused.

I agree that we as consumers will place a value on a game based on our experience, however, I also think we are paying for a business model that doesn't benefit the consumer, but adds to the fire that games must be good value otherwise companies wouldn't fold (not a sentiment I agree with). In my second and third paragraph I was just talking about that issue and how it related to Tomb Raider since you brought that game up. For me the issue stems from having to have the best graphics, voice acting and appeal to the widest audience instead of making a game focused on appealing to its main audience which would cost less and therefore be less of a risk.

@JLPick: I talked about that in my first post (no. 17) and disagree with the argument of inflation even if you discount the niche nature of games back then.

@Rudy_Manchego: I think indie games can offer more than AAA games, in both sectors you get bad games, but there is far more choice of type of game in the indie scene (on top of them being far more likely to risk something different) and I likely spend more time on indies than on AAA games. I do own a gaming PC though so I'm not sure how much that might affect my perspective.

@BAMozzy: Your post popped up after I started my last post so didn't answer you, chess was meant just as an example of a game that can be bought for next to nothing and you can get thousands of hours out of. A counter point to kidfried's sentence that a video game's higher price tag can be justified by the fact you get more hours out of it than a film. Using the more expensive chess set example is actually agreeing with part of what I said, that the cost of an item to the consumer is based on what it cost to make rather than how long it lasts (the other part was how long you can play a game for should not be a measure of cost).

@kidfried For me getting a game day one serves a very important purpose. The games creater is getting the best price they can for the game. This can be essential for a company that is not big and which needs to recoup its money faster than say EA which can wait to get its money back. Its also aknowledging that I think the product is worth the £40 and does deserve that price tag. There is a small window for games to get their money back. If it sells poorly from the start it drops down in price very quickly making even less money with every price drop.

@Dichotomy: 100% agree that indie games can offer more than AAA games, over the last year I've probably split my time evenly between indie and AAA (and some inbetween!). My point was that if you are purely talking duration, they tend to be shorter and are cheaper but not necessarily as cheap from an hour point of view. Of course, that depends on the game and its replayability - lots of indie games have an addictive gameplay loop. On PSN, indie games tend to range new from £7.99 - £15.99 and, if popular, hold their price unless in Sales. My PC gamer friends do seem to have a cheaper time of it.

I, personally, don't value a game by length but by enjoyment divided to price. At £15.99 on launch, Everbody's Gone to the Rapture takes 6-8 hours to play and, it could be argued, doesn't have a massive amount of replay value. However, to me, I loved it and think it was one of my best purchases.

@Rudy_Manchego: For me, on PC at least, a lot of indie games tend to be more open-ended and therefore have a longer playtime than a lot of AAA games, but as I said earlier I'm not one to measure games solely on their length. They do tend to be a bit cheaper than on console (I'd guess the lack of fees from Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo contributes to that) and you do get bundles of them for a few quid on sites like humblebundle, Indiegala and Bundlestars (sometimes they are good selections of games too), but the difference I was alluding to was more the range of choice.

I see a fair few indies ported to consoles (Minecraft would be the most recognisable title I could give on this front, bizarrely a game I picked up in alpha and never really enjoyed), but there are so many on PC that I very much doubt many ever reach the consoles. In a way it is good as a lot (but not enough) of the rubbish is filtered out, but I think consoles will always miss out on gems like Factorio and Rimworld with others like Subnautica being a flip of the coin as to whether they get on a console. So what an indie game is to me might be different to what it is to someone who solely plays on a console and one way I can see why perspective may differ massively.

@Dichotomy: Ok, so if a game like Fifa that probably has a much lower production cost every year costs £40, how much should Final Fantasy XV cost? If we look at the time taken, development/manufacturing etc costs including the staff (and not just those involved directly with the creation) and their salaries, studio overheads, voice actors inc all those alternative language versions, distribution, advertising etc etc.

FFxv is one of the most expensive games ever made yet will no doubt cost the same as games like Fifa or the Order. It needs to sell around 10m copies to be profitable. Its the same as CD's or movies that have a 'set' price regardless of production costs - you didn't have to pay more to see Avatar or pay more for films like Lord of the Rings which last twice as long as some films. Some films only have small budgets, small cast and crew, little/no expensive effects but still cost the same as a massive budget blockbuster. It doesn't translate in movies and gaming isn't different.

I admit to a degree, I do put 'value' of a game into cost per hour as a minor factor in deciding between purchases. It doesn't always mean that I will buy the game that will last the longest but If I only have £40 to spend on a game that month, I am more likely to spend that on something that will offer me the potential to play all month than something I will finish in a day - something that will keep me entertained at least until I have the opportunity to buy another game.

However, like I said, better value doesn't always mean better experience - same with films. You can't put a value on your own personal enjoyment and experience. Just because a game costs millions to make (like a movie) doesn't mean I will enjoy it more or last as long - If you don't like a game - even £10 can seem a lot of money for something you have no desire to play - I wouldn't pay £10 for ANY fighting game as I don't like them and won't get even an hours worth from them. Some stories can be superficial - like a summer blockbuster but others can touch and move you even if the game-play isn't unique or memorable.

Point I am making is that games are sold at a set price regardless. Publishers know they can't charge £100 for a game because it cost 3x as much to make than another games selling at £40. It may need to sell 3x as many copies to be profitable but that is preferred to releasing a game at £100 and it not selling. What someone deems worthy of £40, another may think its awful and overpriced and vice-versa.

Putting in a 'cost per hour' for example is a tangible way of quantifying 'value'. Like I said you can't quantify the quality and impact of a story (not all games have a 'story'), you can't quantify the 'experience' of playing through a game and what that meant to you etc. You can however quite easily divide the cost by the number of hours spent in that game. It may not tell the whole story about a game and its value to you but its relatively simple way of quantifying something. It maybe similar to judging a book by its number of pages but I also think that if it keeps you entertained all the way through to the end, its better than getting bored at the first chapter or 2 and not finishing it. A longer book, longer movie, longer album, longer game etc though still feel better value than very short ones to me - but NOT always better in terms of impact on me.

@BAMOzzy there is talk that blockbuster movies will soon charge more at the cinema than other movies due to the cost of making these movies. But your right in gaming terms you price your game around £40, £10-£20 or sometimes a bit less for the smaller titles. You can make the £100 on the special edition by adding a statue and booklet though so there are times when they do charge that for the games which collectors or fans will buy.

@dryrain: They are?!? That's lame. When going to the movies, if I happen to pay for myself, then I easily spend close to 20 bucks. Tickets, a drink, and I always get some Kit-Kats. And all of that for only a little over 2 hours of entertainment. By comparison, spending 60 dollars on a game that at minimum I spend 20 hours on (at most over 100), then I think games are by far the better deal.

The only thing I feel games are lacking are sad, emotional stories that pull at my heart. There are a few, but not nearly as many as movies.