The End of $60 Games?

[AceHigh]

Don't misunderstand. During certification the game is sent to the console owning company, however the discs are not printed yet for the distribution. Only after certification is done and approved for distribution, the publishers will start to print discs. When that happens, the developers can make a DLC that will be added to the same disc as the game.

That is at least the excuse. I don't always believe it. Especially not when DLC is big enough to be too time consuming to make only during certification period *cough*MassEffect3*cough*

[zherok]

Well, it's like 12-14 characters (depending on what version you have.) I'm guessing they didn't do all of that work in the certification process.

Mass Effect 3's From Ashes we know was cut in development content. He was originally meant to be part of the base game. I think it's a more interesting DLC question, since in an older era, it'd simply have been left cut. On the other hand, it encourages parring down the scope of your game, since you can simply plan to deliver what you can't finish at a later date, for a higher profit margin.

[FlyinPenguin]

I really don't think $60 is that expensive for a game. Considering inflation and the fact the production costs have skyrocketed over the years, $60 seems rather reasonable to me. Sure it is quite an increase from the $30-40 I used to pay when I got into PC gaming back in the day, but that is why I rent and/or read reviews before I buy. So I end up with no regrets.

That said, I wouldn't mind $40 games. Hell, there are a lot of indie games that go for like $20 on Xbox Live and in terms of game play actually rival some of the big "blockbuster" games of our time.

[TMRNetShark]

I really don't think $60 is that expensive for a game. Considering inflation and the fact the production costs have skyrocketed over the years, $60 seems rather reasonable to me. Sure it is quite an increase from the $30-40 I used to pay when I got into PC gaming back in the day, but that is why I rent and/or read reviews before I buy. So I end up with no regrets.

That said, I wouldn't mind $40 games. Hell, there are a lot of indie games that go for like $20 on Xbox Live and in terms of game play actually rival some of the big "blockbuster" games of our time.

You can get 5 indie game for around 5 bucks on the PC.

It's not just skyrocketing production costs... it's also publishers "profit" margins. That's why Kickstarter is getting popular.

[tomoya-kun]

I expect the price of games to rise to 70 or 80 because of inflation... 2-3% per year.

[vicious796]

I really don't think $60 is that expensive for a game. Considering inflation and the fact the production costs have skyrocketed over the years, $60 seems rather reasonable to me. Sure it is quite an increase from the $30-40 I used to pay when I got into PC gaming back in the day, but that is why I rent and/or read reviews before I buy. So I end up with no regrets.

That said, I wouldn't mind $40 games. Hell, there are a lot of indie games that go for like $20 on Xbox Live and in terms of game play actually rival some of the big "blockbuster" games of our time.

Once again, the problem with "inflation" in this argument is that while the dollar is worth less, people (specifically Americans) aren't making more of it. Production costs "skyrocketing" is an internal affair based off of the level of competition - pay your people more to keep them from leaving - and paid for because of the increased cost of games over the years.

I agree with the tone set in the article that the gaming industry is in for a recession of sorts. Folks aren't buying as many games as they used to and the introduction of 1-10 dollar games on handhelds has grown quickly. However, I feel this is a needed recession and one that will form properly - by the consumers and not the industry.

[TMRNetShark]

I agree with the tone set in the article that the gaming industry is in for a recession of sorts. Folks aren't buying as many games as they used to and the introduction of 1-10 dollar games on handhelds has grown quickly. However, I feel this is a needed recession and one that will form properly - by the consumers and not the industry.

+1

The way we've seen this is decline is with CoD, Assassin's Creed, any sports game EA makes, especially Square Enix's bastardizing of Final Fantasy (listen you fucking idiots... we don't want direct sequels to FF games that sucked in the first place!). Unique IP's are hard to come by. Over the course of this year (and into next year)... I am only excited about 3 or 4 recurring IPs (Diablo 3, GTAV, Black Ops 2, Wasteland 2). As for unique games, I'm sure excited for Starhawk, Dishonored... and that's about it.

The gaming industry needs to go into a recession just how it did in the late 80's early 90's. PC gaming might return to the fold as a main developing platform as it's rumored that both the new Xbox and Play Station will utilize more PC like hardware. Maybe smartphones will become as powerful as 2005 computers and make everything else obsolete (doubt it).

Although, smartphone games do have the right idea when it comes to only costing the consumer $1-10 versus a full AAA+ title costing $60. And I'll totally buy any phone that has this technology incorporated into it.

[demon-brolly]

I have to say that decline would be nice. Pay that top notch price all the time for games that are only playable 5hrs offline then requiring high powered internet seems like a bit of a bust. When I want to be online I want to be online when I just want to play I want that option when paying almost $100.

[punyloony]

All of you talk about 60 dollar games and all that and don't even consider back in the day how they where about the same around 20 years ago. I remember when I was 12 14 or so when they cost 50$. it isn't a shocker that 10 dollars more. at even 1% interest over a period of 20 years games getting to be 60 dollars from 50 dollars doesn't seem so big a jump. There are some games that are around 30 dollers that start that way day one like battlefeild bad company 2 was when I got it. There where others also but I dont remember them. The way I get it is there are really good games that come out for 60 dollars and there are wannabe's that come out thinking that they are all that and price themselfs the same as the elite games.

[tomoya-kun]

All of you talk about 60 dollar games and all that and don't even consider back in the day how they where about the same around 20 years ago. I remember when I was 12 14 or so when they cost 50$. it isn't a shocker that 10 dollars more. at even 1% interest over a period of 20 years games getting to be 60 dollars from 50 dollars doesn't seem so big a jump. There are some games that are around 30 dollers that start that way day one like battlefeild bad company 2 was when I got it. There where others also but I dont remember them. The way I get it is there are really good games that come out for 60 dollars and there are wannabe's that come out thinking that they are all that and price themselfs the same as the elite games.

The price difference is actually less because publishers like EA and Activision spend much more on game development and advertising now than they did twenty years ago.  They spend milllions of dollars on each game and they much recoup their costs somehow

[AceHigh]

Not "somehow", but because they sell more copies. Back in the "good old days" few games ever came out on a global market. Fewer countries even had computers and consoles back then.

[vicious796]

Not "somehow", but because they sell more copies. Back in the "good old days" few games ever came out on a global market. Fewer countries even had computers and consoles back then.

This.

Nintendo was the first company to really do global launches and even that didn't start until the early 90s. Sure, we had Mario games in both Japan and the US near enough at the same time in the late 80s but it wasn't until the SNES that they really started pumping out launches in the US and Europe as well as Japan in the same year. Also, it was only Nintendo and they were still only selling a few hundred thousand copies worldwide.

Now, we know our favorite dev houses just as well as we know the console manufacturers and most games would be considered a failure if they don't break 1m sold in the first year (if not the first weekend). In today's world of entertainment, marketing often pays for itself and another department. Video games have gone from a thing for children and nerds (early 90s) to the mainstream - if you're a male under 35 there's a 75% chance you own at least one console.

[tomoya-kun]

Not "somehow", but because they sell more copies. Back in the "good old days" few games ever came out on a global market. Fewer countries even had computers and consoles back then.

This.

Nintendo was the first company to really do global launches and even that didn't start until the early 90s. Sure, we had Mario games in both Japan and the US near enough at the same time in the late 80s but it wasn't until the SNES that they really started pumping out launches in the US and Europe as well as Japan in the same year. Also, it was only Nintendo and they were still only selling a few hundred thousand copies worldwide.

Now, we know our favorite dev houses just as well as we know the console manufacturers and most games would be considered a failure if they don't break 1m sold in the first year (if not the first weekend). In today's world of entertainment, marketing often pays for itself and another department. Video games have gone from a thing for children and nerds (early 90s) to the mainstream - if you're a male under 35 there's a 75% chance you own at least one console.

Indeed.  The real price of games has fallen by almost half since 1985.

If a game was 60$ in 1985, that would be about $117 in today's dollars.  That is almost half as much.

As well, games now offer significantly more value than they did before.  Compare Mass Effect 3 to games like Super Mario and you quickly realize how much more that money will get you. 

And even compared to other media, games are pretty cheap.  New blue ray releases are at least 30 dollars and you'd watch them, maybe once?


And for these reasons, I think that games are actually pretty underpriced.  I have no problem paying $100 for the special editions of games because I know that they are worth the money by far.

[zherok]

More value is kinda subjective.

And I'm not sure comparing a platformer to an RPG is really fair. You wouldn't recommend Mario to someone looking for something like Mass Effect. But as far as RPGs come, Mass Effect 3 isn't even particularly long. I did a full clear in like 35 hours. Their older games have been longer than that.

If anything, while "production value" might be going up, it's led to shorter games, arguably a lot more cinematic driven. This includes the very successful series of hallway shooters that dominate sales charts (though it's arguable their real value is in the multiplayer, though quantifying that "value" would again be something else entirely than what you wanted an RPG for) as well as Mass Effect. Even their first Dragon Age has a different scope than it's sequel, so I'm not sure the trend is really making better games so much as more "movie-like" ones.

[AceHigh]

And I counter your argument with "Kingdoms of Amalur".

[zherok]

And I counter your argument with "Kingdoms of Amalur".

My argument?

[metro.]

Yeah, I doubt that prices will drop hugely. Maybe a bit. But like, even games that have hefty boxes, you buy online...for essentially the same price.

[AceHigh]

And I counter your argument with "Kingdoms of Amalur".

My argument?

Eh, "statement" would be a better word. Please forgive this non-native speaker of English language.

[zherok]

Eh, "statement" would be a better word. Please forgive this non-native speaker of English language.

I just wanted to make sure you were talking to me before I responded, actually. =)

Anyway, allow me to revise my "statement." Bioware in particular has been driven towards a more cinematic RPG. I would say that the first Mass Effect is probably the most open of the three, although none of the games is particularly longer than each other in gameplay. Three is also probably the most linear. And I think it's a consequence of how they want to tell the narrative. Dragon Age is arguably undergoing the same thing. Origins stars a silent protagonist and you're pretty much free once you're past Ostegar to pick any direction you want to go in from there. Dragon Age 2 is more linear and stars a voice protagonist, while also abandoning some of the first game's options like different races (well, that and gutting most of the strategic elements...)

Now, I agree, Amalur is something else entirely. I think the modern RPG that avoids defining the protagonist has an easier time allowing the user to have more free will. Even Mass Effect, which is ostensibly about MY Shepard, often comes down to a lot of binary choices about how I approach something (or just plain retarded ones like the ending.)

As for it's value... I have a hard time quantifying Amalur. I want to like it. There's a fuckton of stuff to do. Except... it's honestly kinda boring. The gameplay is actually pretty good. The AI is kinda dumb as toast. And while there's a ridiculous amount of content (I'm like 40 hours in and between the two DLCs already out and what I have left... I'm not even sure I'm a 1/3 of the way done) a lot of it is very very simple quests. And the talking. Oh god. The VA isn't terrible, but seriously, show, don't tell. Every NPC you meet is a walking encyclopedia waiting to divulge some useless trivia about the game world rather than show you. There's some interesting hooks: I like the idea of an immortal race that perpetually retells it's greatest stories by reenacting them. Too bad a game supposedly about how you're "fateless" still comes down to a lot of binary choices though.

Anyway, I think Skyrim does it better. Like I can bypass most of the main story in both games, but I'm excited by what I find in Skyrim versus I'm just trying to whittle down the list of fetch/kill/escort an inevitably doomed NPC who I don't care about quests that proceed the main objectives.

/ramble

[AceHigh]

Now combine Skyrim's atmosphere and story with Kingdoms of Amalur's finely polished combat system and we would have a great game.

Actually there is a game I have high expectations for: Risen 2. If it's anything like the first one, it will be a fun RPG experience where you need to make an effort just to survive in the game. Hopefully it will be worth 60$