Looks like the next gen consoles games will be more expensive than the current generation of games…
Exciting. Half of the games were n’t that great this gen for the price that you pay for them and now this. I really don’t think the public will fork out for expensive video games and will rely on the second hand sales of games
from computer shops. Looks like the second video game crash may be impending…
I’ve been paying 70$ for years.And I live in a poorer economy compared to America.You do the math.
Paying more than $50 for a videogame isn’t unheard of. There were plenty of SNES and Genesis titles running for $60. Phantasy Star IV when it debuted closed in towards $100. The old Wing Commander games that I grew up on for PC, took in about $80 a sale.
$50 or $60 matters not… I’ll stick to my usual overly-nitpicky-attitude when I buy these products.
Being the wretched miser that I am, any notion of paying more for anything is sufficient to grip me within the madly-thrashing, incoherent and violent throes of an apoplectic fit of artificial injustice.
However, speaking objectively and in all fairness, games do warrant a price increas. I was genuinely shocked by an article in Computer & Video Games a few years ago that deconstructed where the money you spend on a new title for the major platforms is dispersed to. For a ?39.99 (STR) Dreamcast game, for instance, Sega only received approximately ?2.50, or one-sixteenth of its street value! Most of the income was devoured by the retailer. It’s high time the game companies enjoyed better margins.
Plus, I only buy preowned titles so any hike won’t matter so much to me anyway. 
I pay ?40 for my games. No more, unless it’s something like the Halo 2 Collector’s Edition.
10-15 million dollars to make a game? I suppose this is partly because everyone expects their games to be voice-acted by Hollywood voice actors/actresses now? LMAO.
No, it’s not. Granted, most games don’t cost that much. Primarily super-sized AAA titles like Halo 2, GTA, etc. RPGs like FF cost even more. And this doesn’t even take into consideration marketing costs, packaging costs, etc. This is purely development costs (well, unless they are including all those things, then that number isn’t that far off).
This has very little to do with Hollywood talent, and everything to do with the size and scope of games today. Remember, every time technology advances, it requires months and months of R&D to take advantage of that technology. And if a single company does not do so, they are left behind the curve, and soon become obsolete. It’s one of the traps of this being a technology-driven industry.
The more sophisticated games become, the more “specialists” you need in your team. Back in the early PC days, a game could be made by a group of people working out of a garage. Nowadays, you need a whole team of artists, a team of programmers, a team of designers, sound engineers, a director, producer, blah blah blah. Each of those people needs a salary, benefits, etc. Then, you take into consideration that games regularly take 18-24 months? It adds up.
It’s easy to just assume that it’s because of “stupid” marketing tactics like adding Hollywood actors is what makes games so expensive (which is funny, because when companies use amateur actors and the difference shows, they get knocked for it), but rather, it’s just the evolution of games themselves that has caused this.
Next time you sit down and play a game like Morrowind or KOTOR, remember that EVERYTHING had to be created by someone. All those dialog branches? Side quests? Extra items? NPCs? They don’t just magically appear. Someone had to sit down, make them, and get paid doing so.
So, next time you say, “I want a game that gives me 40 hours of gameplay, has an awesome fully-orchestrated soundtrack, full voice acting, and kick-ass graphics,” understand what it is you’re asking for.
Prices easily go around 60 euro and above here for console games. Of course, if you know where to look , you can find them much cheaper. =D
And Abadd does make a very valid point.
And if the price bothers you… just wait until it goes on sale or has a price reduction. I rarely buy anything at full price anymore and it’s not like the game wilts on the store shelf like old bread that’s been out too long.
I reckon a mathematical formula should be used in order to come up with a fair price tag for a game.
Something a along the lines :
70% *(times) Production costs
20% *(times) Developing time frame (in years)
10% *(times) Something else entitrely
Well this is just an example but you get the idea.You would get different prices for different games.That would be fair.I think the same should be done with records and movies.
I mean it isn’t fair I pay the same 60? for playing both Shenmue and Counter Strike : expansion pack #69
They’ll charge what they think they can get, and not a cent less.
[quote=“Abadd”]
No, it’s not. Granted, most games don’t cost that much. Primarily super-sized AAA titles like Halo 2, GTA, etc. RPGs like FF cost even more. And this doesn’t even take into consideration marketing costs, packaging costs, etc. This is purely development costs (well, unless they are including all those things, then that number isn’t that far off).
This has very little to do with Hollywood talent, and everything to do with the size and scope of games today. Remember, every time technology advances, it requires months and months of R&D to take advantage of that technology. And if a single company does not do so, they are left behind the curve, and soon become obsolete. It’s one of the traps of this being a technology-driven industry.
The more sophisticated games become, the more “specialists” you need in your team. Back in the early PC days, a game could be made by a group of people working out of a garage. Nowadays, you need a whole team of artists, a team of programmers, a team of designers, sound engineers, a director, producer, blah blah blah. Each of those people needs a salary, benefits, etc. Then, you take into consideration that games regularly take 18-24 months? It adds up.
It’s easy to just assume that it’s because of “stupid” marketing tactics like adding Hollywood actors is what makes games so expensive (which is funny, because when companies use amateur actors and the difference shows, they get knocked for it), but rather, it’s just the evolution of games themselves that has caused this.
Next time you sit down and play a game like Morrowind or KOTOR, remember that EVERYTHING had to be created by someone. All those dialog branches? Side quests? Extra items? NPCs? They don’t just magically appear. Someone had to sit down, make them, and get paid doing so.
So, next time you say, “I want a game that gives me 40 hours of gameplay, has an awesome fully-orchestrated soundtrack, full voice acting, and kick-ass graphics,” understand what it is you’re asking for.[/quote]
What I meant was that while our expectations of the requirement games should meet rise so do the costs of development. I mean, it must have cost BioWare a small fortune to voice act every single line of dialogue in KOTOR. Now people are starting to demand nothing less than recogniseable voices in every major release.
I’m curious as to how these ever-rising costs will impact on future game development. Won’t games companies feel even less inclined to develop anything other than liscenced clones of popular games?
Perhaps I should just accept my favourite genres going extinct as an inevitable step in evolution of a profit-driven games industry.
Don’t lose hope, Geoffrey. Games like Katamari Damacy, Disgaea, etc certainly give me hope that non-mainstream games still have a chance at survival in this market. However, just like any other entertainment media, it unfortunately depends a little too much luck at this point.
I’ve had a theory/question for a while, though, which falls somewhat along the lines that you were fearing. The use of Hollywood actors in games such as James Bond certainly lends a sense of credibility to those games, and it fits the brand. However, what do you think about things like Siren, where they use the faces of real actors? Let’s face it: most animators in the game industry suck. There are very few games where I have truly believed the emotions of the characters, and in most of the ones I have believed, there is a certain level of abstraction in the character design that allows for a large level of my own imagination to fill in the gaps (Ico, PDS, etc). With games becoming closer and closer to photorealism, would it make sense to simply use the faces of real people, and “stylize” them via filters, effects, etc?
For example, would you balk at the idea of using, say, Elijah Wood as the main character in a sci-fi action/adventure game? I’m not talking about simply using it as a marketing hook. I’m talking about using real actors to help convey story, dialog, etc.
Yes, this would increase development costs, but would it be worth it? Discuss 
On another note, there are those who make “mainstream” titles that simply. just. kick. arse.
That article is a bit misleading I’m sure.I would like to know how exactly doe sthe game’s interface work.I guess ill just have to wait.
Actually, it’s not misleading at all. According to… uh… my “sources,” it pretty much works as described. Whether or not the game will actually be fun, is a separate question, but this is Will Wright we’re talking about, and I’m sure he’s well aware of that.
Seems like this is what he wanted to create when he made Sim Earth, but the tech didn’t support it…
[quote=“Abadd”]Actually, it’s not misleading at all. According to… uh… my “sources,” it pretty much works as described. Whether or not the game will actually be fun, is a separate question, but this is Will Wright we’re talking about, and I’m sure he’s well aware of that.
[/quote]
The thing is they don’t do a good job at describing imo.Where do you come up with legs for your creature,how exactly do you decide wheter your building will have a pointy tower or not etc.
I didn’t get even get a “glimpse”" of the interface.And well I prefer not to say anything about your Will Wright commentary.
On second thought : w00t did you just say??!!
As it stated in the article, the primary focus of the game is on the creation itself. It appears that those sorts of decisions are completely up to the player, to allow for unexpected results. Once you move past the evolution stage, it turns into Sim City-type gameplay, etc.
And… guh?
What I meant was that I haven’t played one Wright game that I actually had fun with.How can people like the Sims?!I think I will never understand it.
Just like how some people don’t understand how other people can enjoy sports, how some people don’t enjoy fighting games, and some people don’t like RPGs. Different opinions.
However, Will Wright has an undeniable ability to take extremely mundane tasks, and somehow infuse them with purpose (whether or not it’s entertaining to you is a different question). Sim City is the best example of this.
While personally, I haven’t played Sims enough to pass judgement, I’ve spoken with him on the basic principles behind the player motivation. The entire concept revolves around the “pyramid of needs.” It’s a psychological pyramid of self-fulfillment… and he recreated it very well.
Also, he created a system that was freeform and allowed players to create new ways of enjoying the game (primarily torturing their Sims, which wasn’t actually an intended part of the game).