News "Games should cost £70 in the future"

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/07/31/games-should-cost-70-in-the-future/1

Ex-Sony Boss Chris Deering says that games should get more expensive in the future.

 

These morons have to realise that if they raise the price to ~£70 then even fewer people would actually buy the games (thus adding to the problem of piracy).

Do these people even have a single ounce of common sense?

 

I think I'll wait until MW2 drops to about £25 before I buy it.

 

I would pay £70 for a game . . .if it was in every way excellent, no "good game but . . .". Not many games can live up to that. As xaser04 says it's not for the individual to pay the development costs, if they aren't getting enough money they need to sell more of them!

 

It's like the majority of the people involved don't even consider any other option. They could spend less on development, they could just make less profit, they could do tons of stuff.

But no. Automatic price-hike. I mean I understand: they can really do what they want, it's their product at the end of the day. They can charge what they want for it ultimately. It just seems like they don't have an original thought in them.

 

Putting up the costs will increase the number of people who will pirate it.

70 quid is stupid for a game.
Reminds me of the neo-geo console and its 200 quid odd cartridges.....That sold well didn't it ?

Shoot yourselves in the feet why don't you....

 

£70 for a game is scandalous. Especially as most games today seem to suffer with the patch syndrome. I wouldn't mind paying for a game that is excellent, but I would expect to have zero problems with it from day one. I would also expect alot more than the 7-8 hours or so of single gameplay than some titles have nowadays. Also, I would expect more originality than we see now, with the same old rehashes that keep on getting churned out.

At the end of the day, if they want to raise the prices, then it's only right that we should expect more for that money.

 

when you look at in comparison with say the cost of a cinema ticket it isnt that bad tbh...
7 quid for 3 hours at the cinema... whereas many games give you a lot more than 30 hours...
The value given by some games like cs:s or tf2 is immense...

still, 70 quid is still an obscene amount of money to pay for a game...

 

I would pay 70 quid for Gran Turismo 5, I don't see me buying any other game in the next year though.

 

The people who are thinking this up must be rich and making enough money anyway... surely?

If they had a normal income like the rest of us they'd realise that £70's a day's wages or more for most in the demographic!

Well, I suppose I can always dust off that old box of Risk from the attic.

 

£70 Quid for a game? I just bought BF2 for £10 and I thought that was expensive!!!

 

Spiderman 3 (the movie) had a $258,000,000 budget. Movie tickets would have been around £4 for me and my girlfriend to go and see, if we saw crap movies.

Are game publishers really trying to tell us that they can't make money in a similar way? Call of Duty x is surely a dumbed down enough game that it appeals to enough millions of people they can sell plenty of copies. If the massive hollywood studios are making huge profits from people seeing their movies for £5-10, then game studios should be able to make money from people paying £10-30 for a game.

I'm tired of publishers trying to blatantly lie to us about how they're just trying to scrape by in a tiny, moneyless industry, after them for years boasting to the wider world that the gaming industry is now bigger and richer than every other entertainment industry.

 

“Consumers won’t spend more, but to write the game, publishers are having to spend more than ever before. That’s the key problem...there are lots of things you can get for less than the relative value of paying 50p an hour for a very high end game.”

Why do publishers have to spend more? I don't get it...

"as developers are forced to spend more and more money pursuing the best graphics."

And why is that? As far as I`m aware, paychecks for employees are dropping down. So programmers don't get paid as much. So where are all those bucks going?

I`m not familiar with the intricacies of game developing and publishing, so if someone cares to explain, please do.

 

50p an hour of gameplay? It has been a long time since I got anywhere near that much use out of a game. If most modern games cost £70, you would be looking at much closer to £7 an hour of gameplay!

 

Its gonna get there eventually obviously although I certainly don't see £70 being value at this point in time for any game.

Publishers need to think of new ways of getting people to pay for content too, which is why we're seeing DLC that is blatantly just sliced out of the game from the start and games like battle forge that encourage micro transactions.

 

welcome to the world of corperate greed folks, **** these clown devs/pubs and go support your local indie dev!

 

get ready for £70 games from Codemasters and Activision then

 

Just watch PC piracy rates soar. If they really wanted to make money they should sell them cheaper - they will sell more! Or maybe consider selling them in different ways. Disk's are redundant why do companies continue to invest money in ancient technology.

 

£70 is a rediculous figure. They might even make less money because no one would buy the game!!

 

actually, it just occurred to me that I did pay £60 for virtua racing in 1994, which must be equivalent to well over £70 now ¬_¬