News "Games should cost £70 in the future"

Isn't Direct X 11 meant to make it easier for developers to make things look good without needing huge amounts of code etc? I know it'll be years before dx11 can be a minimum specification for a PC, but it should help in the end.
I know I wouldn't pay £70 for a game. I'd just wait a year or three for it to be a bargin bucket for £15.

 

I have been a gamer for as long as I can remember, and £70 for games in the future sounds like a joke.

They will shoot themselves in the foot for being so greedy, mainly because people will buy less games the 49.99rrp that games have now I begrudge and pay 39.99 online for (or less).

I have played some tripe already this generation, and its not funny to think I could be paying more for the same in the future. Modern Warfare 2 will not be worth the admission?!?!

 

As developers use the same Engine for multiple games isn't it there own fault for any difficulties in programming.

 

It is, it's just companies claiming to be selling at a loss. Honestly if it was cheaper, it would be much more accessible. And if it was supported more. EA has murdered a few of my favorite games already.

 

I wouldn't say 1 hour of gameplay = 1 hour of cinema for a start. Cinema is more concise. For example I would rank FEAR as one of my most favourite shooters IF they had cut the play time by half, because the awesome moments were amazing, and the repeating grey corridors between them were tedious.
On the other end of the scale, I enjoyed all of Mirrors Edge, but clocking it in 4 hours after paying full retail for it? Unacceptable. Cinema here is $10NZ per ticket (~2 hours), Mirrors Edge $100NZ (~4 hours).

I agree with the notion that if 75% reduced cost increases sales by 13x then it makes more sense to increase volume for profits. I think a lot of devs get a false sense of value on their product, because they put so much time and effort into it. But selling it at an increased price will never work, and it costs nothing to sell more in volume. I don't see why they don't want the extra exposure of the public to their brand, that would again mean extra profits in the future.

 

As expected for someone who worked for Sony.. Next in, "game consoles sell the best when they're $400".

 

So I have 3 consoles networked together, I am suppose to pay $330 USD for three copies? Since you can just start the game with the cd and then move it to the next console, I have to wait till I can buy a game used for $10-$15 otherwise I would go broke.

 

there's no way, no f-ing way I'd pay that much

 

Price Elasticity of Demand.

 

two points,
1. they can stuff off with the weakening pound argument, we're now up 15-20% up on where we were 6 months ago, and previous to that we were stupidly over valued.
2. Can I recommend playing games 6 months behind the release curve. Top rated games at £20 or less new, normally available in plenty of 2 for £30 deals. the last game I bought on release week was GTA4 and before that it was GTA San Andreas

 

This is headline-grabbing static, it's the same as the one person that works for the Beeb saying the licence fee should be higher or there should be a charge for just the iPlayer.

Console manufacturers hate the PC because there's no real licensing or zoning system they could create to keep prices high. The last PC retail release I remember staying at £40 and still selling well was Neverwinter Nights, and Warcraft III's Frozen throne add-on stayed up around £25-30, but that was back in 2003.

Whatever crazy price some games launch at, by Christmas/January or the next major sales weekend they'll be down to something tolerable.

 

how is he the father of the playstation? Ken Kutaragi is.

 

If developers want to be more profitable, they should consider not developing for the PS3, as that system has relatively high development costs, combined with the weakest number of sold consoles that would potentially relate to buying a game.

It is relatively easy to develop for both the 360 and the PC, which have larger numbers of systems sold. The Wii is also out there and its owners are generally super happy when they can get good titles.

And as everyone else has said, any executive worthy of being an executive should roughly know their market and thus how well their title may sell. Development costs should reflect planning that takes this into account. To do otherwise, without specific reason, is incompetent.

It is also worth noting that sometimes people like to be deceptive about the profitability of their products. If a game gets a certain amount of revenue, depending on who the executives value and the nature of how contracts have been written, they may decide that they are better off claiming/paying higher development costs and leaving less for profit. What I am saying makes much more sense when you consider that development and publishing teams are separate entities, sometimes with even more organizations involved as well. Although some perspectives suggest that they are working together, and benefiting each other would create the highest value, other perspectives suggest they're fighting over limited resources.

 

UM I get that the devs are having to spend more and more, but don't more and more people play games than they did 10 years ago?

Not to mention huge bases of code companies now have to work with plus standardized APIs and. Look how far Valve have taken the source engine; that's what over devs should be looking at.

 

I like how only the Sony people are saying this...

Honestly, if ALL games were too expensive to make, then explain how very few of those said companies are going out of business?

 

I see two schools of thought here.

One is from the casual gamer like me. I will NOT pay that much. It doesn't matter how great the game is, it just isn't worth it. Maybe after it drops. To casual gamers even pirating isn't often worth the hassle. It either needs to be creating a buzz or something I know of. People like me are the ones who make the cheaper games hit the top of the charts. "I heard of this, looks good, and for $30 sure, why not."


For the hardcore gamer though...
You all will sit and moan about the cost, but the truth is, the hardcore gamers, won't care. Look at the lines for the PS3 and I-Phone. If people want something, they don't care what it costs (within reason). They are sheep, and they will pay whatever someone asks them to. Will piracy go up? I' will bet not as much as you all think. Many lack the skill and ability, some are fearful, and some are just too honest. If you haven't done it before, odds are you won't do it now.



I do agree though, lower the price and sell more. They keep saying graphics are everything, I disagree, I think game play is, and if you want some evidence, look at Nintendo. They haven't had stellar graphics in how long? And why is the PS2 and games still selling so well. They seem to forget that this is entertainment, not a necessity. I can think of a lot of things that are just as entertaining for less.

 

What planet are these morons living on? £70 for a game is madness.
For £70 it needs to come with a gold plated box ffs

Last game I paid full price for was GTA IV and I've had months of entertainment out of that, even Eve @ 15 euro's a month is damn good value for money but £70 for a game that lasts 20 hours if you're really lucky (and quite possibly really crap) is utter lunacy.

 

Simply distribute the games digitally, alot of waste goes into the moronic idea of having a physical copy of the game.

 

Ive never spent more than £25 for a single game, let alone £70!! This is madness.

 

THIS IS SATA!