News "Games should cost £70 in the future"

I don't buy new console games because of the cost (second-hand, pc or arcade only) and I earn substantially more than the national average, how out of touch are these people?

 

70 quid is about 120$?

Yea... no thanks. It's hard enough finding games actually worth the initial 50$ (or 60$ if it's console), so I can't imagine the humongous crap that a 120$ game would bring, let alone the overpowering feeling of being ripped off.

Most games released last 4-10 hours in Singleplayer, providing they even have SP, and not all games have MP, nor do all game's MP actually work well enough for people to play it. Considering how lately it seems games have been getting shorter, and co-op/MP get shafted more of than not, and they STILL ask full price for them.. We'll be paying 120$ for 2 hours of gameplay and staring at the multiplayer login box saying "Connecting.." for 6 hours before giving up.

 

Oops I tell a lie, I have pre-ordered Forza 3, obviously the exception that proves the rule

 

I wont buy £50 games its a money milking factory. PC games manage themselves to a much more civilised costing scheme and about 3 weeks after release are dropping in price. I prefer to buy gen copies rather than the pre-owned as the profits goto the developers and i`ll never pirate as I love games too much.
it all boils down to how much profit they actually want to make though.

Try getting rid of the dirge of absolutly average games out there, the market is saturating itself with some truly average titles that must be making money somewhere and taking profits away from truly deserving titles.

 

Too much attention goes to graphics. I think that's part of the reason why there are so few new ideas in games: there are some, but not as many as 10-20 years ago. The benefits of the last 10 years of GPU advances are very marginal - technically impressive though they may be. Spending £70 is fair for a great game, but if they've just spent "more and more money pursuing the best graphics" that doesn't bode well.

 

or is that to really make up for profits lost from pirating which will only increase pirating as people dont have that kind of cash to spend ~_~

 

Despite working full time and having disposable income I tend to find that even £35 is a bit too much for a game. But you know, I'm sure this recession will be over soon when they keep coming up with brilliant ideas such as price hikes.

 

Jesus, how about making good games at lower prices that will sell because they're good and make large profits through (wait for it, this is the really revolutionary part) volume?

 

Interesting... Always the overrated prices news comes from sony or EA... Dang mercenaries!

 

Perhaps the gaming industry is looking to advertising in games or renting as a business model. £70 may be steep, but if you play CoD for 2 years for £5 a month subscription, you just paid £120 for the game. WoW is what the big game companies will be wanting to do.

Games are heading that way - just watch how EA structures it's next big releases as they will surely go first.

 

Becuse selling computer games has a low marginal costs, publishers + retailers need to be very aware of price elasticity of demand (PED). By dopping prices in some cases they could make more money because more people will buy the games.

 

Didn't you notice the pattern 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.”

Come on now, what game, exluding some free roaming RPGs like WoW, Fallout, NVN and Oblivion would have enough gameplay and replay value to be played for 140 hours? I've completed most recent FPSs in less than 20 hours and there's no way I'm spending 120 hours in multiplayer with 12 year olds screaming "pwnd" and reciting jokes about "ur mom".

 

These companies must think people roll over and do what they want. Look at Spore people avoided buying it due to its anti-piracy measures, which you could legally get round by contacting EA. Now they want to raise the price of a game.

Also, with games around the £30 mark children can ask for it and the in most cases get it. But, with a price increase it will be "you'll have to wait till your birthday". And people out of work who get £50 to live on a week from the government, have fun playing with mud.

Brads

 

So they want to charge £70 (causing a HUGE surge in piracy) for a game with such uber graphics that no machine in the known universe could run it, except the dude's with the technical know-how to pirate it, so he can play it for its Full-6-hour(!!! :O) epic story-line consisting of a poor adaptation of the next great *cough* action movie?

I didn't know such epic scale morons existed. One might think they are republicans.

 

Games companies don't want to move to a subscription model because for every game you play online for 12 months theres 10 you'd only play for 1 month, so you'd only pay £5 for their game. Maybe another £5 6 months later when you fancy playing it again. Sadly most games companies are moving away from the 'make better games' plan, and towards the 'charge more for less' plan with DLC

 

Students: £30 a week = Fat-chance I'll be buying a game any time soon
On the dole: £50 a week = -£20 for food.... I'll have to sell my soul
Children: Pocket money = "You can get it if you save up honey... It'll only take 2 months"
People with money (Less than 45% claim middle-class status) = I own a mac... Is 'Death Blood 5: The 4th sequel' organic? And does it go well with wine and camembert?

 

If these prices ever come into effect, I won't be buying any games anymore. It's making me think about whether I should bother upgrading my PC next year now...

 

A $110 game better include a ******** attachment....

 

Heh £70 quid for a game which will last 8-10 hours eh? Let me see.

£70 per week I need for petrol, food, drinks & cinema. (I cook and being vegetarian is cheap).

What's more important?