surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
This mentality is the reason why creativity in gaming is dead. Some people may look forward to a future where everything is a multiplat shooter with three colors. I personally do not.
@FPS Baby Jesus
I thought both Enslaved and Alan Wake were two of the best games made last year. I certainly enjoyed them more than Red Dead Redemption, God of War 3 and Call of Duty. High sales and popularity aren't necessarily signs of quality.
I thought both Enslaved and Alan Wake were two of the best games made last year. I certainly enjoyed them more than Red Dead Redemption, God of War 3 and Call of Duty. High sales and popularity aren't necessarily signs of quality.
I agree about the price point. I would assume that the publishers have accountants who determine the best price, but a variance on the $60 tag is rare. I would argue that you could sell twice the number of games if you sell it at a lower price and come out on top. Not only would you exceed or break even on the profit side (example 50% price reduction = 50% increase in sales)but you would get increased exposure for your game. The more people who play it the more likely it is to get recommended for others to buy.
kinda ironic how gears is a pretty much the definitiion of a "middle class" game heck even a mediocre at best.
games like majin, deadly premonition sure they needed more budget but one can't deny the games are much more fun than bro man games like gears, madden, cod and such.
oh well the industry is pretty much screwed hope to change soon in the future
games like majin, deadly premonition sure they needed more budget but one can't deny the games are much more fun than bro man games like gears, madden, cod and such.
oh well the industry is pretty much screwed hope to change soon in the future
My only problem with lowering prices right out of the gate is you automatically label a game as "inferior," and set up a second class citizen type of playing field. People will see the "new" low priced games as not that good or lacking in some way. Usually things work themselves out over time and if something isn't selling, the price drops. Enslaved is $20 right now ~5 months after release.
You could argue that price could be determined by perceived demand and it's up to the publisher to set a "good price." Would Enslaved have done better if it came out at $40? Why would a publisher want to release lower then standard? Does setting a lower price automatically increase demand? It sort of says, either we don't believe in this game, or we don't think there is much interest in it, or it's technically inferior to other games. What if it did phenomenal at the low price? How are you going to justify raising the price without enraging customers?
I don't think anyone sets out to make a middle-class game...well, that's not totally true, but I don't think many of the ones mentioned were like that.
You could argue that price could be determined by perceived demand and it's up to the publisher to set a "good price." Would Enslaved have done better if it came out at $40? Why would a publisher want to release lower then standard? Does setting a lower price automatically increase demand? It sort of says, either we don't believe in this game, or we don't think there is much interest in it, or it's technically inferior to other games. What if it did phenomenal at the low price? How are you going to justify raising the price without enraging customers?
I don't think anyone sets out to make a middle-class game...well, that's not totally true, but I don't think many of the ones mentioned were like that.
"Person with no avatar makes post completely devoid of logic, what a big surpwise."
Crap, now I feel pressure to make an avatar...
Anyway, big budget movies can also flop and so can big games. I don't know every sales figure, but I can't imagine that every big budget title that gets released sells big. And they must cost so much money to make, how can so many competing games all break even?
Gears is rare in that it's now a household name like Halo or COD. But I'll bet even Gears 3 isn't as appealing to the masses anymore as it was in the past.
Isn't it more about games that appeal to people's inner gamer? I didn't buy Singularity because it looked ugly and broken to me. Gears seems cool to me, so I'll probably try it. I don't care how much money they spent making it. I'm more attracted to the concept than I am to the giant epicness of the game.
I don't know how much I believe this argument. Epic is like big oil for the game industry. We're somehow dependent on them to bring us "joy", and yet there's a hint of evil intention behind everything they say.
Crap, now I feel pressure to make an avatar...
Anyway, big budget movies can also flop and so can big games. I don't know every sales figure, but I can't imagine that every big budget title that gets released sells big. And they must cost so much money to make, how can so many competing games all break even?
Gears is rare in that it's now a household name like Halo or COD. But I'll bet even Gears 3 isn't as appealing to the masses anymore as it was in the past.
Isn't it more about games that appeal to people's inner gamer? I didn't buy Singularity because it looked ugly and broken to me. Gears seems cool to me, so I'll probably try it. I don't care how much money they spent making it. I'm more attracted to the concept than I am to the giant epicness of the game.
I don't know how much I believe this argument. Epic is like big oil for the game industry. We're somehow dependent on them to bring us "joy", and yet there's a hint of evil intention behind everything they say.
without middle shelf games, the industry will die. I love this gen of gaming but we are seriously missing out on the variety of games out there. Developers are not taking as much risks as they used to. I enjoy all the offline multiplayer games we have gotten this gen which is a huge plus for me but the majority of games released are shooters. Where are my hack & Slash that don't have Warriors in the title? Where are the beat em ups or the quirky RPGs? They are truly rare but I admire those middle shelf games.
I had a great time playing Dead To Rights Retributions and I thought Splatterhouse was also great fun. Sengoku Basara, Yakuza series, 3d Dot Heroes.... These games are the reason why I enjoy playing videogames. You don't need a huge budget or great graphics to make a fun game. I just wish they sold enough so it would encourage big name publishers to take more risks
I had a great time playing Dead To Rights Retributions and I thought Splatterhouse was also great fun. Sengoku Basara, Yakuza series, 3d Dot Heroes.... These games are the reason why I enjoy playing videogames. You don't need a huge budget or great graphics to make a fun game. I just wish they sold enough so it would encourage big name publishers to take more risks
Isnt Bulletstorm a "middle-class" game? Its fun for sure but im not going to spend $60 on it and I like Jims idea of reduced price for certain games. I remember when NFL 2k5 came out for just $20, it was an amazing game and EA became so scared that they paid the NFL for an exlusive deal. I picked up Alpha Protocol for $40 a week after its release, GameStop at the time had a sale of all Sega games, had a blast with it but I wouldnt have paid $60 for it. Certain companies need to swallow their pride and release a game without a $60 pricetag and reap some rewards instead of let their games gather dust on store shelves. Unfortunatelly greed always gets the best of them.
Is this by the same guy who was trash talkin about people complaining about games being $60 like a month ago? Now its rocket science and games that arent "AAA" should be $35-40? Isnt that what people were saying in the comment threads there? This sterling guy confuses me all the time. Day to day, Month to month. I understand you commenting on Cliff's words but it turned into your article and now its biased. Of course Ive read your articles for years so that kinda makes me biased as well but really? In less then a month you contradict yourself in an article thats not even about games being $60. . . . lost in the sauce!
Gaming is the only industry where the same is charged for everything, regardless of quality. I know we can't ask a developer to tell us "Our game is kinda shit." But on the other hand, you can't expect me to pay for an unproven IP...or at least from an unproven developer. Did I enjoy a game like Enslaved? Yes. Do I think it's worth $60? No, because after that story was complete, I had no need to go back. Banjo-Kazooie: N&B released at $40, with a voucher for a free download of the original's update from XBLA if you preordered, and Rare isn't exactly an unknown brand, as is Banjo-Kazooie. Starting out at a lower price accomplishes two things. Firstly, it entices more of the folks like myself who enjoy trying brand new IPs, but don't want to/can't afford to drop $60 on every single one. Lastly, it more often than not will turn out a larger profit than trying to sell at a higher price, as you end up selling more units in the long run--just look at any Steam sale.
This can't be pinned on the consumer. I'm not paying for a Ferrari so I can drive a family sedan. If games with the polish level of Gears or Killzone cost $60, then it should figure than any title charging that amount should be up to that standard. Also, if you want to even stand a chance, DEMOS DEMOS DEMOS.
This can't be pinned on the consumer. I'm not paying for a Ferrari so I can drive a family sedan. If games with the polish level of Gears or Killzone cost $60, then it should figure than any title charging that amount should be up to that standard. Also, if you want to even stand a chance, DEMOS DEMOS DEMOS.
Agreed, and this looks to be the way things are going with downloadable titles, so that's something.
I think that free time is a big issue (at least for me since I entered the "working world"). I dedicate a pretty large portion of my free time to video games and I still don't have time to get through a lot of the titles I would like to.
PC has had this market for years. Paradox is a perfect example - they put out and publish "niche"/low-market games, especially in the strategy market, at $20 to $40, and as best I can tell they're making a killing. King Arthur, Mount&Blade, Cities in Motion, Majesty 2 - not indie titles, not most of them, although they publish those too... and I love them for it. You bet your rear end there's a market for "B" games - the big guys just tend to ignore it in favor of the Call of Dutys, the Halos and the Elder Scrolls.
And, as with so many things, PC is leading the way. Come and visit, we have coffee.
And, as with so many things, PC is leading the way. Come and visit, we have coffee.
Or it could be that customers simply don't have the TIME to play through all the big budget AAA games let alone the 'middle class' games (I loved Wolfenstein by the way, I can't believe people let that one fly under the radar). Hell, I just broke the 400 hour playtime mark in Monster Hunter Tri, I could have beaten 5 RPGs in that same time!
Also, if these games were shorter, then people would have more time to squeeze them in around the more popular titles.
I believe is Atlus is a staunch defender of the so-called middle class games. And it is for this reason that many gamers have such high regard for this company.
Also, really, I buy like 5-6 middle class games for every bigshot game so revenue-wise, the middle industry is getting more from me (and from other people like me).
Also, really, I buy like 5-6 middle class games for every bigshot game so revenue-wise, the middle industry is getting more from me (and from other people like me).
Its a shame that so many of the people who agreed with this article didn't understand it. "Cliffy be has no clout, what does he know?, gears sucked" LOL.
@Rhuno you named 3 popular games. Red Dead, God of War and Call of Duty. I agree high sales and popularity don't mean everything but Red Dead was excellent and well polished. So was God of War 3. I can see an argument against Black Ops, but those other 2 games are great AAA games. Enslaved was fun, but not great. Alan Wake in my opinion was str8 shitty. I don't know why ppl don't bash that game for its repetition, but bash games like CoD and Halo for not trying to reinvent the wheel.
What is middle class? Enslaved was a triple A title in every aspect except for it'd advertising (and pricing). I see Cliffy's point but feel its more dependent on the publisher's marketing than the actual product. It seems this labeling has more to do with assumptions than it does on product quality.
Oh, and to yet again disagree with Sir Sterling, Raven has proven to be inadequate with keeping up with modern game development. They should be disbanded in my opinion. Antiquated, rehashed and tired.
Oh, and to yet again disagree with Sir Sterling, Raven has proven to be inadequate with keeping up with modern game development. They should be disbanded in my opinion. Antiquated, rehashed and tired.
Great article, you summed it up. Many "middle class" games are the sleeper hits or the cult classics. They may not be the most polished or have 2 year long hype campaigns but they are an enjoyable gaming experience. And isn't that what gamers want?
The "Middle-class" or "Middle-shelf" game will never die, because few purposefully set out to make such games. Most game developers start out trying to make a AAA game, but then fall short of the mark or can't make the proper release date and end up shipping a mediocre/bland/reasonable product to make some money back.
So long as game developers and publishers continue to make mistakes, you will ALWAYS see "middle-shelf" "middle-class" games, because human beings sometimes miss the mark.
Just as bad games will always be with us, Okay-Games or Mediocre games will always be with us. Always.
So long as game developers and publishers continue to make mistakes, you will ALWAYS see "middle-shelf" "middle-class" games, because human beings sometimes miss the mark.
Just as bad games will always be with us, Okay-Games or Mediocre games will always be with us. Always.
The biggest problem facing the gaming industry is that the demographics of gamers have changed. Back in the day, it was mostly nerds, who for better or worse cared more about quality and originality. Now that soccer moms and frat-boys have overrun the place, it will never be the same.
I'm the guy who is buying all these middle-class games. I am fortunate to be able pick up a new release or two almost every week. One person may not make a huge difference, but I like to think I'm doing my part to support the underdog games. I take a lot of chances, but usually do an obsessive amount of research prior to the game's release. I don't want to be wasteful. I try my hardest to convince people to part with their money for games I think need help selling. When I hear a competent series possibly being shelved, it bothers me. It's unjust that a generic game suffering from chronic "roid-rage" and a major brand-name can outsell something more original and deserving.
I'm the guy who is buying all these middle-class games. I am fortunate to be able pick up a new release or two almost every week. One person may not make a huge difference, but I like to think I'm doing my part to support the underdog games. I take a lot of chances, but usually do an obsessive amount of research prior to the game's release. I don't want to be wasteful. I try my hardest to convince people to part with their money for games I think need help selling. When I hear a competent series possibly being shelved, it bothers me. It's unjust that a generic game suffering from chronic "roid-rage" and a major brand-name can outsell something more original and deserving.
Nice article Jim.
I know you aren't suggesting this, but you made me feel bad about waiting until I got Enslaved on special before buying it.
I know you aren't suggesting this, but you made me feel bad about waiting until I got Enslaved on special before buying it.
Picked up Kane&Lynch 1 AND 2 on steam for 8€ during the recent square-enix sale. I have played much better games, but for 8€ you get a lot of mindless fun per/€. I totally agree with you Jim, I very rarely play indie games and at the moment I'm on a tight budget so I can't afford all the triple-A games that are coming out. I'm a typical "middle class" game buyer but unfortunately I also wait for the price-drops, especially the steam sales gets a lot of my attention. I've never understood why people rush out to get day one releases and pay full price. It's not that game will degrade as time passes LOL! Also, these days games drops in price just after a few months and that's when I swoop down and pick them up, Aliens Vs Predator for 4,99€ on steam, thank you sir! :)
You know what, you're right. I never thought about it that way. I think more people would have bought "Enslaved" if it was $35 dollars, instead of $60.
I agree with you Jim, but I wish this whole "indie game, middle game, AAA titles" label didn't exist. Heck, I don't think it did last gen. It wasn't this gen until that nonsense formed.
I only see games in 2 flavors: fun/appealing (to me), and not fun/not appealing (to me). The Wii seems to be the only system this gen that comes out with games like that, just like the PS2 and GC before it. I guess you could classify all PS2, GC and Wii games as middle class now though, which is probably why I find them more fun than PS360 HD stuff.
I only see games in 2 flavors: fun/appealing (to me), and not fun/not appealing (to me). The Wii seems to be the only system this gen that comes out with games like that, just like the PS2 and GC before it. I guess you could classify all PS2, GC and Wii games as middle class now though, which is probably why I find them more fun than PS360 HD stuff.
bottom line, games are too fucking expensive, I just can't justify paying out the ass for a game that only gets middle of the road reviews or whatever
Splatterhouse for example, if it was around 30 or 40 bucks I'd probably buy it
it reminds me of how the American anime industry collapsed because the dvds were just too fucking expensive
Splatterhouse for example, if it was around 30 or 40 bucks I'd probably buy it
it reminds me of how the American anime industry collapsed because the dvds were just too fucking expensive
A lot of "middle class" Wii games are released at $30-$40, and it sometimes works. What doesn't work is when they are released for $50, as consumers have been trained to wait for the price drop.
The problem with that is, in that waiting period, the consumer forgets the game in question ever existed. Better to start with your game at "price dropped" cost, get people to buy it right out of the gate, that jack up the price later after you've generated some demand.
The problem with that is, in that waiting period, the consumer forgets the game in question ever existed. Better to start with your game at "price dropped" cost, get people to buy it right out of the gate, that jack up the price later after you've generated some demand.
setting a lower price point for the middle class games would be great, and it doesn't even have to be a lot, if a game is selling for 35-45 dollars compared to the full sixty, then you still see what valve was talking about when it came to sales. Although I wouldn't mind if they put it at full price and then have massive sales dropping the price, those games could do really well.
Yeah, not rocket science. People may not remember, but the original Katamari Damacy released here at only $20. It's sort of imperative that these games, especially new IPs, need to be released at a discounted price, to get people interested.
I wrote up a big blog post about this exact topic last year but never posted it 'cause I figured nobody would bother to read it because who cares about non-AAA, non-indie games (ironically, the core of the subject). I probably should have put it up after all. Ah well.
I'm with ol' Cliffy really. Let's face it, the piss-poor sales of games like Enslaved - in a time when Black Ops and Minecraft are breaking all kinds of sales records - proves it. Indie has its own crowd and everyone rushes to give up all their money for a game deemed AAA. If you're neither, you're fucked.
That said, one thing I have wondered for a long time is what makes a triple-A game a triple-A game. I don't recall the term being used in magazines back in the day or even in blogs five years ago. It seems to have appeared out of nowhere in the last couple of years and the standards for what is and what isn't considered AAA seem quite arbitrary. Are there AA games? A games? There does seem to be this very basic and somewhat random three-way divide; you're either indie, AAA or nothing. 'C' is usually taken as the standard average mark for anything, so does that mean these 'middle-class' games are 'C games'? So what would a 'B game' be?
I miss when everything was just games. Not 'games'. Just games.
I'm with ol' Cliffy really. Let's face it, the piss-poor sales of games like Enslaved - in a time when Black Ops and Minecraft are breaking all kinds of sales records - proves it. Indie has its own crowd and everyone rushes to give up all their money for a game deemed AAA. If you're neither, you're fucked.
That said, one thing I have wondered for a long time is what makes a triple-A game a triple-A game. I don't recall the term being used in magazines back in the day or even in blogs five years ago. It seems to have appeared out of nowhere in the last couple of years and the standards for what is and what isn't considered AAA seem quite arbitrary. Are there AA games? A games? There does seem to be this very basic and somewhat random three-way divide; you're either indie, AAA or nothing. 'C' is usually taken as the standard average mark for anything, so does that mean these 'middle-class' games are 'C games'? So what would a 'B game' be?
I miss when everything was just games. Not 'games'. Just games.
The term "Middle Class" games is stupid.
I haven't purchased a game since... um. I can't even remember. My budget doesn't allow for me to buy any game let alone a game with mediocre reviews and a cheaper price. I rent everything these days.
If I am going to buy a game, I'd rather save my chips to buy a game I've been waiting for like Grand Theft Auto 5. I just remembered the last game I purchased was Deadly Premonition. I bought it used with every intention of returning it, but didn't finish it in time. $17.99 wasn't a bad price so I see what you're saying.
The term Middle Class game has to die though.
I haven't purchased a game since... um. I can't even remember. My budget doesn't allow for me to buy any game let alone a game with mediocre reviews and a cheaper price. I rent everything these days.
If I am going to buy a game, I'd rather save my chips to buy a game I've been waiting for like Grand Theft Auto 5. I just remembered the last game I purchased was Deadly Premonition. I bought it used with every intention of returning it, but didn't finish it in time. $17.99 wasn't a bad price so I see what you're saying.
The term Middle Class game has to die though.
As far as the price points go, my bursts of $60 at a time are reserved for "AAA" titles or franchises which I have a degree of loyalty to and I trust that they won't disappoint me.
I think there's something to say about the negative impact of DLC on the pricing scheme; DLC often creates a barrier to entry for me because extremely popular DLC essentially becomes mandatory. An example of this is Borderlands before the GOTY collection; while I adored Borderlands and its price consistently dropped, except for special Steam offers, the DLC remained $10 a pop, and I couldn't justify $40 for "additional content." This gave me incentive to merely wait until some sort of inevitable package deal goes.
I would have little to no problem with a $30 or $40 game supplementing itself, but when I consider $60 games that have been out for 3-6 months and in order to compete/be satisfied/even interact with friends sometimes I'll need to drop $30-$40 more? It's a significant barrier in the pricing scheme.
Sometimes I also think that perhaps publishers feel that bumping to $60 price points games that don't deserve them will bump up sales because "If it's $60, it must be good" but gamers are too savvy for this behavior these days. We research, we read reviews, and at least when I was console gaming regularly, the only time I went into a store not knowing what I wanted was when I knew I'd be hanging around the useds/discount games.
I think there's something to say about the negative impact of DLC on the pricing scheme; DLC often creates a barrier to entry for me because extremely popular DLC essentially becomes mandatory. An example of this is Borderlands before the GOTY collection; while I adored Borderlands and its price consistently dropped, except for special Steam offers, the DLC remained $10 a pop, and I couldn't justify $40 for "additional content." This gave me incentive to merely wait until some sort of inevitable package deal goes.
I would have little to no problem with a $30 or $40 game supplementing itself, but when I consider $60 games that have been out for 3-6 months and in order to compete/be satisfied/even interact with friends sometimes I'll need to drop $30-$40 more? It's a significant barrier in the pricing scheme.
Sometimes I also think that perhaps publishers feel that bumping to $60 price points games that don't deserve them will bump up sales because "If it's $60, it must be good" but gamers are too savvy for this behavior these days. We research, we read reviews, and at least when I was console gaming regularly, the only time I went into a store not knowing what I wanted was when I knew I'd be hanging around the useds/discount games.
I think it's a good point.
There are a lot of games that are fun but not high-profile enough for people to justify spending their $60 on. A good example is Army of Two, it's got great coop play mechanics (especially for a GoW-less PS3) but aside from that it doesnt exactly break the mold.
The idea of changing the price is good too. If these "middle class" games had a lower price and better marketing there might have been more sales, more word of mouth and a better online community.
I think Serious sam did it right, and so does Relic with their expansion packs that are as good as full games.
PS didn't Raven make the Marvel Ultimate Alliance games? those seem pretty AAA to me.
There are a lot of games that are fun but not high-profile enough for people to justify spending their $60 on. A good example is Army of Two, it's got great coop play mechanics (especially for a GoW-less PS3) but aside from that it doesnt exactly break the mold.
The idea of changing the price is good too. If these "middle class" games had a lower price and better marketing there might have been more sales, more word of mouth and a better online community.
I think Serious sam did it right, and so does Relic with their expansion packs that are as good as full games.
PS didn't Raven make the Marvel Ultimate Alliance games? those seem pretty AAA to me.
Well put Jim. If a developer I tend to like I know is making a game I am iffy on, I often buy it anyway. That is why I bit on Vanquish, Brutal Legend and others. I also got Enslaved at release and don't regret it (even if it can be had for 15 bucks now). One thing that has helped me give more games a chance is that many stores offer good deals now (K-mart has upped their game to be the best deals around on release date), and if I am getting $20 rewards/coupon or a free PSN/Live card I can make that commitment way more easily than if the game is just stock standard 60 bucks.
One of the bigger things I think needs to happen is that most of the Japanese games need to be released cheaper, they are obviously struggle in the American market, and it is a lot of their niche games that go down in flames.
One of the bigger things I think needs to happen is that most of the Japanese games need to be released cheaper, they are obviously struggle in the American market, and it is a lot of their niche games that go down in flames.
no way can these games be allowed to disappear. it's normally these games that provide the innovation; think Mirror's Edge or the upcoming Brink (which hopfully will do well); rather than the AAA titles, that with the amount of money spent on them should be able to come up with something different instead of the same old same old with each release i.e CoD.
how can he say that the middle market is dead when surely, as AAA titles are only a few throughout the year, the middle market represents the majority of games that people are playing regardless of if they've picked it up out of the bargain basket.
how can he say that the middle market is dead when surely, as AAA titles are only a few throughout the year, the middle market represents the majority of games that people are playing regardless of if they've picked it up out of the bargain basket.
Atlus needs to follow this advice. They make GREAT games, that should be at least AA, if not AAA titles. There's a huge market for the type of game they release, and the talent in that company is near the levels of Valve and Bioware. I think it's a shame that they don't get enough founding. The same goes for Double Fine. Tim Schafer deserves a lot more money than he has; it's a damn shame that Psychonauts' previous commercial failure is making publishers queasy about letting it have a second go.
isnt this what the new MX VS ATV is trying to do. they are releasing the game full game at 40$. and keeping the game going with DLC.
About halfway through this article I started thinking, what if these games cost $30-40 at launch? And then you made the point better than I could phrase it. Well done
its simple, those refined, discerning douchbag magazine editors are too pretensious for their own good, and in the age of youtube,facebook, and highspeed instant gratifacation, all creativity is now overlooked. remember when games would stay popular for more than a month ? same goes for music, movies, everything. its all forgotten.
Sorry but all I could think about as you got into pricing was that $60 = £40 and that that's pretty decent for a game in the UK, as you know yourself. I think our equivalent of the $60 is that £50 game, and that's more like $75.
Personally, I don't mind paying $60/£40 for a game if I know it's going to last me a while. That's the same amount of money I'd spend on a night out with friends, including a club, so I can easily justify that on something that'll give me weeks of entertainment. Perhaps a bigger problem is that, despite industry claims to the contrary, the average gamer is still a teenage boy living with his parents who'll only see $60 in one go if he doesn't spend his paper round money for a few weeks.
Personally, I don't mind paying $60/£40 for a game if I know it's going to last me a while. That's the same amount of money I'd spend on a night out with friends, including a club, so I can easily justify that on something that'll give me weeks of entertainment. Perhaps a bigger problem is that, despite industry claims to the contrary, the average gamer is still a teenage boy living with his parents who'll only see $60 in one go if he doesn't spend his paper round money for a few weeks.
Just to back this up, people above me are talking about games being $30 at launch. That's how much a RRP Bluray costs at launch here - and that's gonna be around 2 hours of totally linear entertainment with limited "replay" value. If you wanted to get, say, 30 hours of entertainment that way, you'd have to spend $450. With a game, just $60. So this is either a case of teenagers with no money or geeks who want to play every single last game that comes out ever, regardless of whether they actually have enough time to play them all or not.
My answer? Wiser pricing.
If these games hit the shelves without a 60 dollar price-tag with the same level of quality I imagine people would be more than willing to pay for them brand new, and probably get more profit than they are currently. Take Splatterhouse, great game, not a "goty" and a lot of people don't want to spend that much money on it brand new, but say if it was 40 bucks, I know a lot of people who would have.
If these games hit the shelves without a 60 dollar price-tag with the same level of quality I imagine people would be more than willing to pay for them brand new, and probably get more profit than they are currently. Take Splatterhouse, great game, not a "goty" and a lot of people don't want to spend that much money on it brand new, but say if it was 40 bucks, I know a lot of people who would have.
@Xeo
yes gears of war is a triple a title, where you living under a rock for the last 6 years?! gosh i hate ppl like you
yes gears of war is a triple a title, where you living under a rock for the last 6 years?! gosh i hate ppl like you
follow
