First off I should probably tell you who Chris Deering is as you've most likely not heard of him since his name doesn't come up that often. He is the chairman of the Edinburgh Interactive Festival and former Sony Europe president and he believes that AAA games need to start costing a whole lot more in order to remain feasible. How much more? Oh, about £70 ($117). A bit steep, right? Not according to Deering.
“Before there can be as many successful blockbuster games as there were in the past, games have to be produced in a more efficient fashion,” Deering said. “In order to price these games at a level where they would support an industry [as strongly as] they did ten years ago, they’d have to be sold at £70. But people just don’t have that kind of money, there’s a psychological glass ceiling.”
It's the darn price of making a game right now that's doing it Deering says. While prices have skyrocketed for the cost of making a game, the price of buying a game has stayed at a pretty standard rate over the years. “The cost of development is ten times what it was for PS2, and more like 20 to 50 times more than on PSOne. Yet 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," he said.
I don't know about you, but I think we're getting plenty of top-shelf gaming right now and companies seem to be making money. I guess there would definitely be less flops if every game was $117.
Matthew Razak is Destructoid's Associate editor and co-founder of film site
Flixist. He began as community member "cowzilla" and was since sequestered to write brainy features material. He lives in Los Angeles with his beautiful wife.
Likes
Games! Movies! Hats!
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
71 comments | showing # 1 to 50
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
2:00 PM on 08.01.2009
| 
$60 is too much, I say. Games need to lower the price to $40, or mabye $30.
Better be the best damn game ever. Twice over.
People need to get more creative instead of drinking their own piss about sales.
If starting tomorrow, all games started being $120 dollars, I would have to find a new hobby because I couldn't afford it.
It's the same reason I don't take up yachting.
Said "AAA" titles also usually have to cut corners and include repetitive gameplay that will extend the game or bland generic gameplay that will appeal to the lowest common denominator. Well ok so it's not that bad yet but the cheaper digitally distributed titles are usually quirkier in a good way
I think this guy is saying that we have to start paying $120 on the crap games for the industry to survive. If companies starting making all AAA titles to be masterpieces then he would say games would need to start costing $1200 for the industry to survive.
BTW I think there probably is a reason why hes the FORMER president of Sony Europe
(no offense Madden fans, first thing I thought of)
lol? Erm, most of the time Europe pays the same as America does - like games that are usually 30 pounds in Britain are 50 dollars in the US.
In Japan they pay more than anybody. An Xbox game can cost upwards of 9800 Yen, which is like $90
This guy really pisses me off. Half the games on console aren't worth a shit after 2 weeks anyway. I think the industry should go to the drawing board and figure out how to make a game that's worth $100 dollars first: GTA III, Fallout 3, Final Fantasy series, Call of Duty: MW, Shadow of the Colossus...
'Psychological glass ceiling'? No, it's just that £70 is absolutely, certifiably ludicrous. Maybe these stupid assholes should take a look at what they are paying themselves and the cost of licensing tech if they have an issue, instead of complaining that games are too cheap at £40.
Last I checked though, good games still made handsome profits. Maybe if there wasn't so much utter shit put out...
I bought Punch Out on NES for $100 Retail, 20 or so years ago, and now I still have to pay $100 for a game.
Although, it better not go up!!
In England, only DS games are 30 £, others are 40£. Which is plain ridiculous.
As far as this story is concerned, if the games prices increase, it would probably mean that retail games wouldn't sell anymore, whereas download titles sales would increase. Furthermore, most industries don't like used games market. So less retail, less used games and the companies would be happy.
CONSPIRACY !
Even though there is still piracy at that price piont...
1. piracy would EXPLODE and people would be more than sympathetic towards piracy and
2. sales would plummet
personally I think that $60 is way too high for games and I usually don't buy things till they go on sale- if it is a game I REALLLLLLY want at launch I will buy it a couple of weeks later when someone has it for 10-15 dollars off the $60 but I still feel like I am paying too much
So 70 pounds for a game, at 50p an hour, means a 35 hour game. Where the fuck are all these 35 hour games? I can cant on one hand the amount of games that came out in 2008 that were that long, and worth playing.
Here's a crazy idea: make games that are even close to WORTH that.
Yeah that's all I can think of after seeing the header image.
I think it took me about 6 hours to beat CoD4, so I'll plop down 3 pounds for that. Sound good everyone?
Games cost a lot as it is. If you want to change that, just print the double of copies and release them at half price (I know that's it's hard to do it, if not impossible, just exagerating the point).
I think if software were to cost less than the $60 it is now, then it would be more accessible to everyone, possibly encourage more new sales. I know I purchase less games now because I simply refuse to take part in the used games market. If games were a bit cheaper, then my budget would allow me to pick up more titles throughout the year.
The other thing is people in the industry state that used games sales are a major problem, I for one agree. The fact that the people who created the game get no share of that sale is a major issue I have with used games. I believe the creators of a product should benefit from their success, used games enable corporate entities to basically profit off of someones long and hard work.
If his idea gains any traction and causes game prices to sky rocket, then you'll have effectively encouraged fewer new sales, more used sales and publisher/developer getting less money. Which would cause some other nut to state, "we need to raise the prices again!".
For example I wont buy Trine for 30usd, no matter how good the game is its not that long for a 30 price tag.
But I can put down 10usd for Monkey Island SE, because is a remake of a good game and the price is good.
Now there is no way I could afford a 70usd game, I dont know about you but I think this guy is full of sh**, he is probably right, games are to expensive to make, but maybe those games would be selling more if they were better. We see good sales of good games, the solution is not to make them more expensive. Maybe they should make them better and stop complaining about bad sales numbers and the used games market...
Here in Canada NES games were priced way too high, Zelda was 120$ this trend was kept on the SNES and Genesis, all games were at least 90$ and on the N64 and PS1 the price dropped to 70$ a game. We started paying the same price as in the US last year. As a result in the NES and SNES years, I never bought a single game new since we could not really afford it. The used games were still 40-50$ but that was better than 100$.
That's why I buy everything either in flea markets, the U.S. or eBay.
MAss Effect
Fallout 3
Orange Box.
Fin
What if...now this may sound crazy...but what if we do things oppositely? Cut production costs and cut price. Supply and demand will both increase and the industry will progress.
But hey, what do I know?
I've heard some of my friends say that a gaming crash is coming, and with this mindset, it's no wonder. I could buy an entire system for $120 (or just over, if it's 360 Arcade or under in the case of PS2), and you want me to shell out that much for a single game? God.
The sad part is that I want to see this happen. As a test, see if people actually buy this bullshit and if developers and all actually profit from it. I'm holding out hope that people will get smart and not buy such overpriced junk. I mean, it can be a good game and all, but there's a reason why GameStop is successful--and it ain't the customer service.
Problem: High production costs
Chris Deering's solution: Raise price to compensate
---People like this cause economic turmoil.---
Problem: High production costs
Logical Solution: Lower production costs
The question is how? I think I know how. The solution comes from the movie industry, as many of you have already mentioned. What's the one biggest difference between making a movie and making a game? People who make movies don't have to recreate the world, actors, and physics.
What if game developers team up and create an ultra-high detailed virtual world, and each generation it is upgraded to fit consumer expectations. The actors can be hired. Imagine the star of your next game being Solid Snake, or Master Cheif? (Of course, they'd be playing whatever role they were hired to play). Developers need only worry about an excellent story with excellent gameplay, all else is already taken care of. No need to recreate the world hundred of times or create thousands of characters for thousands of titles. No longer will games take 5 to 10 years to develop.
Crazy. Yes. But instead of stating a problem, I've stated a solution.