The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim director Todd Howard believes that videogames have become too expensive, and that they ought to cost around nineteen dollars. Skyrim, of course, has an MSRP of $59.99, so it seems that Howard's own game is reluctant to lead the charge.
"I've thought for a long time that games are too expensive," he said in the latest issue of PSM3. "I don't put us in that category of course -- for what we give you, for sixty bucks or however many 'quid' it is.
"That's a lot of money for entertainment, so I think the good news is that in certain markets -- PC, iPhone, mobile -- we can see prices coming down. But I do think industry-wide we would benefit from more games out at $19 or $29. I would try more games. Because I'm not going to try a game for $60. It's a tough decision. That's why people read reviews and previews, because it's not only a money decision, it's a time-investment decision. It's not like going to a movie."
I've argued before that expecting $60 for every title is a silly idea, and that the industry would benefit overall from tiered pricing rather than a catch-all number. Of course, several industry members have argued for cheaper games before, but none of them want to make the first move. Like Howard here, they'd love everybody else to drop prices, but have no intention of doing it themselves.
Games are too expensive (but Skyrim isn't), argues lead [CVG]
Contest:
11:00 AM on 08.04.2011 | 
Tangled had a $200mil budget, GTA4 had $100mil and thats the most expensive game ever.
20 million people bought Black Ops at 60 dollars, imagine how many people would have bought it at $19.99 ....
Of course, when gaming went all out mainstream, meaning more people were spending money on gaming than on movies or music, the price of gaming actually rose. Why don't we ask publishers why all that profit came in, and somehow that profit spiked production costs, and costs to the consumer.
Answer that question honestly, then lower fucking prices. I think we'd all be surprised and angered over exactly what publishers are spending the majority of their money on.
For example, how much did Bioware get for Dragon Age 2, and how much did Playdead get for Limbo? Total, and per purchase. I think that'd be very telling.
I refuse to spend more than about $30 on a game.
Good point. Limbo was an amazing piece of work. I'd probably rank it above some AAA games. I think devs would be more profitable if they learned to make more with less.
However, game companies KNOW they can always sell several thousand copies at $60 a pop to the impatient, less-informed people, so they will continue to do so.
The sad thing is, the games are actually more than $60 due to so many companies this generation cutting content to sell for $10-15 a week later as DLC (and stupid gamers eating it up, allowing them to continue this practice), so even if you manage to wait until a game gets to $20, you still end up paying the original $60 just to get the complete experience.
It's about time that videogames adopted a similar graduated pricing scheme.
Today those numbers would be around $100, give or take.
Tangled is hardly a good comparison when you mention average action movies. Family-friendly CGI movies cost a lot. Action movies have a lower addressable market and as such generally cost less. The budget for Wanted was $75 million, Source Code was $32M and Taken was $26.5M. Just a few stats there.
Well lets be honest here. Games like fallout and red dead redemption are the type of games worth the 60 dollar price tag. Just because many games should be 20-30 bucks doesn't mean every single one should be. Sometimes its best to keep your mouth shut if your not going to show up with something, but honestly I don't think anyone should expect skyrim to be 30 bucks. What the guy said was honest and true. Most games should be 20-30 and some games are worth the full 60 dollar price. I don't see anything wrong with what he said.
That said fat chance it will ever happen. Its fairly clear from observing trends that they would much rather have fewer people paying more, even if in the end they end up with less.
I know if games didn't come out at $50+ I wouldn't be quite as selective on what I picked up on a lark. I certainly would have more pre-orders and more day/week1 pickups, instead of waiting a few months/years for a sale or to pick them up used.
Its fairly obvious that DRM isn't the answer because DRM doesn't entice me to buy new over used. Hell in most cases it makes the decision not to bother with their game all together all too easy.
Thanks for that pic. Some people need a reminder of how expensive games were. This generation of gamers grewup on the ps2 ans xbox pricing 30-40 dollar games. Heck at the end of psx life cycle most games were 30 bucks.
But during the most of the 90s games were 60-65 dollars.
Does anyone remember the saying:
"It's called the Nintendo 64 because all their games cost $64.99"
It was one those things that psx fanboys use to say all the time. Mostly based on fact of course.
Times change of course and the way we view digital entertainment is different than the 90s. So publishers really need to re-evaluate their pricing scheme.
It wasn't until ps2 and xbox that it became big mainstream. So it makes sense game prices went down in the early 2000s. A bigger market means they can make more money by making it cheaper and selling it to more customers. Of course its not that simple, but you guys get the point.
http://www.huguesjohnson.com/features/sears_catalog/sears-catalog-1990-pg1447-NES_full.jpg
Guess what mister, you're talking about $50 dollars early 90s money.
When you add in inflation that equates to $86.43
$50 dollars in the 90s isn't the same as $50 in 2011
Those prices may be more accurate, but they would still be as expensive if not more than todays games if you consider inflation. Which is the point. The numbers have changed, but games are no more expensive than they were back in the day. I'm sure the cost of development has increased significantly, however.
recently i've decided to wait a few months after launch for many games i want, for the inevitable price drop. i can wait 2 months to pay $20 to $30 less for a game.
Yes, of course there is inflation, but that doesn't matter. People on the internet go around claiming they paid $80 for every game back then BEFORE inflation, so I was just trying to point out that back then we still paid $30 to 50 for new releases.
It's also not a drastic change in inflation when comparing something like the price of media from the 90s to today. People paid $12 for cassette tapes in the 80s, $12 for CDs in the 90s, and now $12 for digital albums today. My example is trying to shut the people up who go around CassetteFAQs claiming they paid $45 for their Lion King soundtrack on cassette tape back in the day and us music listeners today don't know how good we have it. No, you didn't pay $45, you paid $12, REGARDLESS of inflation.
I was really young during the early 90s so it was nice to see the ad prices of the games from that time. They were really expensive. When I was a teenager most psx games were around the 40 dollar mark and I thought thats how games use to cost all the time(except n64 which always cost 50-65 bucks). That was during the time i started buying video games, during the dreamcast and ps2 launch. It wasn't until much later that I found out games in the early 90s cost that much.
Heck I still have my copy of Genesis Adventures of Batman and Robin cartridge with the box. It cost my parents $64.99 at kb toys. They always kept reminding me of that, especially when they game it to me for my 9th birthday.
My parents paid $65 bucks for the Adventures of Batman and Robin in 1995.
They also paid $65 for mario 64 in 1996.
I don't know about you but parents bought me video games from toys r us and kb toys, in california, so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
That shit is a lot of money and when you put it in 2011 terms, it becomes even more ridiculous. You have to acknowledge inflation, because the cost of this are all relative. You have to acknowledge that video games in the 90s were expensive. Either just as expensive as they are today or even more so.
It's utter bullshit, though. While I don't think every game should be $60, it all depends on the quality of the title. I didn't want to spend $60 for Dead Space 2, but that game isn't lacking in any kind of quality. You can't argue that $60 was well spent for people who bought it at launch.
OMFG, no it wasn't. Did you buy your video games from the home shopping network back then? I know Crazy Larry said there were only 14 left and the low, low price of $79.99 was a great deal, but he was lying to you and you could have bought it at Target or Sears for $50.
See people? I'm not making this shit up. If you paid $90 for Chrono Trigger you got ripped off BAD. It was $50 day 1 at Target.