In a recent report, Forbes sheds some interesting light on the topic of game pricing -- for those of you in possession of inquiring minds. According to them, the $60 price tag that Xbox 360 games are now proudly sporting is a 20% increase over game prices of the past. The risk involved with creating such a product for a brand new console is high, perhaps justifying why beyond a few key titles, console launch support always seem to suck balls. If you believe in the stats in the article, it'll take a million games sold before a publisher turns a profit at all -- and then when they do, they'll make a dollar per game sold. Makes turning a trick sound about a hundred times more appealing, doesn't it? Prostitution has a much better rep overseas these days, I hear.
Hit the jump for a little bit of game creatin' breakdown action.
I found myself struggling while making this post to remember the prices of NES cartridges. I sure as hell wasn't keeping track of money I stole from my mother's purse to buy them, so I asked some fellow Dtoiders what they remembered paying for games from past systems. The general consensus seemed to be that Atari carts were about $20 - $30 and everything from NES on was $40 - $50. Looking at the comparison between today's games and those beloved relics of yesteryear, it may get you wondering: how can it be that games stay around the same price range, despite the leaps in technology? I paid $50 for Cho Eniki and now I'm paying the same for Gears of War? I know the latter is a homosexual freak carnival and the former is about real men at war, but still -- it kind of feels like finding out you were molested by your stepfather a long, long time ago.
Of course, there must always be forward progress. Ask any megolomanical world leader. Still, this news raises the same concern for me that the PS3 price announcement raised. Sure, your mega tech geek fiend types can afford these new consoles, but if things for kids are anything like they were when I was growing up, the Wii will be the console of choice strictly based on affordability. Sony and Microsoft choose to mostly alienate this demographic with their decision to price games and consoles as high as they have. It's neither good nor bad, but I know I would have been a much lonelier kid without games to play. I might have killed fewer small animals too, but that's beyond the point.
Here's some hard numbers:
ON A $60 GAME OF GEARS:
* 25% (aka $15) goes to pay the art and design guys.
* 20% ($12) goes to pay the programmers and the engineers.
* 20% (also $12) goes to your friendly neighborhood retailer.
EB / GameStop, whoever.
* 11.5% ($7) goes to a "Console Owner Fee" - ie. whichever one
of the Big Boys made your hardware (Sony, MS, Nintendo.)
* 7% ($4) goes to marketing, and puts Mad World and Marcus Fenix
on MTV.
* 5% ($3) goes to "market development" -- paying for cardboard
Standees of the Gears Crew and elbowing other games out of the way
for shelf space at your local retailer.
* 5% ($3) goes to actually manufacturing and packaging the disc.
* 5% ($3) is spent paying the Man for IP licenses or maybe
hiring some big name voice actors. If your game isn't an original IP,
here's where you get dinged by Marvel, Disney, or Ray Liotta's agent.
* 1.5% (just $1) goes into the publisher's pocket.
* 1.5% (also $1) goes into the distributor's pocket.
* 0.3% (about 20 cents) goes into corporate costs. Management,
overhead, lawyers, etc.
* 0.05% (less than 3 cents) go into the cost of paying for the
Developer's Hardware. Who knew an SDKs can cost tens of thousands of
dollars?
Probably a stupid question, but as a non-wii owner, how much are their games sold for?
Who knows... interesting topic tho!
And I'm talking ps2 and cube titles here don't even know what gears of wars cost. Since the xbox360 lineup mostly consist of shooters and sports games I can't be bothered with it but I feel that can change any time soon now.
It's great when you can wait all that time and still enjoy a game, but with the rise of online gaming, if you don't get the title in the launch window, your usually left in the dust, unable to even find people at your skill level to play with when you finally get the game.
Though the flip side is that you get WAY more milage out of games thanks to the same online components.
This is true. Fortunately, I don't care for online play. I'm one of the weird reclusive types (although I do enjoy getting together and playing games with friends in the same room). However, I do occasionally whip out Tetris DS and AC:WW for the Wifi. I did get completely owned when I finally tried out Metroid Prime Hunters on Wifi though, so I know what you mean, but online play is something I rarely take advantage of anyway (for the record I picked up Hunters for 6 dollars, methinks that was worth the wait.)
But remind me to thank Forbes for letting me know $60 is a 20% increase from $50. Like, seriously. Thanks.
I hope to get my hands on a PS3 eventually, but it’s true — I wonder about kids these days and what video games they play. Putting myself in their shoes...there’s no way my mom would’ve spent $400 on a video game console when I was 8, let alone $600. In fact, when I was 11 and campaigned to my parents for a PS for Christmas 1997, I chose it over the N64 because (even though the two consoles were the same price at the time, $149.99) its games were cheaper — PS games went for $39.99, while many N64 games went for $49.99+, and in some cases as much as $74.99! (WWF No Mercy, anyone?) And when my parents bought a PS2 for my brother and me for Christmas 2000, the $300 gift was specifically for both of us — neither of us got any other gifts that year (except for the obligatory clothes, etc.) I can’t see your average pre-teen kid justifying a $300+ console purchase to his parents, especially if that child has siblings (unless, of course, the parents give one gift to multiple siblings, as was the case in my family with the PS2).
Microsoft and Sony certainly haven’t said that they’re shunning kids with their next-gen (now current-gen?) consoles, but they’ve also marketed them vigorously to the prime videogame demographic out there, the 18-to-34 male crowd (people who were born around or before the year that NES came out). I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing that many kids nowadays will only grow up with the Wii, but you have to wonder...what will the situation be 10, 20, 30 years from now?
Now instead of hardware costs at the distribution end you're being hit with them at the developer end. While I wouldn't be skipping with glee thinking I'm getting a great deal just because the price is similar after so long(!?!), I am surprised we've not seen a bigger increase justified on the back of HD and in the case of the PS3 filling the BluRay Disc.
Perhaps a better analysis would be comparing PC game prices over time as the distribution method has remained fairly price consistant for a long time.
I don't think $60 is absolutely terrible for a game, but I'd like it to stay there for a long time. As game prices go up, the fewer games I'll end up buying in the long run though. Online rental sites like Gamefly are looking more and more tempting to me, considering how I've been burned by games that end up being unfinished or far too short in the past.
Even many PC games are retailing for $60, now.
CheapAssGamer is my lifeblood.