We've already had to shell out for Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Gears of War 3, we'll soon be scrabbling around for FIFA 12 funds and that's before we've even got to the triple A flood of October and November.
It makes you wonder, should we really be paying so much for a video game?
It's a question Saber CEO Matthew Karch both asked and answered on CVG back in March and when you consider other forms of media entertainment, you can understand why gamers might feel aggrieved.
We know that games can cost a hundred million to make but so do Hollywood movies and they tend to be available for a quarter of the price of games. Besides, it's only the top titles that carry budgets similar to blockbuster films, so why are we handing over fists of notes for games across the board?
There are lots of studios out there that recognise the strain placed on gamers' pockets, although some of them would say that with our media of choice usually offering a minimum of eight hours run time, a higher price is justified.
If Modern Warfare breaks sales records with a chunky price stuck to its box, think how much it would sell if it were made more affordable.
We know that many of you wait for inevitable price cuts or even turn to the second hand market for a cheaper deal. With publishers struggling to combat pre-owned with online passes, could the solution actually be a £20 price point?
A lower price might even encourage gamers to take a punt on titles outside of the big names, leading to a more varied marketplace where heavyweights can get creative and middleweight developers have a better chance of survival.
Give us your views. Should games be cheaper, would you take more risks if they were and what are the chances of publishers taking a financial risk themselves?
Comments
88 comments so far...
infernoxXx on 27 Sep '11 said:
Ever since I joined steam, yes it is too much. Seems like I always play games a year after release, for example, currently playing through mass effect 2 and red dead redemption.
JoshUK on 27 Sep '11 said:
Anyone who pays £45 for a game isn't shopping around well enough!
StonecoldMC on 27 Sep '11 said:
Price is subjective.
Are brilliant night outs with your friends too much money?
Is taking a family of 4 to the cinema twice a month too much money?
Is your Gym Membership each month, too much money?
If you dont need it, or cant afford it, you shouldnt get it.
I remember when your average Game was nearly double the £45 we pay now anyway.
Be more selective on what Games you buy, no need to buy every Game on Day 1 (pick it up later for cheaper).
Still going to be expensive over the next few months though
!
Desert Fox on 27 Sep '11 said:
If I can resist the day one urge I'll usually wait the couple of months it usually takes for a game to come down to the £20 price mark before I buy it. Also, with the October/November release gauntlet I usually sit on my hands and just make myself an easy candidate for family Christmas presents.
Having said this, even if I do get a game when it's first out, I never pay anywhere near the RRP. Online shopping and supermarkets means there's plenty of price gouging and undercutting which means you can usually save a fair bit. I picked up Deus Ex Human Revolution for £24 and Gears 3 for £28 (when it was purchased with a points card, a purchase I would have made in the long run anyway).
In short, yes. £45 is way too much for a game. Last time I paid that much I think it was for an N64 cartridge, but now that everything uses discs I think it's an insult to think consumers should pay high premiums. And I won't even start on high street retailer prices. They can sit on it and swivel.
benedictm on 27 Sep '11 said:
yes. especially as they end up half price in such a short time. i think the boss of THQ had the right idea - charge less, sell more which goes to game developer
Blastiel on 27 Sep '11 said:
Seriously, who is still paying the full RRP for games?
Wait a week or 2 and a new release will be on offer for somewhere for £29.99 that is if there wasn't a pre-order deal or code via a website.
Give it 4 weeks and it is likely you can grab that game for £20 or less thanks to the likes of Postabargain, UKHotDeals and Frugal Gaming.
I think a bigger concern is that we are getting to many games, to often which leaves alot of them especially MP heavy ones like a ghost town.
MightyJordan on 27 Sep '11 said:
I certainly would, but AAA games retailing for £20 just seems too low. There obviously needs to be an RRP reduction, but not by a huge amount. I miss the good old days of the last generation when games retailed for £40 instead of £50. My ideal target would be £30 RRP, but for now, I'd settle just for going back down to £40.
TheExpendable on 27 Sep '11 said:
As a student i can say. YES.
45 quid HAS to be an investment especially if you consider say buying two games at once, thats the tail end of a hundred quid, which is alot for someone who has to budget week in week out.
20 quid however, is an impulse buy, your not going to miss 20 quid. especially if the risk pays off and you end up with a game worth investing in.
almanac2015 on 27 Sep '11 said:
Yeah it is. It would have to be a pretty epic game for me to pay £45 for it. I'd pay £45 for Skyrim for example, but there's very few other games where I'd feel the need. Even for FPS games I can spend hundreds of hours playing online my experience with FPS games is too hit and miss for me to pay that price.
If games were £20 I'd certainly take more risks. I'd buy s**t loads of games. But at the same time I'd be wary that a game that launched at £20 is of lower quality.
lonewolf2002 on 27 Sep '11 said:
I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to take more risks if games were £20, and I am sure there are plenty that would buy say guaranteed "AAA" titles on release as they cannot justify £35-45 to spend on games. This weekend I managed to pick up the last AvP and Alpha Protocol on Steam for the grand price of £5.20 for both, not the latest titles sure but more than worth the price, Alpha Protocol was £1.50.
TheExpendable on 27 Sep '11 said:
In all honesty i just think people take far more risks when they were younger and less clued in to game reviews etc.
I remember when i was a young lad and used to just buy ps1 and ps2 games based upon recommendation from a friend or a very appealing cover and back cover. im pretty sure back in the 90s games were still at least 30 quid?
but now that i have to pay with my own money and am less inclined to impulse buy, i have raised my expectations of games much higher and only really consider 80%+ which is sad i guess because you the thrill of discovery of a new game is kind of gone with all the leaks and footage before launch theres no suprise anymore.
dog_man_STAR on 27 Sep '11 said:
I've said this before but for me it really depends on the game, I didn't mind paying 40 quid for rdr and deus ex hr, neither will I mind paying the full rrp for battlefield 3 or fifa 12 because I know im gonna get plenty of entertainment value from them. On the other hand 40 quid for a 6 - 10 single player campaign with no multiplayer or much replay value is too much in my opinion and I think game prices should be adjusted accordingly. Knock a tenner off games with no online component for example, although most game publishers (activision in particular) would go about this the other way around and would ADD a tenner to the rrp for the online. I would take more risks on lesser known game if the launch price was round 25-30, otherwise I'm saving my cash for the big hitters.
shogunreaper on 27 Sep '11 said:
This is a year that makes me glad i have gamefly.
But even then i can only have 2 games out at a time, makes for a really tight schedule.
a3HeadedMonkey on 27 Sep '11 said:
yes
FlacidDonkeyGuy on 27 Sep '11 said:
I do take the £20 plunge I got both Hard Rest & Red Orchestra 2 HOS for just over £20 each on pre-order both great games.
TykerD3 on 27 Sep '11 said:
£40 is ok for AAA titles. You can always sell it when you are done. I usually wait a month or so to buy my games (except Fifa and GOW 3, as its nice to get excited about a game and treat yourself). I nearly bought BioShock 2 on launch for £40ish, but waited a couple of months and got it for £10.
If games did come down to £30 (Microsoft could knock £5 off their cut, as could the retailer), it would damage the 2nd hand market, which is a good thing.
Best thing to do is shop online for games you want on release day ( i just got FIFA 12 special edition, with 20% off from Tesco Direct). For games that you want but can wait, just wait for a couple of months.
My brother blasts through games and whores what he can from them in a couple of weeks and sells them to game. He had £400 of games last year and it only cost him £150.
I would just like to add, i paid £40 for Gears of War 3 last week and it is worth every penny. Quality game, well made, well acted, great on and off line modes. That game is £40. Not all are.
illage2 on 27 Sep '11 said:
I agree £45 is way too much for a game without having some sort of DLC included.
I have noticed that as the generation goes up, so does the price.
Black Mantis on 27 Sep '11 said:
Well said. Also have to consider that you generally get more usage out of games than movies as well.
TheCrimsonFenix on 27 Sep '11 said:
Depends on the person buying really, doesn't it? Stone Cold said so (.. can't believe I said that)
It's like what art is to certain people. If a person sees a bunch of splats on a canvas and decides it's worth thousands of pounds, it's up to them. I'd consider it a waste of money for something that took little effort and thought. It's the same deal with games. Is every single game release marked at that price tag? No, you have to shop around for a better deal. If you want it so bad you'll put the effort in. It's your own personal choice at the end of the day.
Personally, no, I don't think it's right to charge that much. If I don't get worthwhile content on the disc which guarantees replayability, memorability and longevity, then I won't pay £40. It's that simple. I'm not going to pay any where near that amount for something that has been made for the sake of cashing in on something or is an obvious improvement lacking addition to the yearly update cycle. If your game has been made with love, attention to detail, and thought for the gamer, I'll gladly pick up your release if it suits my tastes or clicks with me. If your game is a soulless yearly sequel/update, it isn't going on my shelf of purchased games. Don't like it, lump it.
As for a lot of companies trying to combat the preowned markets, f**k off. Alienating core fans and loyal customers by coming up with s**t like DRM or having to pay for an online pass is not the way to go about it. Next they'll be introducing a fee every time you bring your game over to a friend's house.
nathar on 27 Sep '11 said:
Its not the £45 quid I mind, particularly if its a good game.
What i mind is paying £45 quid and then being asked for personal details, and email adresses.
I mind having spam turning up from 'third parties' who the games company have sold my details on to.
I mind having my details stolen from an insecure database that a first year computer student could hack.
I mind being asked to pay more for DLC on top of the premium price I've already paid.
I mind having to install several different social tools onto my system in order to play multiplayer games.
I mind having to suffer in game advertising which earns the company more money at my expense.
I mind that when I pay a premium price, I do not get treated as a premium customer, but as a chump that obviously liked the game enough to pay full price for it and therefore should be milked for as much extra cash as possible.
kirankara on 27 Sep '11 said:
Yes!
obviously most people dont pay that much for new releases, but i still think games are too highly priced to make them mass market. if they truly want to expand further, then reducing price is a necessity. i'd be happy for them to stay at £25-30 for months after their release, and think this would encourage gamers to carry on buying older titles, as well as newer ones, as they could afford 2 titles instead of 1 in short periods of time, helping to maintain prices of games longer term in turn, instead of halving in price a few weeks after release.
monty_79 on 27 Sep '11 said:
You could argue though that gaming has less revenue streams than other media. Music for example generates money from sales, radio airplay, live performances and in advertising. Films generate money from sales, the cinema and from TV showings. Games just have sales.
This is why Activision are kind of right when they talk of services such as elite being important to them in the future.
£45 is still too much though. Personally, I buy all mine from the interwebz so they end up being around the £33 mark. However, if games were £20, I would be purchasing BF3, Skyrim and Batman as they would come up to £60 which is roughly what I can afford on entertainment per month (not including going out money, obviously).
I do think the publishers need to address this though as in 5 years or so, people are probably going to have even less money than they do now so only the 'known' games will sell, innovation will dry up even more as publishers will be willing to take even less risk and ultimately gaming will not attract any new people whilst pushing its current players away as it will offer less and less new experiences.
wombatinahat on 27 Sep '11 said:
Thing is games haven't got more expensive. If anything they are getting cheaper. Virtua racing was £70 when it came out and that was on the megadrive, mortal kombat 3 was £60 and I also remember paying £30 for lemming 2 on atari at release and that was almost 20 years ago.
The_KFD_Case on 27 Sep '11 said:
In a word: Yes. In several more words, if games cost 20 quid or less I'd be far more inclined to take chances on some games I might otherwise not touch until they are in a bargain bin or available as a second-hand purchase. I'd also be far more willing to buy new to support some developers, although I still make a conscious point of actively not supporting certain publishers by purchasing games second-hand (that would likely still continue until I perceive the publishers in question to truly have changed the ways of theirs that I object to).
Channel4 on 27 Sep '11 said:
I do miss finding out for myself if games were good or not with impulse buys and rentals. I bought and played MGS1 and thought it was amazing long before I knew it was kind of a 'big deal' in the games industry. On the other hand I think Team Buddies on PS1 is one the best games i've ever played (it's a cross between a team based third person shooter and an RTS), but when I looked up the reviews recently i found out it's supposed to be rubbish. If I was clued up on games when I was younger I woundn't have bought it which is a shame.
The_KFD_Case on 27 Sep '11 said:
Yep. I've already played Alpha Protocol to completion (near exhaustively) on my Xbox 360 and usually I do not buy a game more than once regardless of platforms, yet for such a low price I bought Alpha Protocol again - this time to have it available on my desktop and my laptop. It's a gem of a game IMO!
a_adji on 27 Sep '11 said:
we all cry for better graphics and fail to realise that the cost will be passed on.
£45 is too much which is which if its COD or Gears I will always look for the best deal and if its any other game I will hold out for a few months and buy used or trade my games.
I will not buy a hand held game for the same price as a console game either.
Price is why the used games market would is so huge and the margins are massive for the retailers.
kirankara on 27 Sep '11 said:
I totally agree, which is why I understand their need for revenue from dlc, and companies using online passes etc, but at some point, like with other media , they need to drop prices and make it more accessible to mass public, to encourage take up.
if a family have choice of buying their son a game and buying food, paying heating etc, then there's only one option. That extra money, is a fair bit to expend at one point in time, just from a psychological point of view, if nothing else.
only_777 on 27 Sep '11 said:
As an older gamer I don't £45 is too much for a video game.
I say this because that's around the price I used to pay in the mega drive/SNES days. When you add almost 20 years of inflation, a huge difference in Dev, advertising, publishing costs, etc.
The fact that there are more players now, offsets the higher Dev costs. So once you factor in inflation £45 is fine
Avalon on 27 Sep '11 said:
Yes.
Don't get me wrong. I think some game are worth every penny. I like to buy certain games on their release dates, even if I won't be playing them for a while because I am a Collectors/Limited/Special/whateveryouwanttocallit Edition whore. I pay more than that for a game, but I think it's justifiable, because I get extra goodies included.
However, £40 for a DS game that offers me nothing but a game that at most is 256mb seems to me a rip-off. Certain companies (yes, Square-Enix, I'm looking at you and your Kingdom Hearts and now FFXIII sequels) cash in on the loyalty of their followers and offer crap games quickly made just to bleed the player dry before they catch on on how worthless the game they just bought is.
I don't regret buying my AssBro on Xbox. I'll probably be a copy of AssRev on both platforms when it comes out. It has afforded me hours and hours of gameplay. But I have to admit I'm relieved I got my copy of Bioshock second hand. 8h of gameplay is NOT worth £45.
People are saying that games used to cost more. They also used to last a lot longer. I recently replayed Parasite Eve 2 and it took me nearly a month to complete. My copy of FFVII has so many hours on it, the counter can't keep up with it. I cannot tell you how long it took me to complete Ocarina of Time, but it wasn't 8h, that's for sure!
So, if developers want me to hand out my cash on their brand new games, they have to offer me the assurance that I WON'T have completed it is two days. If I pay that amount of money, I want it to be worth my while.
Lance Uppercunt on 27 Sep '11 said:
Huh? When was that?
KK-Headcharge78 on 27 Sep '11 said:
Like 777 I don't think games are too expensive at all, as we all like lists allow me to elaborate;
1) Many games now have multiplayer thus often extending the gaming experience many times over, a fact people often conveniently forget.
I fail to see how games been £20 will open up the market for poorer developers, f**k em if they make crap then it won't sell.
2) Comparing games to films is misguided and misleading, a game lasts far longer than a film unless you have bought a dud and then that's kind of the consumers fault. Furthermore movies are not an interactive experience like games.
3) In the days of NES, SNES, MD, N64 etc you invariably would have to pay the RRP, or even over it, at the age of about 15 I remember shelling out £65 for Star Fox, now that is stupid!! Older games may have been tougher but longer, with no multiplayer, no co-op? I'm not so sure.
4) If anyone pays within £5 of £45 you need your head reading, I got GOW3 for £11 after using my GS elite card, trading 2 games (getting an extra £5 as an extra) Ok so you might not always have games to trade but Gears has an RRP of £45 and yet is available day one for £30-35
5) The trading market is bigger than ever and unless you have nothing to trade you will get reductions, furthermore you always have the option to buy 2nd hand, this was not always the case in the past. Millions of gamers use trade ins and I find it crazy that some people are surpirsed/distressed that publishers have reacted to this, those millions come out of their pockets so other revenue streams are not a surprise.
6) DLC is an option, granted some content in an ideal world would be in the game already but by and large there is a choice
7) With all the reviews, footage and forums these days who the hell needs to 'take a risk' on a game? If you were surely you'll get it 2nd hand anyway? Games never have been an impulse purchase for most.
Time for lunch
The Bossman on 27 Sep '11 said:
This is why the smaller games developers die out, if games were £30 or less for a new copy then more people would buy more games. If they want the industry to die then by all means keep charging over £40, we'll just keep buying COD over and over and over again. I mark out games I want to buy, and usually get them about 4 or 6 months later when they're cheaper, or 2nd hand. The ones I want, I buy as soon as I can for the best price I can find.
BS_Kastor on 27 Sep '11 said:
Do people really think lowering the price of MW3 will have more people cuing up at midnight?! The dedicated (and perhaps impatient) fans will pay whatever the release price is but saving a tenner isn't going to make that much difference other than to sell more units earlier. I buy release games for the top price when I get excited by something i.e. Deus Ex & Gear of War, but there are plenty of games on my list that I'm in no rush for and so will wait till they're £20 such as F.E.A.R 3. It's like the consoles themselves. Did sony sell less PS3 consoles on release because of it's ridiculous price? Of course, it was over £400!! But they made those sales eventually now they're under £200 and they managed to sell loads of units for twice the price first! £45 is too much for most games although hour-per-pound Oblivion is pretty good value. But everyone has the choice.
Gears of War 3 - £39
Deus Ex - £38
Crysis 2 - £20
Bioshock 2 - £15
All bought new. F.E.A.R 3 is slowly coming down so I'll pick that up soon but I'll pay for Skyrim at release price because I'm excited like a child about that one. I see parents in Game with their kids saying "you can buy 1 game for £20" and the kid moans because he want's Gears of War 3. He'll just have to wait till next time when it is £20 and be happy with one of the older COD games for now.
feeg86 on 27 Sep '11 said:
Way too much. Anyone still willingly paying that much deserves to be ripped off.
I'll never buy anything over 36 quid, because 9 times out of ten you don't have to. I transfered 20 quid back into my mums account when she bought me Assassins Creed Brotherhood from HMV last Christmas, robbing bastards. Saying that, reading some comments above, I also remember going to the ace old game shops that used to be underground and not part of a franchise seeing old snes games, Mega Man X - 49.99, Yoshi's Island, 49.99, Donkey Kong Country 2 49.99 are some that I remember. Crazy innit!
Laughlyn on 27 Sep '11 said:
i havent regretted paying £40 for certain games but then others i've regretted paying as little as £20. bought BLUR for £25 and has been worth every single penny i spent, bought black ops and its been worse experience of a game i can remember. spent £43 on shift2 limited edition, sur eit has niggles at first but the autolog has kept me going back almost daily to go and try new courses and drift scores between mates. bad company 2 again, best £43 i spent. GT5, bought sig edition at £100, not saying i'm disappointed in the other stuff you got with it but the game itself was a huge disappointment and if i'd spent £40 on that i'd have been gutted.
games are mainl;y focused on online mul;tiplayer nowdays, 15-20 yrs ago it was single player offline only on majority, games liek zelda 3 are still best value for money out there, the original zelda is fantastic, plus it has teh second quest (enter your name as ZELDA) which for a cart back in its time is amazing to think tehy fit it all in.
i always try shop around for games nowdays and its only if its a game i really want i'll get day one, it tends to be battlefield and nfs games recently, gamestation usually starts having weekly deals leading upto xmas where new releases are half price for a week only 2-3 weeks after release ready for xmas sales so i always wait around xmas time. a bit of shopping about never hurt either, shopto are usually alweays cheaper than most places, same with zavvi and teh hut
jehovahswitless on 27 Sep '11 said:
er yes! nuff said.
G00N3R on 27 Sep '11 said:
Well first it depends on the format. Most PC games brand new are £25-£30, but PC hardware is more expensive. Console games are around £40-£45 but the hardware is cheaper. So when you look at the overall picture, £45 for a console game is not that bad.
In terms of value for money on a specific game, I work on the basis of £1 = 1 hour of entertainment (obviously capped at £30/£45). If your game only lasts 5 hours (for example, SW Force Unleashed 2) don't be charging me full price. But on the other hand, I've got 110 hours out of Civ 5, so that £30 was a very good price. If you play a game for 100's of hours, again £45 is not bad.
But would lower prices benefit developers? Absolutely. Just look at the PC indie market, there are lots of indie games that cost £5-£15, so its easier for the customer to look at a game like Amnesia and think "hmm, even if it sucks I've only lost £10", but as well many of these games are really good anyway. And just look at how popular the Steam sales are.
MrMoobs on 27 Sep '11 said:
It all depends on how much enjoyment you would get from the game, I remember paying £70 for Secret of Mana on the Super Famicom years ago and that was money well spent. If a game can give you 20+ hours or enjoyment thats a bargain imo, not many other forms of entertainment can give you that sort of value for money.
discokingz on 27 Sep '11 said:
£25 is the top price ANY game should be priced at. So many more units would be shifted which would ultimately result in more profit through competative pricing rather than greed. Like the other post I end up playing games about 12 months after they are released at discounted and/or pre-owned year after prices. That way I get to play all the best games but I have to have patience, I know I will get to play them all eventually. The only game I'll be buying before 2012 is Sonic Generations for my son's Christmas. I can't tell him to wait a year for e game all his friends are getting for Crimbo! Lol ;~)
coolpro on 27 Sep '11 said:
Some are ... some aren't!
If there is a game I'm not sure of then I will wait for it to go down in price & then buy it regardless of reviews, good or bad! I have only just bought Red Dead Redemption as I was unsure of liking it regardless of all the hype & positive reviews & I think it's great ! I also like the fact it only cost me £15!
The sticking point for me is the perpetual excessive price for the down loadable version. Although the game production costs are the same regardless on the use of physical distribution, digital downloads never/rarely have a decently priced bargain bin.
loxdog on 27 Sep '11 said:
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: No, if the value is there.
I (and some friends of mine) have a "golden ratio" that a game must follow before it is worth buying. £1 should equate to 1 hour of gameplay. The lower the hours/cost ratio is, the better value the game is. For example, every year without fail I'll buy the latest installment in the PES franchise for £35-40. I'll be guaranteed well over 100 hours of gameplay, making the ratio around the 0.35 mark. A good score. Something like, I don't know, Portal 2 with it's 15 hours or so of apparently brilliant gameplay for £35 is scored poorly at around the 3.0 mark. However, with it's price down to £25 it will soon become a viable option as that magical 1.0 barrier will be breached.
A mathematical way to look at things, sure, but one that ensures you're never ripped off!
radiocat on 27 Sep '11 said:
I never buy PC games at launch anymore. Firstly, the cost. Secondly, the new blockbuster games usually need the latest (expensive) graphics cards to do them justice. And thirdly, the majority of PC games these days ship buggy and don't work properly until they've been patched at least a couple of times, which can often take months.
I've found that by waiting a year or more after release, you can get a much better experience for less. It wasn't always like that, but now it sadly is.
Alan_Breen on 27 Sep '11 said:
Yes £45 is too much to pay for a video game not matter what it is. £20 is a reasonable amount to pay. But in the end what power do we have to force the industry to reduce the price. The AAA games will always do well which gives the companies a false impression that we the consumers are happy to pay £45 for a game. Even though there are a lot of objection to the £45 price point on internet forums is the companies really listening. Is CVG going to use these post and lobby the industry on our behalf. I do not think so.
LeftyMcSouthpaw on 27 Sep '11 said:
Towards the end of my Playstation 2 game buying days, the new titles seemd to come out for around £35 and down and I was quite happy to shell out if I really wanted something. Hell, I remeber paying £50 for Star Wars on the NES!
These days I am more swayed by the inevitable price cuts. I am very keen to get hold of Deus Ex at the moment. I staved off buying it on release and then last week saw it for £25 in Asda (really, really hard not to pick it up for that price, but I resisted). By my reckoning, with the glut of games about to spill into stores, the price may well drop below that before Xmas.
drpunk on 27 Sep '11 said:
£20 new'd be great.
Cos then they'd be £15 preowned.
Not that that fixes anything.
gmcb007 on 27 Sep '11 said:
£45?!?
CVG, you have been getting ripped off!
shopto and staff discounts ftw!
AJDarkstar on 27 Sep '11 said:
Comparing the cost of a video game made for a Hollywood budget to a home DVD/Blu ray release is not good journalism, considering films tend to make their budgets back (and then some) during their cinema run.
MANYOO4EVA on 27 Sep '11 said:
You have to be selective about what you buy.
I've bought Gears of War 3 and F1 2011 on day of release (didn't pay £45 quid for them though), and will do for Fifa 12, Battlefield 3, MW3 and Forza 4.
Why? Cos these games will give you your money's worth as the multiplayer will last for a year or more, and that's not including the SP and Co-op aspects of each of these games.
Games like Batman Arkham City, Dark Souls, etc, I will get when they are on offer as they mainly provide a SP campaign only, so I will pick them up at a later date.
That may sound harsh, but I have a family, mortgage, 2 cars, etc so will have to buy what I think is value for money.
Bazcube85 on 27 Sep '11 said:
Yes I would be willing to take more risks if games had an RRP of £20 but I don't see as it will happen unless the game industry has a major collaspe.
MD1500 on 27 Sep '11 said:
Depends on the game, really.
HarryJack on 27 Sep '11 said:
I'd pull my cock off if games were £20!
PevMaster on 27 Sep '11 said:
Yes I know EXACTLY what you mean! When I buy games I either: A) Buy them dead-cheap off of Steam B) Get my parents to buy 3 games for me in December (the month of my birthday and Christmas) or C) Purchase a game after about 6 months post release.
jeffery6803 on 27 Sep '11 said:
i used to get 3 games for my nes back in the day everytime my parents went shopping at the end of my time with the nes about 1998 i had a obsolete system but i had over two hundred games and peripherals, with the super nintendo i had a good amount of games but noticeably less n64 just a handful ps2 just a handful and ps3 just a handful as the prices kept increasing and being a adult now i can`t see myself owning hundreds of games for the price i could buy 3 for when i grew up
richard99 on 27 Sep '11 said:
I don't think I've ever paid £45 for a game. I only get a four or five games a year near launch and I usually find them for £30 or so on Steam or Amazon.
A £20 price point would probably make me buy more games at launch but I'm not sure how many games it'd get me to buy that I wouldn't have bought otherwise. Maybe the ones I'm happy just renting at the moment.
Charlie Bell on 27 Sep '11 said:
Yes.
I preordered Child of Eden a couple days ago cause it looked interesting. At £15 for a brand new release, its worth a try. When a game im interested in comes in at this price, my only real consideration is if I will have time to play it.
But the argument to shop around or wait until the price drops is also a good one. I never pay more than £35 for a new release because I shop around - often closer to £30.
And it doesn't always take long for prices to drop. It always depends on the game and if you watch the market, you can spot the patterns. A first party Nintendo game, for example, is most likely to stay highly priced for a long, long time. Big releases which fall short also drop quickly. I remember picking up Mirror's Edge for £15 shortly after its release, that game was dirt cheap and worth a play.
Deus Ex can now be picked up for £25 in Asda on PS3. Less than a month on from release. It's not always a matter of having to wait 6 months if you're smart about it.
damoxuk on 27 Sep '11 said:
I tend to wait for 90% of games to drop below £20 but I only buy new - don;t want some smelly, handled chac handled grime covered version no thanks.
The other 10% which this year for me includes Dead Space 2 and Deus Ex with Batman, Uncharted and Skyrim games what I know will offer many many hours of gaming fun. The rest just aren't worth full retail price.
cam123 on 27 Sep '11 said:
OF COURSE!!!
I hate it when dev's sell you half a game and expect £40 from it.
*Looks at Mafia II*
togrtc on 27 Sep '11 said:
Not really sure i can comment on this considering i just spent £130 on TOR CE
notalktalk on 27 Sep '11 said:
the secret is........rent first.....if no good.......save money in the purse.
notalktalk on 27 Sep '11 said:
the secret is........rent first.....if no good.......save money in the purse.
deadstoned on 27 Sep '11 said:
I only buy Total War games at full price, however I did risk Medal of Honor last year and felt a little burned from it. Still haven't pre-ordered any any of this falls big games. Going to have to wait for reviews, my budget is very limited.
Padua on 27 Sep '11 said:
£20 is the sweet spot for me - although I did pay full price for Uncharted 2 , God of War 3, Killzone 3, Resistence 3 ...
Actually perhaps its the numbers at the end that make all the difference
Sammy_bham on 27 Sep '11 said:
Surely it depends on many variables.
for example. If there is a sequal to a game, or a game you have been following the teaser trailers and previews for, for months. Then yeah, you are most lkely willing to pay whatever to get your grubby little mitts on it.
9 times out of ten, ill go to a price comparison games website (plenty on google). search, find the cheapest, then buy it (usually amazon). I dont thnk ive pad over 35 quid for a game, since the ps3 came out.
then, theres also the things like... is it worth 45 quid? Skyrim, = 300 hours, without DLC. + great gameplay, + great graphics etc... that, to me = 45 quid. or even more. But things like HArry potter - deathly hallows. if anyone is paying more then 5 quid, they need to be sectioned.
each situation has ts own merits i think, sometimes even if you are just a huge fan of the game is enough. would pay 50 for uncharted 3, because i know, no matter what, even if its worse then the first two, i wll be gettng top quality single player, added multiplayer etc, and i love the series!
Astrosmasher on 27 Sep '11 said:
yeah it is but Saber interactive games are too expensive even it they are free as they at Ball
ks
eXciSioNz on 27 Sep '11 said:
tbh, im surprised that the BF3 fanboys arnt having ago at you for using MW3 as an example...
Welsh Jester on 27 Sep '11 said:
I would say so, the only most insanely overpriced games i've seen on Steam is COD.. Even in sales the game is still expensive, the dev's are pretty greedy.
Quaity games that valve makes are well worth the investment, i would pay £40+ for half life 3/ep3 because i know it will be awesome though as with most PC games it will be in the region of 20-30 squid.
Valve are the only devs who release quality games for a really good price
when it comes to console games, most are overrated and overpriced
rbt2 on 28 Sep '11 said:
45 quid too much for a game?????
I paid a lot more for that for me and junior to see Palace thrash and humiliate Brighton and their shiny new ground.
And it was worth every penny!
Oh I see..45 sovs for a video game.....farking rip off!
funkadeefunk on 28 Sep '11 said:
I have to agree with the article. The average game is worth nowhere near it's UK RRP value. A £20 price tag (which I believe is a fair translation of the US price/wage equation) would help most games 'succeed', reach a wider audience and build fan-bases for their developer's future titles.
New games are too expensive, especially when the 'big guns' are released in a two month period approaching xmas which is simultaneously understandable and counter-productive.
ZeroTime on 28 Sep '11 said:
Once the publishers begin to realize they can't have all their AAA titles release in a one month period (read: November), maybe we'll be one step closer to lowered RRP's across the board.
veato on 28 Sep '11 said:
"Is £45 too much for a video game?"
Yes. Next question!
In all seriousness I do think it's too expensive but then I've never paid £45 for any game. You can either find them get day one deals, go online, trade in something or just wait until the price inevitably drops.
Old Skool Gamer on 28 Sep '11 said:
People forget to remember that when cartridges were out back in the good old days for Sega Megadrive & SNES, that you would be lucky to buy one for less than £60, there was no online retailing back then, just good old Dixons, Whollys and the rest.
Games are a lot cheaper nowadays then they were, so I'd wish people would stop moaning.
Padua on 28 Sep '11 said:
I don't think it is moaning - I'd probably buy a NEW game every two weeks if they were £20.
At the moment it is usually once every 3 months for a full price game.
So in a year I could spend either 4x45 = £180 or 24x20 = £480
...
... actually thinking about it, £45 is just about right
FlimFlam on 28 Sep '11 said:
Since I had kids and became self employed, the price of games has become more of an issue to me. However I also have less time on my hands, and this has been getting gradually less and less for several years now to the point where I was (and still am) getting a shelf full of games in cellophane, that just sit there. To this day I still haven't played Far Cry 2, which I bought on release day, or Brutal Legend, to name a couple. BF: BC2 I played just once, despite enjoying it and loving the first one.
These days I look thoroughly at what is coming, and try to balance my purchases. Do I want Skyrim, AC: Revelations, Batman: Arkham City, Rage, Uncharted? Yes! But I don't have the time to play them all. I need FIFA, as I play that year round, and after a two year hiatus from FPS war games I am in for Battlefield as well. I may be able to get one more, but I'll probably wait to see what santa brings.
Anyway, the question is, is £45 too much for a game, and the answer is yes, if that is what you are paying each time. No retailer really sells at that price though, so shopping around will get you a good deal. I also recently discovered eBay for second hand games... I used to buy everything new, but I have recently picked up Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit for a fiver, among others.
In summary, £45 is a lot but is completely dependent on circumstance. I never used to give it a second thought (even when I was importing SNES games at £60 - £80 a pop), but these days I am selective with what I buy, research everything thoroughly, and exercise patience. Must haves get got, everything else is added to the list and picked up when I have the time and the money.
Saying that, having owned a Neo-Geo, I do have experience of when games could really be considered expensive!
bennyt on 28 Sep '11 said:
In this current climate, yes it is too much especially when that money could go towards food on the table, petrol, bills, essentials etc. Games i think are becoming more a luxury, but if games were costing around £20, i wouldn't give it much thought compared to dishing out £40.
As much as i would like to get BF3, Batman AC, GoW3, Rayman Origins and so on, i do not really need them...yet and it comes down to that: want or need. The only game i would ever pay £40-£45 for except Halo CEA and Borderlands 2 via points/gift card, would be Star Wars Battlefront 3, but only if it had: an epic solo/coop campaign, customization, fluid transition between ground to space and so on, as with those games, i will get my moneys worth outta them.
Like majority of people said here, either wait several weeks for the price to drop or make do with what you've got for now or venture outside...
Beetle Bum on 28 Sep '11 said:
the majority of craps games and even mediocre games are not even worth £30 only to play them and feel very dissapointed that you actually spend money on this crap of annoyance and frustration and just general crapness.
rbt2 on 28 Sep '11 said:
Very nearly my sentiments exactly, sir.
However, being slow of mind, I still buy games that are considered 'must haves' and many of them sit on the shelf for ages - I'll learn one day!
Like you, I only ever used to import in the 90's. I didn't think twice about spending 120 quid on SF2 or the same silly amount for that Star Wars game on N64. Wouldn't do that now though.
Dajmin on 28 Sep '11 said:
I think arguing about waiting is fairly irrelevant in this case. If games launched at the proposed £20, they would STILL drop as they got older and demand fell, so that's merely a percentage thing. They'd cap out around £7.50 for the same reason that decent older (months, not years) games stop dropping at about £15.
The point is, if you want the game that your friends are playing, or you want to be able to join multiplayer matches that are actually populated (by people NOT farming trophies/achievements) and to avoid potential story spoilers, you NEED to buy fairly quickly. Really within the first month. And a game doesn't drop that much that quickly.
So yes, I for one would definitely take more risks if I could get two games for the price of one now. I wouldn't mind so much if a single-player game only took me 6 hours to complete. I'm not saying that £20 is pocket change, because with rent and bills and debts to pay, I think about all of my expenses seriously. But the games currently on my "maybe" list would be on my "definitely" list because of the price. Better for the developer, better for the retailer, better for me.
The only downside would be that the developers would need to double the number of sales to make the same money. Not necessarily a great way to inspire your staff to work harder or keep their enthusiasm.
TheDragonDoji on 28 Sep '11 said:
It is all about the big IP names the publishers wish us to inhale year on year for the same FULL price. Its ok publishers! You don't want the 2nd hand market so stick on the 'Online Pass' horse-s**t...its kool & the gang...that is 2 games a year I now can't buy.
f**king CLOWN SHOES.
rustym on 28 Sep '11 said:
Its very rare I pay £40+ for a game, did it this month with resistance 3 tho as had almost £39.99 on a gamestation trade card and the robbing bas*ards were charging £42.99 for standard edition.
I also paid full whack for deus ex last month as had traded shed load of old dvd's in at b'buster and ended up hating it but luckily got 36 trade for it (which got me resistance 3).
I think RRP of £39.99 for a standard edition would be better as would still get tripple A games and with supermarket/net deals still get some great games for 30 - 35quid, cant see it happening unless we all stop buying games until they reduce RRP and its not going to happen.
RichPerry on 29 Sep '11 said:
I would absolutely take more chances if games were £20 a pop.
It's been said already that waiting for prices to drop is probably the right way to go, and looking around you can often find games online for less than the standard RRP.
However, it has also been said already that if you want to engage with populated multiplayer, as well as play with your friends who could be in other counties or even countries, then buying early is a must.
Ideally, I'd love games to drop to £20, or even £35. £45-£50 is ludicrous, as even with a full-time job that is hallf of the money I can allocate per month for whatever I like. I'm asking for most of the big releases of October, November and December as Christmas presents from my wealthier relatives. Although I suppose it does force me to wait, giving me more time to complete each game before buying a new one.
BOYD1981 on 30 Sep '11 said:
I'm lucky in that I don't really give in to hype so I don't have to have those "must play" games (and when I have I've more often than not been burned, The Movies being a prime example) so I tend to wait a few months to a year or longer until buying a game, especially if there's a lot of DLC coming out.
But as I'm generally a PC gamer I get most of my games for around £27 anyway, £20 would be nice though especially as so many games do have DLC to continue to rake in the money.
ricflair on 30 Sep '11 said:
Money's a bit tight at the mo, I definitely hunt around for bargains.
I never traded before, but as money's been a bit tight and there have been a lot of games out, I've been trading more recently to fund new games, so it does go back into the industry to a degree - got LA Noire for £30, traded it in for £40 credit at Game and got Infamous 2. Which I ended up returning as I got it for £15 thanks to a pricing error at Blockbuster. Spent the £40 trade in on R3 and flogged it sealed for £35 on Ebay... so it didn't actually cost me anything to play LA Noire, Deus Ex and Infamous 2. In fact I probably made a couple of quid.
I preordered Gears 3 for £30 and Arkham for £29 from Bee.com during E3, Ico/Sotc back in Feb for £23 from Zavvi, Uncharted 3 and Zelda for £27 from Sainsburys about a month or so ago... £30 definitely seems to be the right amount, but like the other older chaps on here, £45 doesn't seem expensive, per se, it's just 50% more expensive than what you can get them for if you shop around and don't mind preordering months in advance when a good price comes up. And I think it's a bit of a misconception that games didn't sell a lot back then, plenty of games sold millions and millions of copies and cost £75 in today's money and didn't drop in price for an age. Publishers might not have made loads of money, but you didn't see devs closing down all the time back then.
Once I'm a bit more flush again, then I don't mind holding on to stuff, but I rarely play online now so a lot of games have limited replay value for me. Also I've had more time to play, so I get through games quicker and they still have some resale value. But I've spent a fortune on games over the last 20 + years, so I don't feel guilty about trading to get me through being a bit skint. I have no attachment to the physical object either, like I do with my records.
Mmmmgrolsch on 30 Sep '11 said:
I agree with what someone else put earlier. The price is completely subjective on the person buying the game. For example if square Enix made proper FFs anymore like FF7-12 then I would happily pay £50 for them and say its a good price. But then to someone else that game is worth only £30 to them.
So there isn't a 'too much for a game' as a whole. If a game isn't worth £40, £35, £30 then wait till it is that price or don't buy it at all.
rbt2 on 30 Sep '11 said:
I was in Eastbourne today. Purely through work reasons. I'd nevah go there by choice and I popped into Game to appreciate the 'delights' they had on offer.
Dead Island (very appropriate for a place like Eastbourne as it is the land of the living dead) was available for a bargain price of 47 quid!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're goin' daaaaahn, Game.
You are goin' daaaaaahn!
BOYD1981 on 1 Oct '11 said:
It's really easy to say that safe in the knowledge that it's not going to happen, if publishers really believed it when people said that they'd be taking advantage of it. But they know as soon as they release a fan favourite for stupid money that people are just going to complain that it's too expensive.
People expect a lot more for their money these days and it's only usually collector's editions that come with a few bits of cheap crap that fetch that kind of money.
paul on 2 Oct '11 said:
Mmmmgrolsch on 2 Oct '11 said:
No doubt it won't ever happen. I was just making an example of how whether the games price is to expensive or not is entirely subjective. Heck if FF was still in its glory days and the only way I could get it was to pay £100, that would be fine with me.