Game prices

[Pidesco]

Games are now roughly 50% more expensive in Europe than in the USA.

 

Example: In Portugal, Crysis costs 49,95

[mkreku]

Yeah, I've been noticing the same trend here in Sweden too: games are first released in the USA at X dollar. Then they're released in Sweden, and what they do is instead of recalculating the X dollar price with whatever the

Edited November 25, 2007 by Gorth
Lets play it safe and not encourage piracy

[Noceur]

I agree... as I said in another thread about piracy (on another forum), lowering prices on games would probably result in less piracy. For example, I've bought a lot of indie games/apps that I never would have bought if they hadn't been so disgustingly cheap.

The question is if publishers (and devs) would make more money on sales with the lowered prices or if it'd be roughly the same. Then again, the people who claim they pirate games because they wouldn't have bought those games anyway might actually cough up the dough if the prices are lower.

 

Anyway, yeah, higher prices certainly won't help the situation. In the least, it'll make us paying costumers even more picky in what games we buy.

Edited November 23, 2007 by Noceur

[Sand]

On STEAM I heard that Team Fortress 2 was selling over a $100 in Australian currency after conversion from USD..

[Pidesco]

On STEAM I heard that Team Fortress 2 was selling over a $100 in Australian currency after conversion from USD..

 

What?

[Sand]

Sorry, it was CoD4 and I was off by $12 Australian.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_...pic_id=26058400

Edited November 23, 2007 by Sand

[WITHTEETH]

Geeze you guys have it bad! That is expensive. I'm surprised Steam doesn't offer a equal dollar amount to others currency, that seems unethical. I think pretty soon the corporate middle man might take a beating on this. Music artists are starting to fight for the fans, maybe game developers will start to release their own games on the web,then again look at steam...

 

$80 bucks... for crysis... after spending $300 on a gpu just to play it! And a decent computer on top of that! Well the devs deserve their money for their hard work, but maybe we could email some of them to get the ball rolling?

[Oerwinde]

Geeze you guys have it bad! That is expensive. I'm surprised Steam doesn't offer a equal dollar amount to others currency, that seems unethical. I think pretty soon the corporate middle man might take a beating on this. Music artists are starting to fight for the fans, maybe game developers will start to release their own games on the web,then again look at steam...

 

$80 bucks... for crysis... after spending $300 on a gpu just to play it! And a decent computer on top of that! Well the devs deserve their money for their hard work, but maybe we could email some of them to get the ball rolling?

 

The problem is I think that most of the time the Dev's already have their money, and most of that extra goes to the publisher.

[Tale]

A lot of the time the devs don't even have the copyright to the games they make. The publisher does. Unlike musicians, developers aren't living out of mansions after a one-hit wonder. They're on a bit more of a leash.

[LadyCrimson]

Definitely sounds like a rip-off/price gouging. Sheesh.

 

I'm in the position where $40-$60US doesn't make me blink too much, but I'd still like it if they were $10-$20 cheaper - who wouldn't.

Still ... if you lowered prices where it actually lowered the profit margin by quite a bit (I don't know how much it would take to do that), a lot more buyers would have to purchase to make the same profit?

 

You can sell a lot of hamburgers by pricing them really cheap, but I'm not sure about things like games, simply because individual games are one-shots rather than always-in-big-demand hamburgers.

 

But the $80 thing for non-US areas ... with our weak dollar even ... that's bad.

[Pidesco]

Regarding the selling of more units to compensate lower prices, it's hard to speculate without knowing actual costs of development, but I seem recall having read somewhere that The Witcher had an investment of 8 million dollars. If this figure happens to be accurate, it means that if they sold 200000 Witcher units worldwide at 50 USD they'd have a 2 million dollar profit. And that's a pretty low number of sales.

 

Of course, all this hinges on whether 8 million is an accurate figure. And even if it is, it might not be representative.

 

 

Perhaps a dev could show up here and say what a Black Isle game usually cost to develop.

[Shryke]

new games over here are usually like NZ$100

[Dark_Raven]

Someone has to keep the pirates in business and who better to do that than the game companies themselves.

 

new games over here are usually like NZ$100

 

They can stick it at that price. I would find them some place else.

[Oerwinde]

Regarding the selling of more units to compensate lower prices, it's hard to speculate without knowing actual costs of development, but I seem recall having read somewhere that The Witcher had an investment of 8 million dollars. If this figure happens to be accurate, it means that if they sold 200000 Witcher units worldwide at 50 USD they'd have a 2 million dollar profit. And that's a pretty low number of sales.

 

Of course, all this hinges on whether 8 million is an accurate figure. And even if it is, it might not be representative.

 

You also have to take into account localization costs, marketing, manufacturing and distribution costs, store markup, etc. I know the markup on video games isn't very much, but lets say the store gets 5 bucks out of every $50 game, that takes the profit down a million bucks, subtract manufacturing and distribution costs for those 200,000 copies, marketing costs, localization for non-english markets, and your profit is now a loss.

 

Then again, as you said, 200,000 isn't a huge sales number.

[Volourn]

High prices is not a reason to steal games. You don't need games. If a game is too high in prices; don't buy it. Really, it's that simple. It is not a right to have low priced games. That's silly talk. You aren't 'owed' games.

[Hurlshort]

High prices is not a reason to steal games. You don't need games. If a game is too high in prices; don't buy it. Really, it's that simple. It is not a right to have low priced games. That's silly talk. You aren't 'owed' games.

 

This is remarkably well-said.

[Tale]

I'm with Vol on this one.

[Dark_Raven]

High prices is not a reason to steal games. You don't need games. If a game is too high in prices; don't buy it. Really, it's that simple. It is not a right to have low priced games. That's silly talk. You aren't 'owed' games.

R00fles! Speaking of silly talk.

[Tigranes]

New games have always been $100NZ, $80-90 for less prominent releases; standard for expansion packs are $50NZ. Since the PS2 age, that's jumped to $120NZ per game, really. That's $90US, though keep in mind the dollar has recently plummeted; it's probably closer to $75US normally.

 

The irony is that whereas a few years ago some stores, such as Electronic Boutique, used to offer 7-day refund packages, allowing you to try games out, you now have a situation where basically there is no possibility of refund short of a totally malfunctioning game. Furthermore, internet is ridiculously expensive here, and broadband is often capped at 5, 10 or 20GB per month. With demos coming in gigabytes nowadays, it costs you dearly to even try out a few demos before your totally nonrefundable, superexpensive product.

 

Of course high price doesn't 'justify' theft of games. But that's an extremely simplistic and ultimately pointless dialectic that doesn't contribute to an understanding of the industry. On a personal level? Sure. High price doesn't justify theft. But it's a similar argument as the music industry where you pay $40NZ for a single CD (especially since most of that goes to the labels). In neither case, theft is 'justified'. But the *reason* people steal (whether its good reason or not is irrelevant) is made clear when you think about the fact that, unlike clothes or books (that you can open up and read), and to a limited degree (though increasingly better), music, it's much harder to sample games and a lot more work to sample games, especially since demos are not representative for many games, not released for some games, and in NZ you have limited and costly bandwidth. Why should you pay $120NZ for a product that came out a month ago in the US for half the price? Why should you buy it without a refund policy, especially a PC game that is notorious for never being guaranteed to work well on your system even if it meets the requirements?

 

The 'solution' isn't piracy, because theft can never be 'justified'. To argue that is argue to the wrong thing. The point is that the increase in piracy reflects the discontent and injustice of the industry model in the only way that the companies willa ctually recognise and listen to (protests? boycotts? bad press? what? really? yeah right), and ultimately may result in improved market conditions. If nothing else, that will make piracy even less defensible than it is now.

[Arkan]

I gues it's changed from the Big Mac Index to the Video Game Index.

[skuld1]

If nothing else, that will make piracy even less defensible than it is now.

 

In what ways do you feel piracy is defensible now?

Edited November 24, 2007 by skuld1

[Tigranes]

As a personal and moral decision it's not defensible (it very rarely is). I've already said theft is not 'justified' just by high prices. My point is, however, that piracy in music especially and to a degree games has become in many sectors of the population to be, if not 'accepted', a 'silent crime' or one that many are complicit in and turn a blind eye to. So by defensible - not quite the word in the sense you seem to ask about.

 

Funny how comparable it is to the history of masturbation, fetish sexuality or pornography viewing in western society really. First it was taboo to do or say with horrible consequences - then it was subject to the sort of complicit guilt stage where everyone knew (or, rather, thought they knew) everyoone else was doing it, it wasn't 'right', but it wasn't good to accuse people about it - then, of course, now we get stories of how masturbation can be healthy and is natural; or jokes on TV and other popular mainstream media that take for granted the complicity: and so forth. I'm definitely not commenting here on whether such acts are 'right' or 'wrong' or defensible or indefensible. I'm just talking about how they manifest in our society. Same with piracy - I'm not going into (yet) the morality of whether it's right for me or you to download games, whether it's okay if you like games you buy and delete ones you dont, whatever. I'm simply talking about the reasons. We're at the stage for music downloading where it's, like masturbation/etc above, shedding its skin as a complicit and silent thing to a blatant or self-righteous diatribe against the industry, at least in some areas. Not really at that stage with video games, as it still occupies a 'minority' position in our culture (and that position is totally irrespective of how many people actually play games). But it may well follow the same trajectory, because the way the industry and the government react to piracy for games is exactly the same as the music: raising prices, blaming it on piracy, and attacking pirates with protection that harms and inconveniences innocent consumers as well on the way.

 

France has just announced anti-piracy measures against casual pirates with the punishment of cutting internet access; they also 'promise' and 'pledge' DRM-free music, but everyone knows promises and pledges by corporates mean nothing until it is actually realised. I'm not saying the corporations' actions are wrong, as such: as Volourn or Sand might say, they legally own the rights to the products and they have every right to pursue legal action against those who would pirate the products illegally. I accept that and it doesn't throw any sort of wrench in my logic. My point is that the law is not the be-all and end-all of the world, and while it is good enough for many individuals to simply act in accordance to the law, when talking about the movement of the industry as a whole, that's a very limited position that yields incomplete analyses. So. The companies *are* within their right to punish pirates. But the way in which they do so, while RIGHT, is not the most sensible way to go about it for their own sakes, as we are seeing with the profit decilne for the major labels. While it is indefensible to pirate and say it's because music / games are too expensive, and it is legal and correct for companies to pursue legal action and attach DRMs and safediscs, "right' and "wrong", "legal" and "illegal" are not the only frameworks to consider: as we see with the music industry, persisting in expensive games, especially nonrefundable as they are in some countries, while trying to destroy piracy by limited legal action, is never going to be a very sensible or feasible strategy for the corporations themselves. It's like the Lord and his peasants. The Lord has, for whatever reason, decreed that rabbit stew costs a sixpence: the peasants are resorting to thieving because they believe it is too expensive. The Lord employs his guards to catch then castrate the thieves to teach them a lesson, while upping stew prices to, he says, make up for the loss. But his guards can never stop all, or even, most, or even, half of the thieves: meanwhile, less and less people buy the stew because it is so expensive. From the perspective of the Lord, he is in the right and hisa ction is legally defensible but the results are not, and will not, be very desirable for him. Now, if the Lord accepts that, though before, it was possible for him to charge his price for the stew and have his customers, due to cruel fate, it is no longer possible (changing tech/soc/etc): he reduces his price for the stew, and uh, lifts DRM on it (heh), he will still get thieves. He will still lose revenue to them. But many peasants will probably return to legal circles, in which they feel more comfortable. Yes, perhaps it is wrong that the thieves have seemingly benefited from their illegal activities. Yes, perhaps the Lord was always in the right. But what the Lord is doing now isn't helping the Lord himself. And that's not even going into the backstory behind why games are priced so high in the first place and what's the 'right price'.

 

Wow, that was long. Sorry, I'll cut it down if I can later. But I'm trying to make clear that I'm not saying piracy is a justifiable act. I'm talking about the industry in general and the way it might flow, not whether me or you are justified in pirating a game or song.

[SubBassman]

In Hungary, ME is about 49 €.

 

Problem is, the minimum wage is about 260 €.

 

In Eastern Europe, piracy is almost inevitable.

Edited November 24, 2007 by SubBassman

[Volourn]

"The point is that the increase in piracy reflects the discontent and injustice of the industry model in the only way that the companies willa ctually recognise and listen to (protests? boycotts? bad press? what? really? yeah right), and ultimately may result in improved market conditions."

 

Market conditions are what dictates games to be more 'expensive' even though they really aren't (considering inflation et al.). Gamers expensive fancier, and fancier graphics as well a sphysics so its cosst more to make games. Heck, you used to be able to make AAA games with a small team; now companies like BIo have 100s. even Obsidian a relatively new and small company have 100s of employees. All thsi costs mroe making games more expensive to make.

 

Gamers expect more from their games now so of course it's gonna be more expensive (even though, in reality, theya ren't despite the perception).

 

And, oh, I don't think piracy/stealing games is wrong simply because the alw says it is. i find it morally wrong, and indefensible. Games aren't a neccessary, or requirement of life nor are we owed them. One could justify some in dire straits stealing food 'cause they're too expensive or unaffordable; but games? Or movies? Or music? I don't think so.

 

I don't care if game companies start selling games for $1000; it still wouldn't be justified to steal them. Too expensive; don't buy them. Period.

[Tigranes]

Volo, that's fair enough, but how would you explain games being 20-40% more expensive in Europe or Aus/NZ? You can justify the games coming out later due to shipping and whatnot, and the logistics behind global release, but why is a game 1.5x the price it is in the US? I was mainly working on that, I don't know enough behind the production costs to say whether games are 'overpriced' in US. But yeah, I didn't make this clear, sorry.

 

Oh:

 

Of course high price doesn't 'justify' theft of games.

 

The 'solution' isn't piracy, because theft can never be 'justified'.

 

As a personal and moral decision it's not defensible (it very rarely is). I've already said theft is not 'justified' just by high prices.

 

But I'm trying to make clear that I'm not saying piracy is a justifiable act.

 

But it's ok Volo, I sort of expected it.

Edited November 24, 2007 by Tigranes