PDA

View Full Version : The Price We Pay for Low Costs



mor911
01-24-2006, 12:03 PM
A few nights ago, The Mor and his good friend (and industry insider) thestern had a talk about game developement, and next-gen prices.

The point was made that because games are becoming more and more complicated (triple processor with multiple core programming and such), developement costs will go up. Instead of having to eat the costs, developers are testing the water with "next-gen" prices. The average Xbox 360 title retails at $59.99. About $10.00 more than brand new current-gen Xbox/Ps2 titles.

People are buying them too. This is setting the stage for an industry wide price increase in games.

It's true, developement costs are going skyward. But what can be done? It's not what can be done, it's what IS being done. This isn't something new, and probly isn't something you like... But this ols trick has been around for a while. Developers like EA and THQ have been doing it for years. I'm talking about in-game advertising.

Question -- Would you deal with some BestBuy and Burger King ads if it made your games $10.00 cheaper?

We deal with it anyway right? In-game advertising is supposed to reach an all time high this year and it's becoming a huge market... Think about it, virtual advertising space... And virtually limitless.



David Wanetick, managing director for the investment publication The Wall Street Transcript has said that in-game advertising revenues will hit $4 billion by the end of 2008.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2109&Itemid=2

The sad truth is, I think we (as consumers) have already accepted the price increase. So more money due to advertising won't help us at all. We've been buy special editions and deluxe editions of games for years now, proving to publishers that we will pay an extra $10 for a game we want. The 360 simply pushed it to the actual point of no return. The clever name for it (next-gen prices) is bull s**t in my opinion.

What's yours?

Motion
01-24-2006, 12:12 PM
I agree with the Mor. I think in game advertising is a great idea but developers won't let that stop them from charging more for games. Its just more money in their pockets. This was to be expected as "next-gen" price increases were said to be expected at least a year ago.

But the in-game advertising makes so much sense. I know this is a bad example because companies probably wouldn't want to be tied to such a controversial game but, why not have McDonalds, Burger King, Name brand clothes, licensed cars, etc. in GTA? Games like GTA where you can do so much "real-life" acts like eating, driving cars, and buying clothes would be a huge advertising tool.

Its obvious Nike is a big sponsor of NCAA football.

PeaTearGriffin
01-24-2006, 12:41 PM
the ads don't really bother me if they do them right...like on billboards in a racing game or so...but i see in a few years the load screens having an ad for Coke or some other big company. As long as they don't take away from the game...heck it could even make some games more like real life like speedrush said having burger king in GTA.

About the prices of games...the sad thing is people are going to buy them no matter what the price is, i have a feeling that $75 would actually put the market in equilibruim, because then people would start to watch the prices. The ads should lower the prices of the games but they won't.

UltraDol-Fan
01-24-2006, 12:53 PM
I wouldn't mind in game advertising. It might even be cool. Like if you get a car game you might learn about products you didn't know how or where to get. Like I wouldn't know where to get some speed parts, but if they had an advertisment in a racing game it would be useful. As far as video game prices, I think we're stuck with the higher prices. After a company learns it can charge a higher price they are not going to lower them for anything.

AquaInferno
01-24-2006, 02:37 PM
A few nights ago, The Mor and his good friend (and industry insider) thestern had a talk about game developement, and next-gen prices.

The point was made that because games are becoming more and more complicated (triple processor with multiple core programming and such), developement costs will go up. Instead of having to eat the costs, developers are testing the water with "next-gen" prices. The average Xbox 360 title retails at $59.99. About $10.00 more than brand new current-gen Xbox/Ps2 titles.

People are buying them too. This is setting the stage for an industry wide price increase in games.

It's true, developement costs are going skyward. But what can be done? It's not what can be done, it's what IS being done. This isn't something new, and probly isn't something you like... But this ols trick has been around for a while. Developers like EA and THQ have been doing it for years. I'm talking about in-game advertising.

Question -- Would you deal with some BestBuy and Burger King ads if it made your games $10.00 cheaper?

We deal with it anyway right? In-game advertising is supposed to reach an all time high this year and it's becoming a huge market... Think about it, virtual advertising space... And virtually limitless.


http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2109&Itemid=2

The sad truth is, I think we (as consumers) have already accepted the price increase. So more money due to advertising won't help us at all. We've been buy special editions and deluxe editions of games for years now, proving to publishers that we will pay an extra $10 for a game we want. The 360 simply pushed it to the actual point of no return. The clever name for it (next-gen prices) is bull s**t in my opinion.

What's yours?

I'll start off with saying, I will pay $10 for a deluxe version of a game I like. Such as Madden's 15th anniversary and Resident Evil 4. The bonuses have to be there, but the extra cost can be worth it. In game advertising would be nice if the game costs were not increased. In fact I feel if there is ingame advertising it should make the game cost less than $50, since the game companies would get a nice sum for advertising revenue I'm sure. This could only drive game sales up and increase exposure to new products. EA's method to allow us to play free online is great, I don't even get pestered by ESPN. Plus I just gave ESPN my decoy spam address, but still nothin from em.

thestern
01-24-2006, 04:03 PM
Let's talk about games that are the additional $10 but offer no bonuses at all. 2 good examples are Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4 for 360. These 2 games have their PC counter parts. To me it's shocking that either of these games for the 360 have been priced at $60 because they're not much different than their PC counterparts. Especially Quake 4 since it was very badly ported over to the 360, the game does look like it's got all settings on high in the PC version but, the frame rate is so inconsistant that it's a utter pain to play it.

The common argument would be that it's new technology and consoles have licensing fees and so on but, these things never caused a stanard edition game to go beyond $50. Also if you think about it the PC game costs should cost more and the fact that PC games have to have work for many different hardware configurations. Console hardware is static therefore it eases the development process. Bottom line, is your copy of Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4 for 360 worth $10 extra?

No it isn't and there's no good reason at all for them to be worth more just because it's on a "Next gen" console. When PC games are developed for new Hardware the prices don't increase so why should they when console hardware does? Especially when console hardware only changes every 5-6 years.