Can somebody please explain to me how charging $50 for a videogame is still feasible?

[DrNismo]

Before I start this rant let's all rewind about 2 decades: The standard MSRP price of an NES game at release is roughly $60 to $80. This makes sense because the market is still somewhat niche, and all those talented software engineers have to pay off their student loans somehow. Also, this has to make up for the overhead of producing the actual cartridges which then was exponentially more expensive to produce plastic encased circuit boards than it is today to produce disks, or in the case of Steam digital distribution, bandwidth/server costs.

Now let's return to the present. Grand Theft Auto IV tops every single box office smash of 2008. $400 million its first week, and currently surpassing billions in sales. 2008's box office smash "Iron Man" grosses $318 million in total, roughly 75% of GTA IV's first week sales. The budget for the GTA IV was $100 million, while Iron Man cost an extra 50% to make at ~$150 mil. What we can tell from these figures is that though comparing the top grossing products for 2008 don't make an entirely comprehensive and conclusive statement about the respective markets' relation to one-another, it does suggest that they're becoming equivocal. At least I know far more people who own videogaming paraphernalia than a blu-ray player

Iron Man cost $7.50 to see in theaters, $10 to own on DVD, and $17 for the special collectors edition on blu ray.

GTA IV, 9 months after release, still costs $50 over steam, a medium in which there are absolutely no shipping or factory costs to distribute.

The enormous markup on videogames is no longer relevant, especially with the quality of them turning the way of hollywood with an emphasis on aesthetics over depth (but that's round-robin argument for another time).

[tonka]

I don't know why, but all new game have that price, with some exceptions, if you want that game, rigth now, you must paid that price or wait for the price drop, and GTA IV PC version only have 1 month and a half of released.

[samnoon]

Games are expensive to make - often tens of millions of dollars - and less than 20% turn a profit.

[ultio]

GTA IV was released on the third of December and not 9 month ago. I'm sure the price will go down in the next weeks, it's just out for like 1 1/2 month.
You are btw. talking about the console release which doesn't include the profit of the PC release.

[Roachz]

Originally Posted by ultio

GTA IV was released on the third of December and not 9 month ago. I'm sure the price will go down in the next weeks, it's just out for like 1 1/2 month.
You are btw. talking about the console release which doesn't include the profit of the PC release.

price will go down... but not on steam it wont !

[mr.darky]

I am of the opinion that the price difference may be because there is a bigger audience for movies than there is for PC games.

[Jackman]

Not to mention GTA 4 was a bad game, and a very crappy PC port, to say is mildly.

Next time Rockstar just put the pro's on the PC port, if they have any left in that sinking ship they call a company.

Budget and x number of people doesnt equal a good game, lets take a simple game like World of Goo, which has been made by 2-3 people, it was a hell of alot more fun and better done that GTA 4, the future might belong to the small developers, because they seems to understand whats important, and throwing millions upon millions after a bad game like GTA 4 doesnt make sense, might be console games standarts are lower, i dont know, but imo its the worst game in the GTA series. :/

[Zamav]

Originally Posted by Jackman

Next time Rockstar just put the pro's on the PC port, if they have any left in that sinking ship they call a company.

Yes, they will surely drown in money if they keep what they are doing for the past few years.

Hate to say it, but new GTA's = Console games, and they make hell of a money on console sales, probably far more than any PC game, except world of warcraft.

[Gingermadman]

Games developers see fools will pay this price therefore they can continue to charge it.

If people stopped buying games for this ridiculous price they couldn't sell them for that price.

[The|Gunslinger]

Cost of development is rising so there's no way average prices will drop soon, unless the media becomes super popular and people buy games that aren't just blockbusters.

[Brian Boyko]

People will pay $50 for a game. They will not pay $50 for a movie.

Games have a smaller market than movies; even the poorest third world countries have movie theatres and movies can be sold there. DVD players are around 99.9% market penetration. Consoles and PCs are not, especially considering that there is ONE DVD standard and multiple gaming platform standards. (PC, Xbox, Sony, Nintendo.)

A movie which costs $100M to make can recoup it's investment by selling 10M theatre tickets at $10 each. A video game which costs $100M to make does not have a 10M install base, so it must charge more. GTA 4 actually did sell 6M, but most games do NOT sell that many copies. It is the exception to the rule. Contrary, most movies - even the bad ones - released by a major studio are seen by millions.

Video game prices go down with time. Wait a year and GTA will be $20.

[v@.Li.um]

Games are starting to be more like 60-70 (I'm looking at you, CoD4). They also come with less hours of entertainment, ♥♥♥♥tier or reused gameplay, no manuals -remember back in the day, when manuals were almost as big as a short book and they actually expanded the game's universe?

[CannibalBob]

Originally Posted by samnoon

Games are expensive to make - often tens of millions of dollars - and less than 20% turn a profit.

Yes but he just said GTAIV costed $100 mil to make and made $400 mil from sales.

I think they charge $50 because it's kind of a standard now. I found it interesting how Red Alert 3, a very new game, is only $30 now. It's a AAA title with probably multi-million development costs, so it can't afford to sell at $10-$20 like low-budget indie titles. I figure it is selling well and could probably sell quite well at $50, but EA decided to set it at $30. This may be showing that the $50 standard is arbitrary.

[Zamav]

Movie = 2-3 hours of entertainment at most.
DVD = Maybe you'll watch it few more times, but sooner or later you'll shelve it unless its Star Wars Original Trilogy.

Video game = Hours of entertainment depends on the game itself. It may be as low as 5-6 hours (which, should have a proper price tag if its the case, like Portal) or they may offer more than 200 hours of entertainment (Like Morrowind, Oblivion, Arcanum) not even counting MODS for PC games mind you.

Video game examples are a little extreme, I know. Still, I spent 74 hours on Mass Effect (Fairly short game, if you like the genre), so I'd say its a well spent $50. On the other hand, there is Mirror's Edge with its ultra short and over-hyped gameplay that costs same as Mass Effect (when it was first released). Ironic, both games share the same publisher.

So, Is it feasible to charge $50 for video games?

Answer depends on the quality of that game, and how stupid the most people are.

[Lethal_Apple]

You'll pay $50 for a game, so that price is feasible. Heroically lambasting the evils of capitalism, on the forums of the company you continue to buy $50 games from, fails to change the bottom line. Rich people are laughing at you right now. If you want the price of your electronic amusements to go down, stop buying games that cost $50.

You have the power, but deep down you have no problem with the status quo.

If I sneezed right now, most of you would fall over. Hahahaha!