Numerically speaking (without adjusting for inflation), how does that compare to fresh PS3 game prices in the US? That's probably my best bet for estimating AUD prices.Originally Posted by Ryllharu
Numerically speaking (without adjusting for inflation), how does that compare to fresh PS3 game prices in the US? That's probably my best bet for estimating AUD prices.
If it's not Isuzu-chan Mii~
That's kind of surprising. I think the game makers could easily charge $65-70 for the big name games on the new systems and people would buy them. I ask because I saw a Gamestop deal where if you buy current gen games now, you can pay $9.99 for the next gen version of the same game when those systems come out. So I thought the prices were going to start at $70 for new games.
@Buff: Current new PS3 games cost $59.99, same as X360 games. PC games happily start at $49.99.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
That's more because Gamestop will turn around and sell it for $45. Nothing like making money off a game twice.
It's also only applicable to three games (Call of Duty: Ghosts, Madden 25, and Assassin's Creed 4). Also:
They're banking on people not being able to find next gen consoles by the end of the year. January customers with an interest in those three games will find themselves buying a new copy for their new console."To take advantage of this offer, you'll need to be a PowerUp Rewards member and purchase the current-gen version at GameStop within 30 days of release. After purchase, a coupon for $50 trade-in credit towards the Xbox One version will be e-mailed to the account. The coupon expires on December 31, meaning you'll need to find and buy a next-gen system by the end of the year."
New PS3 (and 360) titles are $60. Expect 90AUD games, as before.
That's a really really lazy criticism. The market isn't as simple as "oh look at inflation to determine value". There's also many other factors, one big one is after tax income for average household.
This article show that the growth of income is much lower than the rate of inflation. The end result is that while just looking at inflation it looks like the prices are all lower, while in reality it's actually a larger portion of available income for the customers.
There's also issue like game studios expecting ridiculous sale numbers in order to even turn a profit. This is a complicated problem that can't really be blamed on any one party.
You can't get around the simple facts.
1) Gamers bitch that games used to cost $50 during the 5th and 6th Generation that they're most familiar with.
2) $60 in 2012 was the same as $40 in 1995
3) SNES games in 1995 US Dollars were anywhere from $45 to $80 (2012: $67 - $120). Chrono Trigger - $80
Games are cheaper than they have EVER been. All your article says is that the 1% are wealthy. No shit. That's why I always use an inflation calculator that is based off CPI.
Quit making up garbage to justify your opinion, which is contrary to facts. Game studios have to make "ridiculous sale numbers" because games have never been sold for cheaper than they are today. Bigger budgets, lower returns per sale, means more sales to break even.
Last edited by Ryllharu; Sat, 08-10-2013 at 07:33 PM.
CPI calculates the inflation of prices of common goods, so it doesn't address the point DDragon made (that the purchasing power of consumers lag behind the increase in price). Whether the second part is true I am not sure. I had a quick look at the article, and it seemed more interested in talking about the distribution of wealth growth.
Was there a part I should be reading, D.Dragon? Or did I have to calculate backwards with the "64%" growth to find the yearly growth? I can't remember if CPI was calculated compoundly, and if not - which year it used as the base year.
If it's not Isuzu-chan Mii~
The US CPI produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics includes the price of video games. They're considered common goods.
1) I see this from you quite often. Please stop using Ad hominem in your posts, it really weakens your arguments.
2) Please re-read the article if the only thing you got from it was "1% are wealthy". That's far from the main point of it. What it is showing is the rate increase for income is much lower than the rate of inflation. The poorest 60% of the population income is not well adjusted for the rate of inflation.
Lets use the numbers that you have. Most gamer are familiar with the 50$ cost during the PS/GC era.
To put it simply, say you make 200$ in 2001 (Gamecube era) and a game cost 50$, you're spending 25% of what you have. Now to convert that number to 2013, a 50$ game would be around 65~, so yes 60$ is in fact cheaper. But since income only grew around 10% in that time, your income is 2013 is around 220$. so a 60$ game is now 27% of your income. For many people, it's a noticeable increase in spending over the course of a year.
So yes, there is a very valid reason as to why people are upset about the price increase even if many do not realize it. Even without knowing exactly why, people tend to notice when a hobby slowly seem to cost more and more.
You can argue that games are indeed still cheaper than the Snes games from 1995 and the 60$ isn't too bad. Keep in mind that there are many people who did not have purchasing power around this time and is unaware of this fact. To them the 50 > 60 price increase really did significantly impact their budget.
FYI, the 60$ price tag doesn't really bother me in particular since i make a comfortable amount. To say that anyone who have a problem with the price increase is an "entitled shitbag" is a rather arrogant and ignorant statement however.
Says the individual who started their response by accusing me of "really really lazy" criticism.
Unless you took "entitled shitbag" to refer to yourself, the only ad hominem attacks I see here are from you. The worst I've said is that your arguments about "ridiculous sale numbers" are garbage. That is the impolite way of saying that they are unfounded.
I don't think that statement is an attack on you. The argument is indeed lazy since it did not takes all the facts into account. It's borderline on fallacy since it tries to create an argument base on bias information.
Your ad hominem comes from you insinuating that i am "making up garbage". It's actually partially my fault since i should really have more data to back up my argument. It's not the first time i've seen you do it though. Regardless, ignore that statement if you want. It's not the main point of the argument.
------------
Take it as an insult if you want, it's not intended as such.
To clarify, what i am saying is that my argument lack supporting evidence which could lead someone to think that it's "made up", so some of the fault lies with me. You implying that i am "making stuff up" (lying) in order to support my own argument is a personal attack against me. Where my previous statement about your criticism being lazy is pointing fault at the criticism itself but not at you. If you want to believe that i am "playing the victim" then there is nothing i can do about it.
I don't particularly care for attacking another person over the internet since it's pointless. I'd rather you address my argument and clarify your position.
Last edited by Buffalobiian; Sat, 08-10-2013 at 09:16 PM. Reason: truncating posts to merge content
"game studios expecting ridiculous sale numbers in order to even turn a profit," is the epitome of making shit up. Emphasis mine.
Budgets are bigger, games sales have lower returns because they are historically cheaper (their prices do not change with inflation such as with foodstuffs or gasoline), so they need to sell more (in an increasing market) to break even or profit.
"expecting" - statement made up by you, the publishers have sales goals that they may (or may not) discuss at earnings calls, if they are publically traded. Developers (the studios) don't. More often than not, it is analysts setting the goals, then being disappointed by the NPD Group guesses at actual sales (as many publishers don't disclose actual numbers unless they want to brag).
"ridiculous" - perfectly logical sales goals, sales goals set to not go out of business
Consider it addressed.
Considering that there are many situations like this. Best selling game of the series, moved over 3.4 million copies, considered a flop.
There's also this situation. They raised over 7 times the original amount asked and still needs more money to finish the game. I know that there is passion involve when making video games, but shouldn't some responsibility lies with the studio in how to be more conservative with their budget? It's not like these are isolated cases either, it seems to be a trend for the industry.
There are tons of studios with games that have been in development for 5+ years with tremendous cost that would require massive sales just to break even. Video games studios are still a business first and foremost, i don't think making a reasonable development window and budget estimation is too much to ask.
Edit: Some cost for making games did indeed go down. If you look at any company usually salary for employees makes up for a significant chunk of cost. The data i linked earlier shows that salary has not increased enough to adjust for inflation. While prices for other things might not be cheaper, salary should be a smaller margin than it was before.
The budget for these game did indeed go up, but that also has more to do with these long development windows.
I really should say publishers are the ones with ridiculous sale goals.
Last edited by Dark Dragon; Sat, 08-10-2013 at 09:23 PM.
How are sales figures calculated when the company doesn't state how many they sold during earnings calls?
- The NPD Group estimates it at retailers. But unless games are given to a retailer on credit (which doesn't happen nearly as much anymore, if at all, after GAME in the UK went into administration/bankruptcy), once they are shipped to a retailer, they're "sold."
Is "shipped" equal sold or does "sold" count as sold?
- Alternatively, for digital games like PSN or XBLA releases...someone checks the Leaderboards and counts how many entries there are. Seriously.
Don't trust any journalist/analyst sales figures unless the publisher directly gave it them.
Square-Enix is trying to restructure to focus on mobile gaming. It's easy for them to say, "we expected to sell an unrealistic number than we did, this will justify our move to get out of AAA titles and focus on cheap to develop, terrible games that the Japanese eat up." Basic shady business practices. Oops, we failed, now approve of our radical change to business strategy.
Tim Schafer is Tim Schafer. This always happens with him. He gets really excited about a title, overscopes it, and stuff gets cut. It's just more transparent with the Kickstarter project. If this isn't an isolated example like you claim, you'll have to find another one because Schafer is a terrible example for the point you're trying to prove.
This is an article from Forbes citing a research study.
Roughly 20% of the games that reach markets are profitable.
Activision Blizzard met record sales in 2009 and still posted a loss.
It is true that budget has indeed gone up for games, but shouldn't some of the responsibility lies with the developer to reduce development cost? The consumer will purchase what you put out, but having a reasonable estimation of expected sales and adjust an appropriate development budget in order to turn a profit shouldn't be that ridiculous an idea. There are always case of good games meeting poor sales and under perform. However, when only 20% of the games being put out to market can realistically expect see a profit, that's troubling for the industry.
Edit: Metro Last Light was suppose to have been developed at 1/10 of the cost of the other AAA titles, granted they did choose to work under awful condition. I'm not saying to treat game developers like animals, but there must be a happy medium in between and areas where cost could be cut.
Last edited by Dark Dragon; Sat, 08-10-2013 at 10:07 PM.
So I ended up buying a PS3 super slim earlier today. I haven't played anything on it because I was busy all day but I did manage to successfully turn my old wireless router into a DD-WRT wireless bridge client.
I typically don't pay full price for anything because I'm an economist (read: cheap, hahaha)
Are you calling me a "shitbag gamer"? :-S
Last edited by fahoumh; Sun, 08-11-2013 at 01:02 AM.
If you wait for games to drop in price, you're just cheap. Nothing wrong with that. Deliberately keeping yourself, "behind the curve," definitely doesn't make you an entitled shitbag.
At least you're not a member of the PC Master Race masquerading as an entitled shitbag gamer to justify their crazy ideological stance that developers can stay in business by only putting out games on PCs, or that a kb+m are the only input devices ever needed.
Cool, what games have you bought to play on the PS3? I recommend Uncharted 3 and The Last of Us for starters.
Even though money isn't an issue, I can't stand to pay full price for them. Ryllharu says it's being cheap, but I prefer the term frugal because it was how I was raised. It's weird since I want to support developers but it still feels like you're getting ripped off when you pay full price.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
"Cheap" isn't as derogatory a term as it used to be.
Not really the right thread, but fahoumh...get Dragon's Crown. You won't regret it. Lots and lots of replay value. Worth the price new while there are still tons of people on multiplayer. Not to mention you need to play about 6 hours to even unlock the multiplayer with a given character, so everyone is at least competent before they get online. PS3 version has local multiplayer too!
I am admittedly cheap...I just don't put a $60+ value on most new games; I waited until Batman Arkham City GOTY dropped to $20 brand new before I picked it up. I realize I'm not a desirable customer for developers/publishers but oh well...at least I'm not stealing and playing them on a hacked system.
I never got that far into PC gaming outside of Doom II like 20 years ago.
I got all the God of War games that came with the system bundle, I think there's 6. Plus it came with a copy of NHL 13 which I plan to sell because I don't care for sports games. Last of Us looks pretty good but I still need to see videos of actual gameplay and possibly try it before I commit; if it's anything like Resident Evil I'll pass. I'm kind of on the fence with Uncharted; I hear good things but it reminds me too much of Tomb Raider and I couldn't stand the originals.
Oh, I already got my copy of Dragon's Crown...the 2nd game this year I've bought right when it came out, the first was Bioshock Infinite(Songbird Edition because I'm a Bioshock sucker). The free artbook that came with pre-orders of Dragon's Crown and Atlus' reputation for limited production runs made not wait. I actually got the game before the system.
500gb Playstation 3 Assassin's Creed III bundle is $229.99 on ebay via buy.com.
NEW Sony PS3 500GB Assassins Creed III Bundle
Edit: Nevermind... I see that fahoumh has already purchased a PS3.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
