If you compare sales of PC titles to sales of Console titles where the format is generally much more resistant to piracy it's eye-opening (especially given the higher price of console titles).

The figures i've seen on the gaming industry have been too watered down, and i'd like to take a closer look at the raw data...one thing alot of people forget though is that console sales are almost always combined with each other with no effort to differentiate between a PS2, an xbox or a gamecube and their respective software. Reporters often miss that fact and some have asserted that the pc's days are numbered because console game sales are 4x pc game sales. How many console 'platforms' are we talking about here, maybe 8(including handhelds)? Also don't forget consoles are just for gaming. People do other things on pcs besides play games.....

penis size is linked to hand size. More exact the tip of your middle finger to the point where your wrist joins your hand

I'm at the office and can't check for sure, but you may be right there!

penis size is linked to hand size. More exact the tip of your middle finger to the point where your wrist joins your hand.

Your foot size is the same as your elbow to your hand.

On piracy: I personally don't think piracy impacts sales as much as gaming industry figures suggest. I think alot of pirates either can't afford it, or wouldn't have bought it anyway

I'm sure that gaming companies do exaggerate the impact of piracy, but it most definitely is there. If you compare sales of PC titles to sales of Console titles where the format is generally much more resistant to piracy it's eye-opening (especially given the higher price of console titles).

Anvil

But if you take a step back and look at the hours of entertainment you get from a [good] game per dollar, and compare that ratio to movies, nightclubbing, D&B arcade, lapdances, snow-skiing, sportscar ownership, home theatre, or sex (girlfriends generally aren't cheap) you'll see that computers games offer the most bang for the buck.

Quite right, and it's the way i approach game purchases. That being said though, I don't dole out $50 just cause I figure a game's gonna last me awhile. I usually research a game, look for several opinions/reviews, check for bugs(the reason why i'll never prepay!...actually, i'll very rarely buy a game within the first 2 weeks of it's release because of this). One of the things that really bothers me about modern gaming though is the lack of materials that come with your game. Sure I'll pay $40 for a game, and perhaps even $50, for the right one....but they better give me a damn manual, and maybe a map! I'm one of those old gamers that used to base game purchases by weight...

<rant>

OK! Look at Uncommon Valor(it's at http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/estore/category.cgi?item=1009&type=store ). Here's a game only available from their website(no middle man), selling for $50, and it has no hard-copy manual. I want the game. But dammit, i'm not going to be held hostage for it!

</rant>

....Sorry, been building that up for awhile


Some other notes:

On piracy: I personally don't think piracy impacts sales as much as gaming industry figures suggest. I think alot of pirates either can't afford it, or wouldn't have bought it anyway

On cartridges: I think this may be the only market that has a legitimate beef as far as gaming prices go. How many gaming systems had inflated cartridge prices? Supply was limited, demand was high(piracy in a lot of cases didn't exist, at least in the way the pc piracy does), and i think developers took(take) advantage of a captive market(No one's looking at you Nintendo)

Oh yeah, other cheap $/time pastimes: reading, watching tv

Compared to console video games, Computer games are cheap.

console games:
1.$50 games that very rarely come down in price.
2.almost every game is $50
3.$50 no matter where you buy it
4.no demos (you can rent it for $5 though)
5.no editor

computer games:
1.retail price starts at $50
2.some games start at less than $50, and almost all games come down in price fairly quickly ( I got half-life for $20-$25, I got UT,theif 2, and deus ex bundled with a $50 sound card)
3. Some stores will actually charge less than the suggested retail price
4. Tons of very playable demos
5. huge expandibility with many games


so, compared to video games, I think computer games are a great deal

Sorry Bronco, but I disagree.

Thats fine I like debating/beating an issue to death.

Volume, volume, voume. That's the magic all these guys are looking for. So by pricing based on a volume structure, you're gambling that you'll move more of your product.

If you name a major clothing retailer in the US, I've worked for them. They ALL work on volume. They ALL price in the fashion I described to you before. Granted, they didn't always get the ratio of sales to price correct but they did remarkably well.

Pre-orders in any signifgant amount only account for maybe 2-5 percent of all games. They need to be blockbuster titles (WC3, NWN, etc.) for that to occur, and we know how rare those are.

Tell anyone that sells anything that they can make a net profit margin like the the pre-orders represent and they'd salivate. Added bonus with pre-orders is a gauge of what type of production run they need to keep up with demand. When a manufacturer knows that they need a certain quantity they can make better bulk deals = better margin, conversely if a product is tanking they can cut production runs, also improving margin.

What would be interesting would be to look at the average sales price of a game over the first 2 months of release. I think you would see an average more in the neighborhood of an 'acceptable' price in your book. These elevated prices are there primarily to soak the early adopters that would buy the game no matter what, ensuring a nice stream of income in the first quarter of a games release.

Look, I never pay full price for a game. I always wait 1-2 weeks after release and find a deal at least $10 less than retail. But I'm not an early adopter. Many companies in other industries rely on early adopters to carry their bottom line.






-TPFKAS2S
This comment was edited on Oct 3, 18:47.

After all, X percent of nothing is nothing

Yes, but the issue here is wether X percent of something is more than Y percent of something else. Unless you know the precise values of "something" and "something else" there is no way to calculate the end result.

Sales with a smaller profit margin or no sales at all? Which would you prefer?

And this is exactly the point where this kind of logic is flawed. How can the profit margin of "Sales with a smaller profit margin" be smaller than the profit margin of "no sales at all"? You say that by lowering the price you get a little less profit than with a high price. But that's to be preferred because with a high price you get no sales, i.e. no profit at all? This doesn't make any sense.

So now they have a potential customer who wants their product, but feels it's too expensive, so they don't make any sale at all. Now that's not good business.

It may very well be good business. It all depends on how many people have your opinion (and also act like that, which is something entirely different, but that's another issue). If you increase the price by 10% but only one of a hundred potential customers declines to buy it because of that you still have a much higher profit.

And, as has been pointed out before, you may very well get the business of those people that first declined to buy as well, if you lower the prices after a few months.

[Edit] added the last point...
This comment was edited on Oct 3, 17:34.

The market for a movie is much larger than that of a video game, despite what the IDSA likes to tell people.
Not to mention that when you go to see a movie, you're not KEEPING a copy of it.


This comment was edited on Oct 3, 17:27.

Sorry Bronco, but I disagree. This is the reason most games sell such in pitifully small quantities.
Pre-orders in any signifgant amount only account for maybe 2-5 percent of all games. They need to be blockbuster titles (WC3, NWN, etc.) for that to occur, and we know how rare those are.
Volume, volume, voume. That's the magic all these guys are looking for. So by pricing based on a volume structure, you're gambling that you'll move more of your product.
I'd certainly risk it.
After all, X percent of nothing is nothing, and if you can increase your sales by lowering the pricing on your product by X percent, than why not do so?
Sales with a smaller profit margin or no sales at all? Which would you prefer?
Thanks but I'll take the smaller margin over no sales.
This is a luxury item they're selling in a particularly weak economy, it's not rocket science to see that you need to get agressive on pricing structure.
NOLF 2 just came in (Toronto) and is retailing for 70 bucks CDN + tax. ($80), while I want the game, I don't want it quite that badly.
If they were to come in at say 40 or so, I wouldn't hesitate to pick it up.
So now they have a potential customer who wants their product, but feels it's too expensive, so they don't make any sale at all.
Now that's not good business.

I think the free market, i.e. Capitalist approach to video games works very well. Release it at the high mark, let the early adopters buy it, wait for a while until those with the available disposable income who just can't wait purchase the game and make your high profit from a lower number of units sold.

Then lower the price by $10 or so and repeat the process. Eventually the game ends up in the bargain bin where those who were patient can purchase it if they want. The market works exceptionally well in this regard. I've seen plenty of crap games end up in the bargain bin well ahead of their planned time simply because they didn't sell and/or sucked.

Also remember that Video games (the good ones) often try to bring together the best of the Movies and Music and combine them into one interactive experience. I spend more time on my computer than in front of the TV as a result. I'd much rather spend $50 on one video game that keeps me interested for a year than say a movie a night, rented for $4.95. It would only take 10 days at that rate to equal the purchase of one video game.

With most retailers you can return a video game if it sucks within a certain period of time. I'm not sure how liberal the policy is with many of them now since they've had to tighten up, but that also applies to most other media now, including movies and music.

Also, there are so many resources on the internet to read reviews and such that making an informed decision is a lot more realistic. Add to that the availability in some cases of demos and you've gotten a full and fair chance to try out most games risk-free.

The capitalist system works very well in the video game software and hardware market. I think that pressuring companies to lower their prices in order to please the lowest common denominator is blatantly socialist, but understandable for those who REALLY want today's video game at tommorrow's bargain-bin prices.

This comment was edited on Oct 3, 16:43.

So run it past me how, England doesent own Scotland Bagpuss

England and Scotland are different countries with historically different laws, different parliaments, different cultures and indeed even including different languages.

On the other hand England,Scotland,Wales and NI are all part of a coalition of sovereign states called the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland. This should not be confused with ownership.

Anvil

So run it past me how, England doesent own Scotland Bagpuss?

Seriously, computer games are a hell of a deal.

The prices are what they are for all the reasons listed by the intelligent posters below (small market vs high development cost, people willing to pay, etc).

But if you take a step back and look at the hours of entertainment you get from a [good] game per dollar, and compare that ratio to movies, nightclubbing, D&B arcade, lapdances, snow-skiing, sportscar ownership, home theatre, or sex (girlfriends generally aren't cheap) you'll see that computers games offer the most bang for the buck.

If you think game prices are too high you either:
A) Don't get any enjoyment from them.
B) Are too poor to enjoy any form of entertainment besides a walk in the park.
C) Have no concept of math (fun per dollar).
D) Just hate it when someone other than you makes a profit.
E) Are stupid.

I welcome examples of modern entertainment that carry a lower pricetag per hour.

Red


Edit: Music CDs typically offer a lot of bang for the buck. There, that's my example. But to be fair, I rarely just listen to a CD without doing something else too (ie enjoying some other form of entertainment).


This comment was edited on Oct 3, 16:23.

The simple reality of the matter is, that if the game companies want my money they'll have to a lot better on pricing.

But they do get your money. Even better, they get it when they expect to.

I worked in retail sales for a long time. When a product is priced for sale the beancounters take a look at it and say:

We'll sell 3% of this product @ Full price
30% of this product @ the first breakpoint
and so on.....
down to whatever % at the lowest breakpoint
(this is where you come in Weas!)

If they were 30 to 50 percent cheaper new, I'd be buying a lot more them.

But if they did that they'd be selling themselves short. If you read the boards here you know that there are plenty of pre-order freaks (you know who you are!). These people that pay top dollar would now be paying less than they are willing to pay. Bad business that is.


-TPFKAS2S

"Well technically as England owns Scotland then it makes us all English or British"

I'm sorry, pardon? England owns Scotland?

I'm afraid every argument you ever make again will immediately be filed in my "has no clue" box.

- Bagpuss
http://www.chatbear.com/
Get your own free messageboard today (just like this one!)

Games do cost too much. The simple reality of the matter is, that if the game companies want my money they'll have to a lot better on pricing.
I let a lot of titles go by untill I can find them used or bargain bin. If they were 30 to 50 percent cheaper new, I'd be buying a lot more them.
The publishers only hurt themselves with excessive prices. If they can't learn from that, it's their own fault.

Walter Sobchak: The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fuckin' adversary.
Donny: Who's in pajamas Walter?
Walter Sobchak: Shut the fuck up, Donny.

The longest post ever on blues news?

Good points too.

Note: This is not a direct reply to Hazard's post, just more tacked on to Hazard's movie reference.

It is a gray area for sure.

A movie can potentially make money from its initial run, being rented, people purchasing the DVD/VHS, being shown on pay-per-view, being shown on network/local television, merchandising, etc.

Let's take a movie that makes $150,000,000 at *just* the theater. Let us assume that the average ticket price is $8.50; I realize some places are in the $10 range, but this will account for matinee showings and/or places where the price is not as high. At that amount, there were over 17.6 million viewings. Mind you, this is looking at a mere $150 million movie and I would be willing to bet that the average ticket price ends up being much cheaper; consider the amount of viewings for a $400 million movie at an average of, say, $7 per viewing. Again, this is just the total from the box office...

Now, let's look at games, focusing on the PC side of things as that is what Blue's News primarily focuses on. No more discussion is needed-just compare the size of the two markets. What was that last game that sold 17.6 million copies? What was the first game for that matter? Even things like Myst and The Sims, the two most successful titles (I believe-if not, close enough) do not have those kinds of numbers. Finally, those games do sell well, but they generally have multiple releases/versions to sell as much as they do.

As much as the gaming industry likes to compare itself to the film industry, the simple fact is that there really is no direct comparison. The movie industry is significantly larger than the game industry, no doubt about it. It sounds nice and makes the P.R. gods happy, but one has a decidedly larger market than the other.

Yes, the most immediate argument is something along the lines of "Because movies only cost $8.50, that is why they are so popular." Before I say anything else, let me comment on how limited the movies are compared to games (replayability, time to completeion, user interaction, etc.) and how, especially now more than ever, people complain about the price of watching a movie. Finally, I won't deny that the price difference does have some influence on all of this, but nowhere near enough to justify that big of a difference.

If the general game publisher knew that it was going to sell a good 10 million copies of its game no problem, prices would obviously be a lot cheaper. However, that is not going to happen; the markets are too different, in size and other ways. Also, it is much easer to steal/copy a complete game than it is to steal/copy a complete film. Sorry, \/\/ar3z mUn|<33z, but you are a problem. Yes, things are changing now more than ever, but there is still a big difference between the two.

It is simple economics between two different mediums, one of which is significantly larger in both user base and areas of potential income.

I realize that there are many more subjects to talk about on just films versus games alone, much less other mediums/markets, but this is all I am saying for now.

Off to trip some bad guys on bananas,
Ray

Edit: Typo...or something like it (what the hell were my fingers doing??? :o)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just say no to anonymous posting registered trolls!
If you are reading this, you are very bored.
This comment was edited on Oct 3, 15:29.

Well technically as England owns Scotland then it makes us all English or British. moreover though, as Scotland recieves mostly the same media as England does i think we can safly apply my 'Broad Generalizations' to this.

As Snides with me on this one ill point out that for a true understanding of another culture, you need to live there and experiance it, no just base it on the so media 'facts' that are given to you. If you have experianced it and disagree with me then thats fine with me, everyone has their own opinion. It is a pretty hard thing to back up with hard facts (especially while at work :-), but go out and take a look at the English media and its opnion of Fat Cats.

Also, people obviously dont think that some muscians and movie stars should be earning the cash they do. So why not support the people behind the games you love after all, they entertain you for far longer than a movie and as most games can be modded, you can put Britney Spears on the recieving end of a Rocket Launcher!! Now if thats not worth the extra cash i dont know what is!.