Saturday Soapbox: Pay Up or Shut Up

By Oli Welsh Published 13 August, 2011

Why we should stop moaning and spend more on our games.

Last week, John decried the rise of the free-to-play game and, by extension, its cousins in the murky world of digital business models: micro-transactions and downloadable content.

His sense of gaming as escapism was being endangered by the commoditisation of every last scrap of virtual worlds, he felt. "Regardless of how you dress the window, there's no getting away from the fact that players are now living in a shopping centre, rather than a world set apart from the real-world monotony of earn and consume, earn and consume," he wrote.

He's not alone. Just look at the hostile player reaction to recent announcements of monetised game services such as Call of Duty Elite, the EA Sports Season Ticket or Diablo III's real money auction house. Greedy publishers are squeezing us dry and nickel-and-diming our hobby to within an inch of its life - so runs the common refrain.

I understand the sentiment, but I can't agree with it. Everything about games is changing: the way we play them, the amount we expect of them, how they are made and how long for. If you expect the way we pay for them to stay the same, you're kidding yourself.

John reasoned that we don't pay enough up front: game prices have remained static despite inflation and skyrocketing development costs, so game makers are turning to the back end to make up the difference. But I think he's only half right.

The change isn't being driven by finances, in the first instance, but by the ubiquity of online gaming. Today, most games are networked by default, and that doesn't just change our relationship with them - on a fundamental level, it changes what they are.

1

Call of Duty Elite is modelled on Halo's Bungie.net service - which, unfortunately for Activision, is free.

Now, a boxed console game - a Call of Duty, say, or a Street Fighter - can sustain a player for hundreds of hours of entertainment, to the exclusion of all other gaming. It becomes a hobby in itself. It's far less disposable than the games we used to play, and the hooks that assist such deep and long engagement - the persistence, ranking and rewards - are as much a product of players' rabid enthusiasm for the never-ending online experience as they are the making of it.

Endless enjoyment for us means endless work for the developers. An online game is not a discrete work of art that can be polished and perfected; work on it is never done. It requires constant maintenance, rebalancing and refreshment with new content, over and above the need for customer service and technical support.

The sums just don't work. If you want this, you have to pay for it.

That cuts both ways: if you don't want it, you shouldn't have to, which is why I don't think the cover price should be bumped up. That's just forcing single-player fans to subsidise the multiplayer crowd.

Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3: never admit that your sequel was originally a downloadable add-on. Ever.

How can game makers hold the interest of these passionate communities and turn a profit from their toil? The crudest approach is used by Capcom for its highly regarded fighting games: it builds obsolescence into them.

Fans were dismayed, but hardly surprised, when the veteran Japanese developer announced that Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 would be released a mere nine months after the original game. A devoted community with almost nowhere else to go will inevitably migrate to the new version for its new characters and tweaks - but complain that they're being held over a barrel as they do so.

"It should be DLC," some argue, but the truth is that extending a game's financial half-life through expansion rather than replacement scarcely goes down better. Look at the regular invective aimed at the Call of Duty multiplayer map packs from gaming's great Satan, Activision. Notwithstanding the generally high quality of their design and the immense and enduring popularity of COD online, they're held to be overpriced rip-offs propagated through playlist peer pressure.

In both these instances, the issue is one of perceived value. There's a failure to understand that you're paying not just for what's new, but for your continued enjoyment of a rarefied pastime that's tailored to your tastes, regularly updated and, pound for hour, offers unparalleled value.

There's a difference between these - content packs designed to recoup the hidden costs of maintaining an online game - and such meaningless commoditisation as Oblivion's infamous horse armour, World of Warcraft's huge-earning celestial steed or the $70 monocle that sparked a player uprising in Eve Online. Apart from the miscalculated value of the items themselves, WOW and Eve already charge subscription fees for their maintenance, while Oblivion has no online life to support.

The problem is that this difference isn't being explained very well. "We see gaming as a service, not a product," games companies say - parroting a phrase coined by Valve's Gabe Newell - before trying to sell us that service disguised as product. Nervous of charging players for something they're accustomed to getting for free - despite its clear value to them - the publishers offer a spoonful of content to help the medicine go down.

Things are changing. COD Elite and the EA Sports Season Ticket aren't content as such; they're entirely optional and additional paid-for services (not very appealing ones, I grant you) based around popular online games. But the shift in emphasis just seems to baffle gamers further; they react as if being offered the option to pay extra for something they didn't have before is somehow stealing from their mouths.

Educating players that online gaming is something that both needs and deserves to cost money is not going to be easy. Marketers and game designers alike are still experimenting, and I'm the first to admit that a perfect formula has yet to be found. Certainly, some are much more elegant than others.

2

Diablo III's auction house: radical and controversial, but could free player trade be the future? Only if the game supports it.

The Diablo III auction house - in which Blizzard will allow players to trade game items with each other for cash, and take a cut of each transaction - sounds controversial and mercenary. But as I realised when investigating it in depth last week, it's actually an exceptionally subtle scheme: it's optional, aimed specifically at hardcore players, rewards players as well as Blizzard and doesn't break the game design or fiction. If it works, it ought to provide Diablo III with an organic, self-sustaining financial ecosystem with the minimum of forcing from the developer.

Imaginative bonus services tailored to the game design, like this auction house, could be the future. The logical alternative - a subscription fee - seems unpalatable if offers access to anything less than a WOW-sized universe of content (in part because Microsoft has set the precedent of charging for online gaming at the platform level with Xbox Live).

At the other end of the scale, we have the free-to-play model. Although this can work very well for session-based multiplayer games - Team Fortress 2 and League of Legends are great examples - I agree with John that the way it devalues the central gaming experience leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

EA Sports Season Ticket: 'Even a banshee wants to save money.' But are gamers prepared to spend it?

The odd thing is that the extension of single-player games through paid add-ons is far less controversial. Although the quality and value for money of much single-player DLC is debatable, you won't find many objecting to it on principle; paying money for a new car or a few hours of questing is a transaction people understand. But paying for a continuing service that offers dozens of hours of entertainment, for some reason, we don't get.

Yes, we're being asked to pay more for our games. But that's because we get more out of them than we ever used to. They're bigger, they last longer, they're more adaptive, more social and better supported. They have almost limitless potential.

If you're not interested, you can walk away and on to the next thing. If, however, you want to go deeper, be prepared to reach a little deeper into your pocket for it. The games deserve it; the people who make and maintain them deserve it. Is it really too much to ask?

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (128) Latest comment 9 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • trugs26 #1 10 months ago

    I pay about three times as much cash for a game than a DVD. But I get about 100 times more hours out of the game than the DVD. I'm O.K with the prices at the moment.

  • JohnMagnum #2 10 months ago

    Here's the thing: Dozens of millions of gamers have ALREADY accepted that maintaining an online infrastructure is something that's worth money, and are willing to pay for it. In addition to everyone who continues to subscribe to an MMO, Xbox LIVE Gold is thriving.

    Of course, Microsoft has decided to set up XBLG as a "pay to pay" model where you have to pay your monthly fee for XBLG as a prerequisite for your additional payments for the online services.

  • Reemul #3 10 months ago

    It is very easy to say spend more, except right now most adults don't have more they have a lot less, 20% + rise in gas and electric, food prices through the roof, wage freezes or job losses mass job migration in to part time work etc etc. This is also happening world wide.

    Indie games are doing great, 2nd hand games are doing great, anything that pushes the price down is doing well.

    Now gaming has become something embraced by the young and old alike the same restrictions apply on spend and is tied in to income and most have less at the moment.

  • wogsy81 #4 10 months ago

    I've got no problem paying 40-50 quid for a grade A game that will last me for a month or 2.
    Its paying £40 for a piece of broken piece of crap that pisses me off.

    If the game is great then i want the makers to be properly re-imbursed. Ive spent a fortune on Mass Effect 2 and its DLC. I would give Bioware more money if they would let me.
    But when these greedy publishers who have zero morals release broken pieces of crap like Brink and Fallout New Vegas then they deserve to go bust in my opinion..
    These games are obviously broken upon release but these guys release them anyway.
    "Fuck the customer! I dont care if they dont enjoy our game. Lets just release it anyway and get their money" is an attitude that im seeing more and more of.

    If you treat us gamers with respect and give us a high quality product that works, we will pay. But dont try charging me £40 quid for some piece of crap that will last me 3 hours. And then accuse me of being tight when i refuse to pay.

  • Inmediasress #5 10 months ago

    This article is wrong on so many levels that it's too much to bear early in the morning.
    "The change isn't being driven by finances, in the first instance, but by the ubiquity of online gaming."
    No the change is driven by pure greed and the brain dead people that allow themselves to be butt fucked in every possible way.
    The problem that this direction evokes is left unmentioned in between the glorification of everything that is wrong with todays gaming industry(god I hate that word).
    Namely that it influences every gaming genere like for example Blizz with it's D3 changes from a primarily sp game with strong lan/online following to almost an MMO with micro transactions.
    They try to make everything with MMO and online in mind.
    I don't care that COD is an online shooter that's why there is hardly any story mode left but I do care when all I see is everywhere f*ckbook integration and shit like always online, no mods allowed and of course mostly complete lack of lan support that worked just fine a few years ago.
    My biggest problem is that it influences SP games and honestly most of these deals are just simply greedy and manipulative ways to make you pay more for sometimes even less content like drug dealers using peoples addiction.
    I know capitalism is getting more soulless by the minute but come on how greedy can you get??

    Anyway this is tipycally the "Emperor's new clothes" scenario.
    Edited by Inmediasress at 13/08/11 @ 07:53

  • nickthegun #6 10 months ago

    It's the way literally everything is going at the moment. There is a battle on for our credit card numbers.

    MS have done it with office, converting it to an online, subs based system that actually works out about the same over a boxed product per revision (but crucially, you can't then keep using office 2003 for eight years without paying extra).

    I also recently went to a conference for a well known brand of firewall. Someone asked them why we now have to pay an annual sub for features that we used to get included in the initial purchase price ten years ago. The engineer explained that they now continuously work to upgrade and tweak features then push them out to the box so subs pay for engineer dev time.

    The thing that most industries have gathered, where gaming hasn't though is that in order to do this crap, you have to lower the point of entry.

    If you are going to put in a multiplayer pass, knock a tenner off the price. If you are going to have a load of dlc characters, put half a dozen on the disc, charge a tenner for it then sell the other 30 in packs of five.

    If games are going to follow everyone else down this route, they really need to look at the initial cost o the 'barebones' product.

  • Xboxfanuk #7 10 months ago

    Free-to-play models are ideal for this new way of thinking. If developers commited to bringing continual content like MMO's do, and then let players choose which content is important to them and then they will pay. The thing is most full priced offline games charge insane prices for DLC that is litterally the scrap off the cutting room floor. In times past that content would have been a free add-on.

  • dunbain #8 10 months ago

    What also deserves mentioning is that a publisher needs to reconstitute their bottom line if in case their portfolio contains a dud. So the 'milking' that people are up in arms about is true -- corporations are grabbing as much money as they can to fill the war chests. But, through this funding comes the ability to experiment, ideally resulting in new experiences for us gamers.

    Remakes also recoup costs for the original release, or otherwise if successful, the title fuels the development of other titles.

    And as much as gamers would like it so, it's impossible to create miracles every time. Game development works best in iterations, so if the title isn't supported at first, it won't get the chance to improve.

  • Aretak #9 10 months ago

    Apparently all games from previous generations were little more than glorified 99p iPhone software, if this article is to be believed. There were certainly no titles in any previous generation that could "sustain a player for hundreds of hours of entertainment, to the exclusion of all other gaming" after all.

    Thank goodness this wonderful generation of consoles came along and invented things such as fighting game tournaments, long single-player RPGs and sports games you can play with friends. I don't think anyone could possibly have gotten invested in games like that without paying through the nose for DLC first.
    Edited by Aretak at 13/08/11 @ 08:26

  • Rack #10 10 months ago

    As impossible as it apparently is I'm going to buy Torchlight 2. Maybe I should send Runic an apology letter for running them into the ground like this.

  • Fools #11 10 months ago

    Sorry to say Eurogamer...but you got this all wrong. Pricing is NOT ok where it is. It is far too high. Most of the "games" being peddled are 2 steps shy of junk status.

    I am NOT ok paying 40-50 euro for a half broken game (just because the mother ship needs earnings to meet the quarterly.
    I am NOT ok being nickle and dimed for extra DLC that only fixes the broken game that was launched.
    I am NOT ok with up front fee, monthy subs AND THEN EXTRA optional in game "fluff" that costs extra ! (Eve, WOW looking at you 2).

    I am not a kid, I have disposable income. But I refuse to throw my money down the toilet on incomplete, drm infested vapourware.

    Today, I see a game I might like -> 49.99 Euro. At that price I pass. Not unless I know it is a solid AAA game with solid review.
    If games dropped to half the price, I can guarentee you I would be more interested in "risk buys". Piracy would drop (you will never eliminate it). But with the extra sales I would wonder if revenues would increase for game companies.

    Sorry to say, but Games may be our passtime or passion. But this is big business. As long as you have the suits "running the game", gamers will be at the mercy of the corporations.

    However we will continue to see incomplete games launched, with "optional" paid DLC to fix the flaws, all the while with the suits trying to find new ways to "monitise" the game.

  • OliverH #12 10 months ago

    Sorry, but I get the impression that the author just now was thawed out of a a millenium of cryogenic freezing. Today's games offer longer entertainment to those of previous eras? Hello? Ever heard of Civilization? Ten bucks say that most modern games offer a fraction of the replayability and the endless hours you can put into a game series that has existed for ages. Add to that RPGs such as Daggerfall, Morrowind etc...

    As to the quote "In both these instances, the issue is one of perceived value. There's a failure to understand that you're paying not just for what's new, but for your continued enjoyment of a rarefied pastime that's tailored to your tastes, regularly updated and, pound for hour, offers unparalleled value. " I think it is the author who suffers a terrible failure to understand here: If people don't perceive the value, then it might just as well not be there. it's the COMPANY's job to make the potential customer perceive the value and if they can't do that, the should fire their marketing department and hire folks who actually know how to do that job - either by a better inward communication, i.e. getting an idea what people actually want, or by a better outward communication, i.e. making people see how much work and effort went in. It's is NOT the customer's fault if he "fails to understand" that.

    Lastly, I'd personally be happy to pay more. But not as long as I am treated as the last step in quality assurance, and not as long as games are catering more and more to people whose thoughts revolve around a list of achievements or perks. If you have to provide me with a list of achievements, it's likely because you cannot convey a sense of achievement in any other fashion. Make an interesting game with an interesting concept that's an actual challenge instead of an electronic nanny, and most importantly that actuallly WORKS instead of relying on three to five patches until it's playable, and I'll pay up.

    However, as long as the publisher expects me to do his job, both in quality assurance and in marketing, precisely why should I be ready to pay more?

  • KDR_11k #13 10 months ago

    Instead of milking individual customers for more and more money they should work on getting more customers. Games are cheap to make compared to movies and yet cost way more to buy, a result of the limited audience.

  • SmoothieMonster #14 10 months ago

    Lots of people do play for multiplayer via Xbox Live Gold subscriptions but thinking about it I have no idea whether Microsoft share any of that cash with the developers of the games being played on it. If they were I would have thought developers would have been biased towards Xbox for multiplayer over PS3 but I don't really see that.

    Anyone know if developers get a cut of the Xbox Live subs, based on who's playing what or some other metric?

  • octo #15 10 months ago

    The permanent (or semi permanent) connection to the internet has changed the way entire industries operate. That change is welcome and normal. Companies are always trying to find new revenue (primary and ancillary) streams. Let me draw a crude analogy. 25 years ago Sky bought the rights to show premiership football on their pay television channel. Players wages sky-rocketed and the quality of the football increased. However the ordinary fans who turn up to watch their team every week at home and away are priced out of the market. It now costs well over £100 to take one adult and one child to a premiership football game. It used to cost about £20 back in 1990. So ordinary fans who have loved their club for years have to stop going or find other ways (like illegal web streams) to watch their team play. That doesn't justify illegal streaming. It just offers an explanation as to why it takes place. The disenfranchisement of fans is very real.

    By broadening and deepening the gaming market (whilst five or six major publishers dominate it, behaving like a cartel - don't believe me? See the development of the online pass for details), investing heavily in the mythical "triple A" title, gaming companies are disenfranchising some ordinary people who used to be gamers. As gamers grow up, they tend to get more rational. Of course, you are still open to the impulse purchase when you have been gaming all of your life and have a large disposable income. But the more the eco-system eats itself, the harder it is to feel like games are fun. That is fun to play, fun to purchase, fun to talk about and fun to be a part of.

    It will be interesting to see what happens. I'm 34 now and when I sold my last 360 two years ago I thought that would be it for me and games. But I am back, with a new 360 and a copy of Halo Reach. What does that say about my mentality? That ultimately I am supporting an industry I have come to hate because something came out that I felt like I wanted in a moment of madness. Human behaviour is weird.

  • TheNonk #16 10 months ago

    Gamers pump about as much into the gaming industry as football fans do into the premiership - 2008/9 was 2bn for the premiership and 1.7bn for the UK gaming industry. I don't see star coders being payed 40k a week or huge stadiums being built for us to enjoy our hobby in. It would seem that the gaming industry is pocketing quite enough, thank you very much.
    Edited by TheNonk at 13/08/11 @ 09:49

  • Faramis #17 10 months ago

    "Yes, we're being asked to pay more for our games. But that's because we get more out of them than we ever used to. They're bigger, they last longer, they're more adaptive, more social and better supported. They have almost limitless potential. "
    I have only one argument there: Tomb Raider 1-4 vs Tomb Raider 5+ game time. What game has moar lasting appeal?

  • Apaar #18 10 months ago

    For games like Skyrim, Diablo 3, Skyward Sword, etc. I'm willing to pay top dollar, since I know I'll get dozens-hundreds of hours of high quality entertainment out of them. My rule is, if a game can achieve 1€=1h value, it is always worth the asking price volumewise.

  • Jellyman2 #19 10 months ago

    While game prices might have remained static despite inflation, saying that we should pay more also fails to take into account that people's wages have also remained static or barely increased over the last 30 years. So since everything else, such as food, housing, gas, electricity and pretty much everything else has increased with inflation, and in many cases (energy) way above inflation, many people actually have less disposable income now than they did even just 10 years ago.

    You mention that the online multiplayer should be paid for as it's a service that costs money to maintain and run. Yes it does I agree there. But that ignores that increasingly the online multiplayer is completely replacing local multiplayer as a way to play games. Some of my favourite games for example, TOCA 3 on PS1 had 4 player split screen multiplayer, Grid has online only. Why? Burnout on PS2 had splitscreen, Paradise doesn't. Why? Killzone on PS2 had splitscreen, Killzone 2 and 3 don't.

    It's not that current consoles can't handle 4 player splitscreen, it's just being removed for whatever reason and slowly being replaced with online only multiplayer. In this case it's easy to see why people are annoyed at having to pay for extra things to continue playing online, there is no alternative if you want to keep playing with your friends on the new maps or whatever. So perhaps publishers should charge for the online section of games. Nothing wrong there, but it should also mean that if there is no local mutiplayer the upfront cost of the game should be reduced to reflect something that is no longer there. Also what happens when the servers are shut down as recently happened with Grid? The game loses value when that happens, and yes it's still on xbox live, a paid for service, but eventually that too will be shut down and you'll only have the single player game.

    I don't really know what should happen, maybe publishers should let people set up their own servers for all online multiplayer games and so bear the costs themselves as well as keeping the games running after the publisher is trying to sell the sequel. But to just say that people should pay up or shut up is wrong. Gaming has changed yes, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to complain about something we don't like, especially when our hard earned cash is involved.

  • Cappy #20 10 months ago

    I'd disagree, single player games are not 'getting bigger and lasting longer', if anything it's entirely the opposite. They're getting shorter, Resident Evil 5 versus Resident Evil 4 for instance, but worse they're getting narrower and more limited.

    We've reached a point where it's basically a linear corridor trudge if it's not an open world game. There's nothing left in-between those two points. If you have no interest in online play what do you get for your money? A four to six hour often sub-par single player component which has little replay value because it's an A to B straight line with no opportunities to explore alternate routes or do things differently which I'm supposed to keep because the industry doesn't want me to sell it on because secondhand sales are 'stealing'.

  • AOFanboi #21 10 months ago

    No, no, no, a thousand times no.

    First of all, there is no entitlement to our money. Just because a company makes a product or a service does not mean anyone then has a duty to buy it. If your business model turns profitable, yay for you. If it does not, make a new one instead of demanding that customers should do their part to make it work.

    Second of all, competition is what brings down prices, not only the "cheapness" of customers. If product A is perceived to entail extra costs down the line ("passes" or fees) while product B is not, then people will flock to product B. This will perhaps be tested later on this year when the "business sim" Diablo III goes up against "just have fun" Guild Wars 2.

  • AaronTurner #22 10 months ago

    Personally I can't even scrape the money together to pay £40 for a game at them moment, I'm sure there are many out there like me at the moment. I have to wait for bargain prices. I think changing the amount we pay now would be suicidal, how would anyone pay for it?

  • penhalion #23 10 months ago

    I looked at all the other arguments here and I guess it can be summed up quite simply as:-

    The author is a bit of a dick isn't he.

  • byakuya83 #24 10 months ago

    Post deleted at 10:03:41 30-03-2012

  • Altrezia #25 10 months ago

    I have no issue paying good money for games, but being forced to install shitty services like Origin, or always-on-DRM really piss me off. I chose steam to provide me my downloadable games, and don't need/want another, lesser, more expensive system installed too. Especially one from EA.

  • redcrayon #26 10 months ago

    Broadly I think the price of games is fine, where it is a single player only game like RPGs. The problem is where the multiplayer becomes an ever-expanding, compulsory part of the package at the expense of the single player, usually in action games by reducing the campaign to the length of a couple of evenings.

    I don't think the cover price should be bumped up. That's just forcing single-player fans to subsidise the multiplayer crowd

    Gamers who aren't interested in multiplayer are already subsidising the multiplayer part of it. 5-hour campaigns for £40 are getting increasingly common, as is the need to tack-on an arena deathmatch battle mode to every game going. Games are multiplayer first and single-player second these days.

    They're bigger, they last longer, they're more adaptive, more social and better supported.

    They are bigger because multiplayer is compulsory. If I had the choice, I'd pay half the price for just the single player campaign most of the time.

    They last longer because people are happy to play the same maps over and over again where the human enemy element is what makes it different every time. I was happy doing that in Mario Kart's battle mode and Worms on the SNES, and clocked up hundreds of hours on them 20 years ago. What about gamers who want a longer FPS campaign? The games have become drastically shorter for them, the obsession for multiplayer is solely a pursuit of money, don't go claiming it's doing me any favours by offering 12 maps and millions of opponents and making the main campaign nothing more than a 5-hour tutorial.

    They are more adaptive-true. Mainly by fixing the bugs that are there on release by downloading a patch my PS3 every time I want to play something.
    They are more social? I'd rather play with people in the same room, but hey, horses for course on that one. The communities that spring up around games these days are a good thing though.
    Better supported? As above, yes, being able to change the game post-release is OK, sending an NPC to the party camp in Dragon Age to ask for real money to allow a new quest is perhaps the most atmosphere-breaking thing I've run across, and it'll only get worse.
    Edited by redcrayon at 13/08/11 @ 10:33

  • superbeast2010 #27 10 months ago

    Post deleted at 10:57:39 01-02-2012

  • Freek #28 10 months ago

    The whole premise that players have to realize that it cost money to maintain games and that that somehow justifies minor upgrades at full price like Capcom is doing is complete nonsense.
    Players don't have to realize anything, ever. It's up to the developer and publisher to come up with a buisiness model that lures players into paying more money. Not force them into it with a "suck it up" mercenary attitude. "Hey you have to get this over priced thing because otherwise you won't have anybody to play with anymore".

    Selling any product, what so ever, is never about education. It's about seduction. You offer something that the customer wants to pay for, not feels obligated or forced to pay for.
    When ever you need to explaine the price of anything, you have failed.


    The problem lies with us, the gamers, the whole idea of "vote with your wallet" has never sinked in. Stop buying these things if you don't like them.
    Mererly complaining but then buying it anyway does not work at all!
    Edited by Freek at 13/08/11 @ 10:28

  • Mister-Wario #29 10 months ago

    I suppose I'm reluctant to buy most multiplayer DLC because I'm doubtful if people will even be playing the game in a few month's time. That, or it's poorly implemented: i.e. Bioshock 2.

  • Schmoke-n-a-pancake #30 10 months ago

    "If you're not interested, you can walk away and on to the next thing. If, however, you want to go deeper, be prepared to reach a little deeper into your pocket for it. The games deserve it; the people who make and maintain them deserve it. Is it really too much to ask?"

    Yes it is too much to ask. Just watch where this industry goes if the prices go up. Take one look at the difficult launch of the 3DS and you'll clearly see it really is too much to ask.

  • RoOhDaMite #31 10 months ago

    This article is forgetting one thing. Games sale multi-million times nowadays, thus amortisation is quite good. Plus, taking advantage of digital distribution the publishers can save a lot of money on retailers, advertising, shipping and manufacturing. Yet they don't seem to pass on these benefits to their customers. No way I gonna throw even more money at them. I especially feel disgusted by microtransactions. During my leasure time I don't want to think about losing money around every corner, I simply don't like mixing private time with business time.

  • benfresh76 #32 10 months ago

    Gaming is ludicrously expensive pastime. That is all.

  • Mr_Brown #33 10 months ago

    I'm happy with the prices at the moment. You can get most games for cheap a month or so after release. If the game is good or highly regarded it stays at full price for much longer, this works, if its a great game I know I am going to put hundreds of hours in I have no problem paying £30 to £40 on them (ie Skyrim, Battlefield 3 etc).

    Game prices have never been better at the moment and I mean new games not just pre owned. I don't think anyone has an excuse to moan these days as you only have to wait 6 months maximum to get games cheap. Its much better than the SNES/N64 days of £60 a game.

  • H_D_Swagger #34 10 months ago

    Well it's great to see that eurogamer are so concerned with us! You know the consumer! Oh no, it turns out we should be paying more than we are already according to them. Yes, even in the current economic climate.

    What the article seems to boil down to is that we should accept that we have to pay a premium for online gaming. I already have to pay microsoft every year for that, so no thanks. The problem isn't consumers, it's the industry. Yes games have become very expensive to make. Why? In a lot of cases because developers are pissing money needlessly. Take COD or battlefield - why is it that so much money is spent on the single player when a lot of people will play it once or twice at most, then forget about it and move onto the multiplayer.

    Surely eurogamer should side with gamers rather than parrot whatever line the industry uses to try and squeeze more money from us.

  • redcrayon #35 10 months ago

    @H_D_Swagger

    I think there is still the sense that shooters like CoD have to have a single-player mode tacked on, when they are now so anemic that they may as well give up the pretence and just flog the multiplayer mode as a standalone.

    I'd much rather decent, lengthy single player modes of the shooters were available seperately, as it would show whether there is still a market for them or not (I realise I'm in a minority here) and also mean that I don't keep having to buy games where half of the dev. time has gone into multiplayer deathmatches that I don't want.

    All of these deathmatches that give the hundreds of hours of value Oli is talking about, Dead Space 2, Uncharted 2 etc etc, I just don't play them. So why not sell them or their campaign seperately?

    Edited by redcrayon at 13/08/11 @ 11:21

  • RedPanda #36 10 months ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • Windypops #37 10 months ago

    So, at a time when the industry's on its knees and this site's boxed-product review output has slowed to a trickle, what we need is to be educated about why games should be more expensive. Or something.

    Yep. *nods emphatically*

  • Nephirion #38 10 months ago

    As long as the preowned market remains open prices are acceptable, I think that uping the price of this years COD game to £45 is an insult to the customer base and I will wait for a preowned copy or for the price to come down. The good thing about the rental market is that you can experience the singleplayer without having to subside the MP crowd. I have saved over £800 by renting games this way and experienced many titles that I would have never bought at £40 because they weren't worth the price tag.
    Edited by Nephirion at 13/08/11 @ 11:28

  • H_D_Swagger #39 10 months ago

    @redcrayon

    Absolutely, that's a good idea. Personally I usually like single and multiplayer, but yes, with a lot of new games the single player does just seem tacked on. Of course if they were to seperate single and multi player they would probably still try to charge full price for each!

  • old_skool #40 10 months ago

    EXCUSE ME, but Quake came out in 1996 Id Software didn't deem it that we should pay for online play. And guess what, they're still around!

    Games prices stayed the same as the 1990's cause the flippin cartridge was so expensive, when the format changed to CDROM that offset the cost of development. There are more developers now, there are more games to play, and the market is much bigger, the cost should in theory have BECOME MUCH LESS today due to those factors.

    Publishers are becoming more and more greedy as they seek to maximize profit not in as much the cost of development but due to MORE COMPETITION amongst themselves. There a self imposed limit amongst publishers that they won't sell a new game on release (doesn't matter how crap it is) for less that 40 pounds, somebody might just faintly whisper cartel.

    Activision is the worst of the lot. Starcraft sold 10 million copies and yet they had the audacity to take lan multiplayer out of starcraft 2. And you know why? Because they want to control the way you play and the way you pay. They basically killed Guitar Hero brand with all those yearly updates , DLC just wasn't enough. Activision made Q2 Net revenues of 1.1 billion dollars, but nooo they will tell you that they need to charge because of x y z.

    [link url=http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=596540
    ]http://investor.activision.com/releasede...[/link]

    The fact is Publishers are out to make money, and the more they can make the better. And if they can sell you some horse armour or make you pay for extra items/online play/microransactions they sure as hell will.


    Edited by old_skool at 13/08/11 @ 12:14

  • Reliwonga #41 10 months ago

    And the fact you can pay £10 less on average on release day for the pc version of most console games proves that they are just ripping off console gamers. It's the same game and runs better but cheaper? How can they justify that?

  • old_skool #42 10 months ago

    And the new trick they do is to withhold the PC release by a month to make sure they can get maximum return on consoles.

    Just google "PC release delayed"

  • lockload #43 10 months ago

    Depends on the game some last 6 hours have no multiplayer, other like COD or say fallout new vegas have either short single player with lasting multiplayer or a long single player

    For me i takes along time to finish a game COD Black Ops took me probably 6 weeks to finish the single player, im still playing through new vegas!

    If you compare a game to say a movie that lasts 2 hours, games are good value in my opinion
    Edited by lockload at 13/08/11 @ 11:47

  • mr_pink #44 10 months ago

    These sentiments are probably more palatable to a person who doesn't have to pay for his games, no?

  • DodgyPast #45 10 months ago

    I must have imagined playing Counterstrike for 100s of hours online as a free add on many many years ago according to Oli.

    He also seems to have conveniently ignored the fact that the market growing means that while the prices have remained the same the available income has also increased.

  • MrBeens #46 10 months ago

    @Reliwonga "And the fact you can pay £10 less on average on release day for the pc version of most console games proves that they are just ripping off console gamers. It's the same game and runs better but cheaper? How can they justify that? "

    Because MS and Sony charge a fee for releasing the game on their platform.

  • TheRealBadabing #47 10 months ago

    If the market was in trouble and the big publishers were posting losses, I would have more sympathy.

    As it is, they are acting like spoilt children and constantly testing boundaries just to see how far they can push their customers.

    Project $10, online passes and day one DLCs are not a reaction to troubling times. They are a short-sighted cash grab to please shareholders who have no interest in the long term future of the games industry.

    If all the publishers went bust tomorrow, the money men would just move back to seal clubbing or whatever industry happened to be giving the best returns that month.
    Edited by TheRealBadabing at 13/08/11 @ 12:33

  • Camilitus #48 10 months ago

    Left for dead 2 is still getting free content 18months + after release. Its basically an importation of left for dead 1 maps, but if valve decided to release left for dead 3 i would happily pay up with the expectation that they would import the l4d2 and l4d1 maps at some point. This allows them to charge again for a new(ish) product while not making the consumer feel that they are being forced to up date and loose the value of their previous purchases, or that one great game it split into two, or curtailed for financial reasons.. The free updates also give a warm and fuzzy feeling towards Vale, also free, though gamers should maybe consider charging for that.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #49 10 months ago

    I'm loving the fact that we've somehow reached a point in videogames journalism where writers are arguing with each other over in which manner gamers should be gouged for even more money. Well done everyone. Well done. Proud of you.

  • local_celebrity #50 10 months ago

    heY KOti cK!

    If ur REadING DIS...Lez JuZ gET 1 TINg STRAYT.

    I AINT NeVer PAYIn 4 No DLC.

  • 5h1nj1 #51 10 months ago

    Some important points are completely missed by the author.
    I have absolutely no problem with paying money for the game I like and want. I would even pay kinda bigger sums than usual today.
    But I certainly DON'T want to meet an NPC in game all of a sudden, who tells me that I should pay more, if I want a quest from him.
    Nor do I want to hunt for an item set in an RPG for months only to find out, that the neighbour's snotty little son bought the set right away with his father's credit card in an "amazingly" designed ingame shop and easily beats me in pvp now without any effort.
    I also don't want to NOT have a choice to play a single player game offline, without making accounts, installing unwanted additional software, registering on a web site and being permanently online, because the publisher thought, he could squeeze more money from me that way.
    You know, stuff like that. I could continue to list more, but you should have the idea now...

    I would also like to stress out, that I normally buy skins and other cosmetic additions in various ingame shops for real money. I like that stuff. That's the right way.

    edit: typo
    Edited by 5h1nj1 at 13/08/11 @ 13:43

  • arcam #52 10 months ago

    game prices have remained static despite inflation and skyrocketing development costs, so game makers are turning to the back end to make up the difference.

    The standard retail price that we paid for a AAA game in the previous generation was £29.99 - now it's £39.99. That's a rise of 33%. 33% is a very large rise in price.

    Why do people keep repeating the fact that game prices have not increased? We have an internet archive, it's not difficult to check.
    Edited by arcam at 13/08/11 @ 13:26

  • Darth_Flibble #53 10 months ago

    not a very good article, sounds like Oli had some publisher's hands on his shoulder while checking his prostate ;)

    Fine with how games are (pricing wise) but there is always some gamers, calling for other gamers to pay more (and they don't even work in the industry) just because the can spend £100 each month on games does not mean others can. They show what a **** they are by their comments. Reading some comments on various forums and they can barely argue their point falling back on "games give 50 hours of entertainment" just because fallout 3 did(he/she/it ignores not every game is like fallout 3 or NV - and don't mean broken after a patch after patch)

    edit: few typos
    Edited by Darth_Flibble at 14/08/11 @ 11:14

  • Gumersindo #54 10 months ago

    I play SP. I've never played MP and I don't want to. Do I have to pay for something I don't want?.

  • mkreku #55 10 months ago

    When I started gaming, I bought The Last Ninja for my Commodore 64 for 149 SEK. A few days ago I pre-ordered Dead Island for 449 SEK. Where does this myth that game prices have remained static come from? It's simply not true. In fact, I know of no other consumer goods that have increased more! Books are the same price (even cheaper!), DVD's are cheaper, CD's went up but are becoming cheaper now..

    You also have to remember that the gaming audience has increased by a factor in the hundreds. When there used to be a few hundred thousand who bought games, now every game is expected to seill in the millions or it is considered a bust.

  • kentmonkey #56 10 months ago

    I honestly don't think I've ever read such a poorly argued article on the industry. Not just on here, but anywhere. And I've even read Gamespot at times.

    The issues you've raised have lasted for years. The 'benefits' you've raised have existed for years. The costs have been there for years. In fact it can be cheaper to develop games now than it was three-four years ago. But if developers and publishers keep wanting to bolt on stuff that nobody wants, and they therefore can't recoup the money by charging an amount for the product that the industry can sustain, then that's their issue.

    The article was fine, but the conclusions you reached were more than a little WTF.

  • megalomaniacs4u #57 10 months ago

    Game prices have been a ripoff since they passed the 9.99 mark in the late 80s. There was some justification with cartridges but paying more than £24.99 is outrageous, I only preorder at that price & will wait until games get to £19.99 or less.

  • Gartt #58 10 months ago

    I didnt really see the point in the article tbh, there was barely any opinion in it.

  • Neil__ #59 10 months ago

    What you are suggesting is to take away any incentive to improve as we should all buy any old crap they produce and be grateful. If their finances don't work then they have made bad business decisions and should deal with the consequences just like everyone else selling a product or a service.

    Tell me, if a gaming company makes a huge profit on a game would you be asking them to refund customers some of that profit? No? Thought not.

    Judging by your expectations that customers should subsidise bad businesses I guess you must also be completely happy with the failing world economy as it was our duty to bail out defunct banks because we use their services.
    Edited by Neil__ at 13/08/11 @ 14:19

  • RodHull #60 10 months ago

    In the cartridge era I'd happily pay around £50 for SNES and N64 games, more for NTSC imports (£70 for Street Fighter 2 Turno). If you compare the cost of games to that of cinema tickets, we're doing very well. DVDs have of course come down in price, but Blu-Ray has taken its place in the premium stakes. Considering how much more costly games are these days I personally think we're doing rather well from a financial and gaming point of view.

  • uknortherner2000 #61 10 months ago

    DRM.
    Installation/activation limits.
    Always-connected SP gaming.
    EULAs that require the gamer to surrender their consumer rights the moment they pop the disc into the drive.
    DLC.
    Microtransactions.
    Day-one patches.
    Unfinished games.
    Bioware's ability to lock out gamers from their own games.

    I'd say we're already paying over the odds for very little in return.

  • ConnMacart #62 10 months ago

    "It's far less disposable than the games we used to play, and the hooks that assist such deep and long engagement " I guess the author has only been playing games for a few years. Games used to have a massive amount of playtime AND replayability. The amount of games that could captivate me long enough in the last decade can be counted on one hand compared to before that. Now it's play through a game in 5-6 hours and move on to the next. Developers want us to pay more? Well they should actually start pushing out games that captivate for a long time AND work as they should. The game industry is being run exactly like the music industry. Pump out as much crap as you can with as little effort as possible.

  • Jamiesan #63 10 months ago

    Look at how many recent Game of the Weeks have gone to Indie games (this week's costs £3.50). Price does not correlate with quality, fun, or the amount of time you will spend playing a game.

  • coomber #64 10 months ago

    Jamiesan, that's because there haven't been boxed releases every week so the indie games had no competition.

  • stryker1121 #65 10 months ago

    As much as I would like to see lower first-day price points, i.e. the new EDF game, the rental and pre-owned market will keep prices high. I pre-order maybe 3-4 titles a year. All else i buy pre-owned. But if more devs released games at $40 off the rip than the DLC nickle-diming would be easier to take, and a guy like me w/o a huge amount of disposable income would be willing to make the leap on "riskier" titles. I'd imagine millions of more gamers would follow suit. Instead you have games like Alan Wake which go for $60 and leave you w/ a cliffhnger ending, only to flesh out some of the story thru DLC that should have been part of the game proper.

  • Inmediasress #66 10 months ago

    @spacedelete
    Couldn't agree more and the gaming crash is probably on the doorstep.
    That's why companies make up these shitty ideas to milk money from people or they are so short sighted they don't see the impending blade above their heads and that's why they do it.
    The indsutry is killing itself the reason is that investors want instant profits I just don't get it what they want from the game indsutry because from the entertainment industry the gaming business is the most unstable from a profit point of view.
    They ruin gaming for us because they try to make this unstable industry that was far better when less money was swung around into something stable like I don't know making whashing machines with all these made up fees and overcharging.
    The problem with that is just like with movies that thorwign unlimited money at it doesn't gurantee success in fact the more money more risk.
    Anyway I don't really see a bright future for the games industry at least not for the big ones another economic crisis creeps up and bang overnight the industry could crumble and they sure as hell don't seem to care for it well I guess the investors jsut take there money elsewhere if it happens.

  • intpleeus #67 10 months ago

    I would like to see hard numbers on the profit margins of various videogame publishers. The industry is not only very competitive itself, but also competitive with other entertainment industries. Normally, profit margins are lower in highly competitive industries, and I do not expect videogames to be any different. The question, then, is whether premium content or paid subscription services change those profit margins significantly or just the particular revenue streams.

    Greed is never a good explanation of any price, because greed is a constant. We do not explain plane crashes by appealing to gravity, albeit necessary, because gravity is no different for planes that reach their destination safely. Gravity is a constant in these cases and, therefore, is not a good explanation of why one plane crashes when another doesn't. Likewise, greed is never a good way to explain why prices increase, because greediness is constant even when prices are falling.

    I do hope that more publishers choose to separate single- and multi-player components of their games. I rarely play multi-player, and would buy more games brand new if they were offered at a slightly lower prices without it. One solution would be to have only a multi-player demo on the retail version of the game. To download or unlock the remainder of the multi-player content and services, one would have to make an additional purchase. The total cost of single- and multi-player should not be significantly different than the full price of a videogame today, but this way publishers could target specific types of customer with more appropriate products. The overall result ought to be more profit for publishers and happier customers.

  • intpleeus #68 10 months ago

    Gamers want more for less, unsurprisingly. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Gamers don't like risking a lot of money on a new videogame. There would be so much less anxiety and regret if videogames just cost less, right? Then we wouldn't ever have to make trade-offs and risk making the wrong decision. And, remember, it's the publishers who are greedy! Gamers are never greedy, obviously.
    Edited by intpleeus at 13/08/11 @ 16:51

  • TheGuvernor #69 10 months ago

    Ridiculous article.
    I pay $50 for a new release.
    I play fps games - single player content gets shorter & shorter, while multi is either local host or server based.
    If it's old school server based then many clans & or individuals are covering those costs.
    If its local, I am.
    Either way the product I paid for was advertised as having multiplayer content included IN THE PRICE.
    Games are quite expensive enough - if anything they should come down in price.

    Major loss of respect for EG on this.

  • niteninja #70 10 months ago

    Best thing to do in this day and age is dont buy games at launch,wait a few weeks and they usually drop to 25 quid.
    Seen that happen loads of time this year.
    Also dont trade your games in sell them privately you get a much better return.
    This whole article is bullshit, games would sell lots more copys at an rrp of 30 pounds.
    The supermarkets understand this you will see cod mw3 and fifa12 for 25 quid at tescos.
    Edited by niteninja at 13/08/11 @ 16:45

  • intpleeus #71 10 months ago

    The way I see it, a lot of games are like platforms.

    Consoles are often sold below, or very close to, cost; the manufacturer is not going to make the bulk of their profit from the console itself. Instead, they make their profit from the games that are released on the platform. It seems to me that individual games are being sold closer to cost than ever before. Like with consoles, the idea is to get an installed base. The bulk of profit is then made through premium content or paid subscriptions.

    I would like to see, for example, a break down of how profitable Fallout 3 was Bethesda in terms of its original release and subsequent premium content. I suspect they made proportionally more profit from the premium content. Moreover, I suspect they had planned for this and were, therefore, able to keep the price of the original release lower than it would have otherwise been, i.e. they could tolerate lower profits on the original release because they expected to make up the difference with premium content. Total profit margins were probably not exceptionable for a highly successful videogame, but the addition of premium content changed the particular way the profit was made. Bethesda appear to treat their new games more like platforms than standalone products, and so their pricing structure appears more like that of a console manufacturer.

    This is what I think is going on.
    Edited by intpleeus at 13/08/11 @ 16:47

  • Collymilad #72 10 months ago

    My opinion is the prices are fine.

    In their current state I also have no problem with DLC or the Online Pass.

    But paying more? Not really up for that.

  • Paulie_P #73 10 months ago

    Is anybody else getting a bit sick of Eurogamer articles telling off gamers for reacting badly to the publishers in the industry raping them?

  • BillyBrush #74 10 months ago

    Don't really see the need for the article. Publishers can charge whatever they like, people can choose to buy it or not.

    That it costs a lot to make an EA sports game matters not to consumers, if the season ticket looks like bad value, which it does, then people aren't going to want it.

    If budgets are spiralling out of control to the point where games publishers are charging what consumers perceive to be too much, then they need to reign themselves in, or they might loose money...and that'll barely hold back progress at all given the people doing the gouging are rarely the ones looking to break new ground...just serving the largest demographics.

  • Oh-Bollox #75 10 months ago

    There's no versatility in the pricing.

    A game costs £10 million to make? RRP is £39.99. A game cost £5 million to make? RRP is £39.99. A game costs £25 million to make? The RRP is £39.99, for a reason I cannot work out. You can't just pick a single price point and sit on it and hope gamers will ignore other forms of entertainment. The market cannot sustain all these releases at the RRP, which is why there is instantly money knocked off and retailers jockeying for position, with games going for £36-37, and then why the games end up under £20 in a month or two.

    I could not afford to buy all the games I wanted at release, and I had a lot of disposable income before the recession. Now, I have even less income, and even less of that is disposable. I cannot pay more.

  • Ahskay #76 10 months ago

    That was a silly and biased article with no mentioning about how consumers really feel about this. And the mentioning and comparisement for Diablo 3 is way off. It's not an mmo.

  • Ryze #77 10 months ago

    I would be willing to pay more in DLC points than I'll pay in pounds for Ultimate MvC3. I'm not interested in having a second copy of a game I just bought, and only play occasionally, where I have to start again to earn achievements and the like.

    To not even OFFER it as DLC is just sad. I feel messed around, so instead of contributing to the used game market, I'm keeping my MvC3, and I'll only grab Ultimate when it's less than £10 in a couple of years or so. Don't piss your paying customers around, or we'll stop buying your products.

    As far as microtransactions etc - just give the big earners/spenders an OPTION to pay £40-£70 upfront and thereby bypass all of the DLC / microtransactions.

    F2P, DLC and microtransactions simply give us a means to lower the barrier to entry, and to get more people trying and spending money on a game.

    I KNOW that if every game cost as much as N64 and Neo Geo titles did, then I WOULDNT BUY many. Do that if you want, but expect to lose customers. Current technology allows us to offer BOTH pricing models, as each suits a different type of customer.

    I buy most games for under £20, but I don't do very much trading in. I much prefer new games to pre-owned, and I don't mind buying DLC as long as it's not rip-off content that's obviously been taken out of the main game in order to be sold back.

    The reason I don't buy £40 games any more, is because I don't believe I was getting my money's worth, due to difficulty spikes and the fact that I personally wasn't spending a lot of time on games between 2005-2009.

    Things are now changing, and there are a raft of games I want before Christmas. Just offer people with varying budgets, value for money.

  • Koozer #78 10 months ago

    I don't see the point of these purposfully hugely biased articles. Save them for blogs perhaps?

  • silversun #79 10 months ago

    All views expressed are my own personal views. This goes for all my posts really and do not reflect on anyone else reguardless if they are a business or individual. - please dont ask why i am typing this disclamer ? *sigh*

    I am not agaisn't game companies trying different ways of selling things. Again personal choice is down to the indivdual and hope that people understand that.

    I decided to try spend my money a bit wiser recently in games and realised exactly how much i spend on New games that i buy at retail and online , lets just say it is a large amount over a year period.

    Game prices are expensive - my own personal view. but i buy traditional retail games because i feel it will go support the people that make the games. however i sometimes worry this is not the case.
    A good reason i like steam is i know fair amount money will go to people that worked on the game that i buy.

    At end of day, all views from posts in past on dlc, drm and costing of products are only a viewpoint and i am glad i have a choice.


    Edited by silversun at 13/08/11 @ 20:29

  • siallen #80 10 months ago

    If the game is excellent like Mass Effect 2 and you get dlc for free i would have no problem paying up to £60 for a good game like that , Fifa 12 is looking good so will buy that and think £40 - £50 is fine for that aslong as i get a complete game with plenty of gaming hours i have no problem with current prices and will pay more !

  • FireMonkey #81 10 months ago

    I think the multi-player section of games should be separated from the single and sold as a stand-alone product. I hardly ever play on-line, so feel I am paying for a huge chunk of game that I never use and I know a lot of people feel the same about the single player parts of some games. If the multi / single player part of a game isn't worthy of a stand-alone release then the developers shouldn't waste their time and money on it.

    I'd hope that selling the 2 parts of the game as separate products the cost of each could be slightly less. They should also do a bundle at the same price we currently pay for the games. This will give us customers the choice of what to buy. Potentially reduce the cost of the game for us if we do not want the full package, make more money for the developers if people eventually buy the 2 parts, and give much better feedback to the devs as to whether they should continue with the products single /multi player aspects in future versions.

  • Salaminizer #82 10 months ago

    They're bigger, they last longer, they're more adaptive, more social and better supported. They have almost limitless potential.

    did I REALLY read this? I don't even know what to say.

  • Spekingur #83 10 months ago

    There is a reason why free-to-play models and the mobile gaming market are very successful. The level of entry is low (excluding the cost of the device), which is important today - it means that people are more inclined to try out said game through impulse rather than waiting and/or looking for reviews.

    Seeing prices of normal version PC games going up to 60 USD is madness. Not saying that the games in question aren't worth it but 60USD RRP being the norm is only a hint of what the future might hold if this continues.
    We, as gamers and customers, eventually control the future of the publishers putting those pricetags on their games - so telling us to 'shut up and pay' if we disagree on the pricing (or anything else) is bollocks...

  • super_monty #84 10 months ago

    The amount of games that these kind of sites have given excellent previews and sometimes even reviews, when they are shoddy, buggy piles of shite both on line and offline on release. And they want more, er no. My purchasing is about 1/8 of what it used to be due to poor quality, unfinished games, laggy online and DLC required to fulfill a story.

  • agparrot #85 9 months ago

    Actually, I was interested to read the article, and I'm glad that it counterpoints the article from last week. I really have no problem reading these opinion pieces - I see them as being from individual staff members and not 'The Opinion Of Eurogamer' or anything so dramatic.

    Certainly, I don't agree with many things in this week's offering, but I really hope you keep making and publishing them.

    As a games consumer, I think it is important to separate developers from publishers... the publishers certainly appear to be having no problem doing this.

    From the 'Pay up or shut up' argument though, I don't think that the latter - 'shutting up' and not buying games, is a particularly realistic option for the industry.

  • Captain_Jono #86 9 months ago

    A lot of Eurogamers seem to have a problem with prices, with microtransations, with paying any money at all really. I understand. Times are hard, and games are disposable entertainment after all!

    But, what you’ve got to understand is that the games industry is founded on a fundamentally unbalanced business model. They are paying offices full of programmers, artists, designers, HR bods, executives and tea ladies to work for two to three years on the understanding that whatever project they’re making is going to make money at the end. They’re essentially playing roulette up putting a huge pile of cash on Red, and hoping for the best!
    The way I see it, studios can do one of three things to rebalance the business model.

    One: up the price of games to about £70.00.
    Two: Keep prices as they are and lower development costs by scaling back on graphical and technical fidelity.
    Three: attempt to make money from alternative sources; I.E. microtransactions, DLC, etc.

    Well, Gamers have violently reacted against the first choice. Critics have savaged games that try number two. There’s really only the Third Way left.

  • WizenWolfBain #87 9 months ago

    What a load of crap. There's still a lot of money to be made in the games industry, without completely raping the user base for every single penny. Just look at games like Call of Duty, Assassins Creed and Halo 3/ODST. All were released at full price, yet the games barely deserve to be called sequels, because they're basically yearly re-released skins of the same game! The developers are releasing sequels that would better be described as DLC. I can't see the justification to raise prices, or introduce a monthly fee when lazy companies are pumping out a yearly "sequel" that people are lapping up at full price.

    I would happily pay a subscription fee for an MMO, because I can see that there are continuous costs, server maintenance, patches and a large team that have to support the game 24/7. But as for the majority of AAA titles - I think they get quite enough money as it is.

    It's really starting to suck being a console gamer. You are practically blackmailed into pre-ordering the game to get decent content that should be for everyone. You're bombarded with "special editions", "legendary editions", "collectors editions" and other packs that are basically the same game packaged in fancy sparkly boxes with a few pictures and some more "EXCLUSIVE DLC" for double the price. Now the next evolution of this money squeezing process is to introduce things like CoD Elite, that start out as harmless little "non essential extras", but soon become absolutely 100% necessary if you actually want to enjoy the game you have ALREADY PURCHASED.

    I'm always reminded of a game called Rainbow Six: Black Arrow. It was essentially a sequel to Rainbow Six 3, but had a new campaign, completely new multiplayer, new guns, new squad matches, online rankings and all the bells and whistles... And guess what? It sold for £19.99 brand new on release in virtually every shop. AND IT WAS A FUCKING EPIC GAME.

    God I miss those times.
    Edited by WizenWolfBain at 13/08/11 @ 22:32

  • cheekyxboxgamer #88 9 months ago

    What game developers think is that we buy games secondhand just to save money lol its not. Take the new bioshock coming in 2012 i will buy that new the second its out - i will not wait so many months after release to get it seconhand when its dropped in price by a decent amont. Surley they must realise that when we buy a game seconhand it will either be becouse we like it to a degree but would never pay for it new or its a series of a game so you give the first one a try love it and guess what you then buy the sequel ect brand new. Is it fair that we buy a game new that turns out to be just ok and overhyped or complete shit. Is it fair that we buy a game new that didnt cost them no where near to a game that is a tripleA title. Is 40 squids fair YES - is 40 squids for every new game fair - i think not. Plus there are more gamers than ever and altough DLC either multiplayer maps or add ons cost to make they also make profit from them so to me they sell more copys of games thses days than ever before plus make money on many dlc, I know so games cost millions and takes thousands of ppl and up to 2 to 5 years to make so yes there should be a way of them not losing out on seconhand games. Maybe cheaper new games if its not a triple a game

  • Murton #89 9 months ago

    Oli, if you truly believe that games are getting longer then you need to play more games. With the exception of open world/sandboxes and RTS games the single player experience has been diminished massively in terms of both longevity and replayability.

    As for pricing, I'm fine with retail prices as competition keeps the stores on equal footing and for those games that I don't get on release I know that I'll be able to some sort of reduction from at least one of the retailers before too long, the worrying pricing trend is that which we are seeing in DLC and digital distribution where the publisher has a more direct control over their pricing. Take Failout New Vegas, it was being sold for less than 20 before its first DLC came out, a DLC which Bethesda claims is worth 8 quid. By the time the final DLC is released the total DLC will cost more than double the retail price of the game and its not the only game that meets that criteria, with that in mind I can't really agree with the notion that retail games are overpriced, because if they are then how do we describe digital prices?

  • silversun #90 9 months ago

    Im no expert on what it all costs so not sure if its roulette or not.
    The movie industry probley operates on similar budgets but is very different, is there things to learn from there? or am i barking up wrong tree here?

  • jonbwfc #91 9 months ago

    It's a rubbish argument. There are any number of industries that work on long timescales. If you're building an office building, you don't have people paying you rent when you start. if you're researching and testing a drug, you don't have millions of people paying for it until it's been tested and approved.

    The only way you're not going to know what you need to do to make a profit is if you have absolutely no idea how many copies your game is going to sell when you're making it. And if your business plan is THAT shoddy, you deserve to go out of business. It really does sound like the games industry has utterly clueless management who are expecting the customers to bail out their incompetence by paying way over the odds for the product they're making over it's lifespan.

    Do the sums, set your budgets, make what you can sell, not what you want to make. Every other industry on earth has to live by those rules. And if the games industry doesn't want to, it can bite me.

    Jon
    Edited by jonbwfc at 13/08/11 @ 23:15

  • FortysixterUK #92 9 months ago

    This article would appear to be Eurogamer in silly mode again. Bit of backwards step journalistically, as their reviews over the past few years have got better, as has the whole site, ( a lot less EDGE magazine like, the usual forum of cunts and stuck up twats imho) and a lot more human. A poorly thought out and inconsistent editorial like this smacks of a rushed article to have something published over the weekend.

    On the actual subject of the article, games are too expensive , but if the right to play single player , without having to be constantly online, with no auction houses or account creation meant that I have to pay £29.99-£39.99 for a game I could almost ( ALMOST) live with it. As it is, more and more requirements are made of the buyer.
    I would rather have my game save on my hard drive, not a server.
    I would rather be able to play without a 'net connection if I choose.

    The games that are coming out that don't allow me to do either of the above will simply not get my custom.
    I'm playing WOW less and less, no other online games that want to charge me for using them are even on my radar.
    At the end of the day, if it comes down to it, the people who want to play single player will simply wait for a hacked version of a game to be released. Then no-one makes any cash. This would seem to be a strong argument in favour of hacking hardware and software.

    I love video games, and would hate to see the industry fail , but I'm not going to be ripped off much further than buying a game on release ( I consider most release prices to be a rip off ). If I then don't actually own the game, or the characters I play in the game, then I don't want to game.

    The first of this new generation of "triple A rental" titles appears to be Diablo 3. I'm not buying in, I'll opt for Torchlight instead.

  • metalangel #93 9 months ago

    Endless enjoyment for us means endless work for the developers. An online game is not a discrete work of art that can be polished and perfected; work on it is never done. It requires constant maintenance, rebalancing and refreshment with new content, over and above the need for customer service and technical support.

    Really!? Do they dare even tweak a CoD after it's released, lest offend the fans? Do those map packs (which may well contain a significant proportion of rehashed content, albeit "updated";) really justify a price tag of ONE THIRD the original purchase price?

    You also cannot walk away from the fact that gamers pay a significant sum for Xbox Live Gold, not to mention their own net access.

    Something has to drop in price. I don't want to pay full retail price for something like SW:ToR, with an additional expected fee only to find it's no good and the commitment expected of me is now moot because the game (or, as is the tradition with MMOs and EA games) the servers are shit.

  • KopparbergDave #94 9 months ago

    Fair enough games costs are much higher these days and with inflation we're lucky prices have stayed the same or actually less than they used to be... BUT you're forgetting how much bigger the game market is these days surely. When it seems that half of all homes now have a games console, the average person, not just a pretty narrow clique of gamers, are all purchasing games, then that argument falls down a bit.


    We're also buying far more games these days i think. I remember when I'd maybe get 5 games a year, one for my birthday, one for Christmas and pocket money saved up for the rest. We've grown up into adults with far more disposable income, and our kids get much more than our generation ever got.. so yeah, I think the prices are fair, a small monthly fee for online access is fine... What I am seeing though is much smaller games, and for those who love online multiplayer it's great since that's what 90% of your time is spent playing many games next to the single player component. I for one don't have the time and inclination to duke it out for hours at a time online, sadly, those days are behind me, so for me the value of many games still feels rather steep. One reason I love the more casual iPhone style games which have cropped up lately since they offer more value for money and often outdo what would have been a £30 Gameboy purchase 5 years ago... for about £2.

  • OliverH #95 9 months ago

    @Captain Jono

    Tell you something. The pharmaceutical companies live through a whole decade of roulette, and not just with a bunch of programmers, but with a whole bunch of PhD-level scientists who all want a return on the investment they put into their education. They cook up a gazillion of potential candidates for a new drug all in the hope that ten years down, one of them will prove to be effective and safe. If not, you can see whole companies vaporize overnight and even giants like Pfizer lose a third of their stock market value with a single message of "Drug candidate XYZ, expected to become the next blockbuster drug, has failed in stage III clinical trials".

    Sorry to say, what you state here is nothing exceptional at all. It's the risk any company takes which brings a new product onto the market. And given how crappily the ground pounders are paid in a lot of studies, it isn't even that huge a financial risk...the amount of cash you consider a huge amount is peanuts compared to what other industries have to organize beforehand.

    Oh, for that matter, I'd have no problem paying 70 bucks for a game - if the quality assurance has been done and if I'm convinced the game offers me something that's worth that much money.

  • secombe #96 9 months ago

    My last two release day 'full price' purchases were F1 2010 and Test Drive Unlimited 2, those two games alone have put me off buying new games ever again. Both involved delving into 'community' websites to discover how to work around game breaking bugs. With TDU2 I even paid for DLC that was completely unusable for the entire time I hung onto the game before giving up.

    In town today I impulsively decided I wanted a tennis game, Virtua Tennis 4 = £30, Virtua Tennis 2009 = £7. I went with 2009, mainly because it was £23 cheaper, but also safe in the knowledge that it had probably been patched and worked properly (a patch did indeed download when booting it up)

    I'm a largely single-player gamer, I feel like I've been abandoned by mainstream developers...99% of my gaming is now iPad and XBLA. Me and the missus used to spend a lot of time playing games at the same time on the same TV...these days that's a rare novelty rather than the norm.

  • mingster #97 9 months ago

    Games are too expensive.
    Thats why the 3DS is struggling the games cost too much.
    I always wait till a game is reduced or on sale on steam or bargain bin priced.
    I have no probem paying up to £1.99 for an IOS game its a good fair price.
    Steam sales when i bought Batman for £3.99 thats a decent price.
    £30 - £40 for a console game + extras for DLC umm no thanks.
    The multiplayer and single-player should be split out from games with the option to buy multiplayer if you want it.
    If you never use it why pay for it? Ok £10 extra to play multiplayer to pay for servers etc.. fine if you want to use it.
    £10 less on the game price if you just use single player only,

  • mingster #98 9 months ago

    @KopparbergDave. I feel exactly the same as you. To the letter.

  • Master09 #99 9 months ago

    Hello Oli Welsh I moved to Australia a few years back and hope you read this

    1 AUD = 1 USD exchange rate yet these are some game prices for you

    Australia EA Origin Store

    BF3 - AU80
    Dragon Age 2 - AU80
    Crysis 2 - AU80

    Steam Australia

    MW2 - US89
    Skyrim - US89
    Duke Nukem - US89

    Add another AU/US$10 to AU/US$20 for the special editions

    We have always been told we pay more here because of shipping costs for games, taxes etc as the reason but that was for hard copies. So that shouldn't apply because these are digital digital downloads, no box , no physical manual etc yet we are still expected to pay way more than USA.

    Credit to publishers like Ubisoft, CAPCOM, Valve who charge us the same $50 price as USA and don't price gouge, but they are the minority. I want to support the game industry but at the same time wont support clear rip off prices.

    Master09

  • Schmoke-n-a-pancake #100 9 months ago

    Gamers have a budget, simple as. Once it's gone, it's gone. Some people simply can't pay more.

    That's not to say that gaming has to be cheap. Expensive hobbies exist. I drop far more on photography and football than I do on gaming.

    But the question is, can this industry sustain itself as a more expensive hobby that it already is? I seriously doubt it. The value proposition simply won't be there for the mass market.

  • mikeleddy83 #101 9 months ago

    Do gaming websites get games for free?

    Pay up or shut up!!

  • Laminator #102 9 months ago

    I can only speak for myself but when companies start using sneaky tactics to try and charge more for something or indeed charge for something that was free it just smacks of greed. Game development costs might be going up but the gaming population has also grown massively over the years.

    I'm much less likely to buy a game that comes semi-complete with 15 DLC packs to buy than I am to buy a game that comes with only 1 full price complete edition. Sorry but that marketing strategy won't work if it actually starts driving people away from buying games. I see so many people hesitant to buy games because they want the complete package so they are waiting until the game of the year edition (game + all dlc) comes out instead of buying right away at full price. Sounds like shooting yourself in the foot to me.

    A good example is EA. EA is a company I do no trust in the slightest, for obvious reasons given their long history of mistakes. Now I must install their online store software to play BF3. Except I won't be buying BF3 anymore because I don't want to install EA's online store software. I don't know if I am alone but they lost my money at least right there.

    Another good example is MMO item stores or Mass Effect helmets... hell even FPS map packs... the items they sell are extortionately overpriced. Forgive me for not being born yesterday but I will not be ripped off by paying for a virtual item that costs peanuts for the developer to make. I actually take into account the value for money of what I am buying before coughing up.

    Think of it this way if £30 or £40 nets you the full content of a full priced game how then can they possibly justify charging HALF that for a SINGLE MOUNT in a MMO. I see people in WoW flying round on the new winged guardian mount and just laugh hard at how bad they got ripped off. Except it's not really funny it's sad how dumb some people are.
    Edited by Laminator at 14/08/11 @ 04:06

  • Spekingur #103 9 months ago

    Games today are getting advanced yes (more graphical fidelity, better AI) - this happens at the same time as other technology gets advanced. More advanced games though do not mean that they are better games. It should also be pointed out that research that has been done, for example, in the graphical and AI departments are often not connected to any games.

    The first Fallout games, Baldur's Gate games, the XCOM games, Ascendancy and quite a few other older games have provided many gamers with countless hours of playtime through almost endlessly replayable universes. In reality, there aren't many games that do this today.
    Edited by Spekingur at 14/08/11 @ 04:32

  • Corben_Dallas #104 9 months ago

    EG can someone lock Limeek's a/c ffs?

    Costs are rising yada yada wow really? So the recession that were going thru appently doesnt( or will not) affect the games industry? IMO dlc pays for the online game, its revenue publishers were not even getting up until a few years ago.

    Sick of shit lag games on COD MW2, Activision dont even pay for servers to host the games anymore, the games are hosted on the best net connection in the lobby, and this is costing u more money? ... think not.

    Also was in a gaming centre, yesterday and their was few guys happily playing away with 'lag mode on' (every surface in game refelctive and ground was a mercury water effect, desinged to cause everyone else's game to lag cause the processor on his console was overworked drawing all this extra detail, and this was playing on XBL using the game online. :(

    why wasnt he kicked as soon as the online code saw he was laggin out everyone else in the game cause the (STANDARD CONSOLE) processor was being overworked?. Activision couldnt give a fuck about maintaining a fair, equal and moderated online game for everyone.

    They dont want to ban players running hacks, the most important thing is that every1 pays and buys their over priced DLC.

    Also very annoyed with CM, normally buy the ColinMcRae/ Dirt games on release new, but didnt until the price dropped because of their stupid/greedy online pass thing, and now in game the include in the event menus, buy these tracks so u can complete the section. FUCK OFF CM, yur really trying to push yur titles into 'Never buy on release' games.
    Edited by Corben_Dallas at 14/08/11 @ 12:13

  • freethinker101 #105 9 months ago

    "Is it to much to ask?" Well if your playing a pay to play model, then no. I buy boxed games. I pay my money and I want a coplete experience. I don't play on-line and I would prefer to see games having a robust single player, or split screen co-op so I can enjoy games with my friends in the same room. I would also like to be rewarded for completing the game, and there fore compelled to play again, and again and agian. This means my games won't get re-sold on ebay or traded in. Although that is me and what I would like, and there are some games that do that although nothing comes close to the ammount of replay value I had on Resident evil 4.

  • Machetazo #106 9 months ago

    @63: Thanks for pointing out the true tough-to-swallow cost of modern gaming. I'm sure to add it, and the time commitment on to whatever the box price may be before buying. There is an incredible amount wrong with the current state of gaming. That you can't trust the box price is a key one I would select to be addressed.
    Games didn't keep up with their increase in popularity.

    Whilst games audience was very limited, a price of £60 could be understandable. Those games were made for everyone. Now, the audience is many magnitude orders over what it was, promotion is far beyond that, SO, the audience is larger, the amount of copies sold greater - it's inarguable - and STILL the suggestion that games are too cheap?
    The market tells a different reality. Listen to that, not the dreamweaving publishers. Many games are too expensive. They aren't seen to offer sufficient value so they DON'T SELL! The result is less, there are closures. It's a lose-lose.

    The idea that games should be bought simply because they're released is awful. The games didn't sell, so the publisher finds it has to 'monetise' all the more the games that did. Ever notice how these "passes" only ever showed up on the most anticipated/publicised games? All the time stripping perceived value from those successful brands - in essence, frittering away respect-bucks in exchange of the chance of space-bucks.
    They're seeking to segment and prune back anything they possibly can, to the point of near-parody, where EA realise people appreciate trying titles before they're released - so it takes the opportunity to lock that functionality behind yet another 'pass'.
    At this point, if they could stick a code in front of access for their kids to stroke the family pet, they probably would!
    Edited by Machetazo at 14/08/11 @ 14:01

  • TheRealBadabing #107 9 months ago

    It's pretty obvious that there is an overwhelming majority of gamers here that are dead set against the way the industry is headed. Publishers need to stop dismissing comments like those seen here or they will become the architects of their own demise.

    I can't think of any other industry so intent on pushing away its loyal customers.

  • PixelPirate #108 9 months ago

    This article has missed the point completely.

    If you decide to make a multiplayer game, then*you* have chosen to take on the cost associated with that. Not the consumer, don't push your costs on to them and say its their fault, it isnt.

    And the right to sell on games is part of the free economy we live in, once you sold it you gave up the right to keep making money from it.

    Every business that has pushed its problems on to the consumer has failed, expect the passes to go the same way.

  • MrBelmont #109 9 months ago

    I remember when my hobby was fun and articles such as this didn't exist.

  • JadedSoul #110 9 months ago

    Post deleted at 08:10:55 26-04-2012

  • Schmoke-n-a-pancake #111 9 months ago

    @jadedsoul

    I feel your pain. In 25 years of being a gamer I have never at any point felt as uninspired by what I see on the shop shelves as I do now. I think I've only bought three games this year. In 2007 I bought around 30.

  • jamesi #112 9 months ago

    yeah shut and pay people dosent matter if youve lost your job, had hours cut etc keep paying for yearly updates with no real differences short gameplay etc dont worry about value for money pay 40 quid for a game on demand thats 15 quid in the shops!!

  • TILT #113 9 months ago

    I don't think the cover price should be bumped up. That's just forcing single-player fans to subsidise the multiplayer crowd.
    Word. I've never played anything else than MMOs online. It even worries me that more and more development time seems to be spent on multiplayer. Many multiplayer fans seem not to be interested in singleplayer, maybe they should just release single- and multiplayer as two separate versions/games?

  • japy85 #114 9 months ago

    Had to register just to comment on this rather shocking article. Put up or shut up. I suggest the author of this article should do the latter. You are, im sorry to say, talking utter rubbish. You should have stayed in bed or went for a jog rather than write this rather offensive article. You want people to pay more than they already do in these harsh finacial times? Tosh my boy, nothing but utter tosh. Perhaps next time you decide to try and lecture your readers with complete drivel, you should switch that big muscle that sits above your shoulders and think about the nonsense that comes out onto the page. I suppose its ok for you. Working for this website. I doubt you fork out your hard earned cash much or are you one of those complete mugs that enjoys major international companies bending you over and giving you a good seeing to for sub standard services and add ons.

    Why not suggest that rather than wasting their money on 500+ shocking titles a year(EA fo example). They maybe scale back to release one our two genuine cutting edge, enjoyable gaming experiences. You 42 carrat mug!!!!!

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #115 9 months ago

    I don't care how much effort or money goes into it. Everything should be given to me for totally free because I am a completely entitled manchild. Developers should be willing to bend over backwards and develop tons of content and release it for free without any sort of financial compensation. Who cares if it takes weeks to include anything due to the sheer effort of modern development. Cliffy B used to make maps in a day in old UT editors why can't people do that now and give it to me for free. BOOTSTRAPS YOU LAZY DEVELOPERS. BOOTSTRAPS.

  • TheRealBadabing #116 9 months ago

    Ironic_War_Criminal, I'm pretty sure nobody here asked you to do any of that.

    Can't seem to find any customer-driven campaigns to force developers to make day one DLC, or retailer-exclusive content, or crappy DRM, or real money auction houses, or online passes, or "season passes", or "elite passes", or any of the other shit that we are expected to swallow these days.

    Nope, I'm pretty sure it was publishers doing the entitled manchild dance while forcing all this upon us. If you are a dev, maybe you should be a little more suspicious of the suits when they try to tell you what your customers are demanding.

  • metalangel #117 9 months ago

    @TheRealBadabing: Right on. They need to ask why I, a gamer for the best part of three decades, who now has more disposable income than ever, who can afford to buy on a whim what they only dreamed of as a kid... doesn't want to. It's not because I don't like games any more.

    @MrBelmont: It used to be "the SNES can display more colours at once and does Mode 7, but its processor speed is half that of the Genesis so it's more susceptible to slowdown."

  • bf #118 9 months ago

    There we have it, "Educating players". This is one of those "if you don't agree with me you haven't understood what I've said" arguments isn't it. Yes I have and I strongly disagree with you.

  • Wizard83 #119 9 months ago

    we are already paying for the MP part of games becasue the SP part of some games are getting worse and worse!

    Are you telling me the SP campaign in COD is worth £45??!! Clearly the cost of MP is being included in the box price.
    Splinter Cell SP quality went rapidly down hill with the introduction of MP.
    Assassins Creed Brotherhood was mostly a re-skin of AC2 so reduced production costs and a less then a year turnaround means a cheaper game right? wrong - it has MP now

    the list could go on and on!

  • geeza2020 #120 9 months ago

    Shocking article, disagree entirely. If your customers dont see the value in the games you're selling, theres something wrong with your company, or what you're selling or how you're selling it - its never the customers fault. This is business 101, surely? The greed and audacity of this industry continues to amaze me almost as much as the idiocy of the people leaping to defend such horrendous business practices.
    Edited by geeza2020 at 15/08/11 @ 12:21

  • Gecks #121 9 months ago

    @TheNonk
    "Gamers pump about as much into the gaming industry as football fans do into the premiership - 2008/9 was 2bn for the premiership and 1.7bn for the UK gaming industry. I don't see star coders being payed 40k a week or huge stadiums being built for us to enjoy our hobby in. It would seem that the gaming industry is pocketing quite enough, thank you very much."

    that's a weird comparison; there's 25 highly-paid players in each premier league squad, and 100s of people involved in a games development, all along a much narrower salary-metric.

    both the gaming and football industries are not turning a profit at the moment (on the whole) - both need to change their game, although i wouldn't say that the games industries current trend 'stealth taxation' is the way forward. personally, i think that games are too high-budget, and we need to get to a single-format model so that each game reaches the widest-possible audience. i think everything else is just delaying the inevitable, as it's clear the industry can't sustain the next generation's development cost leap.

  • kwarive #122 9 months ago

    "John reasoned that we don't pay enough up front: game prices have remained static despite inflation and skyrocketing development costs, so game makers are turning to the back end to make up the difference. But I think he's only half right."

    What a pile of crap. The market has been expanding massively so game companies make bucketloads of money from successful titles now because they sell many many more units. Thats High School economics lads. Which you have conveniently left out of the equation in your shameless pimping of racketeering monopolistic practices to maximise profits at any cost by publishers. I hope you're looking forward to your non-executive directorships at Activision et al.

    That was a joke, haha, fat chance.

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #123 9 months ago

    So I will try to quickly get to the point. I feel that the vast majority of games are not worth £40, and, so it seems, neither do a lot of people. AAA video games during this generation have generally become derivative, soulless, technically-obsessed, risk-shy and artistically bankrupt; created in cynical environments by board meetings looking at graphs and market research rather than by visionaries, while the games themselves are created by studios which are bordering on sweatshop practices that like to exploit their workforce through a toxic mixture of fear and preying on youthful passion creating a Peter Pan industry which refuses to mature. And it shows in the products that litter the shelves; immature, mechanical, boring, passionless shit geared almost exclusively to the same moronic dude-bro audience where regardless of the costs involved are barely worth a tenner in value let alone £40.

    Yet this is what the gamers demanded. More and bigger. More and bigger. To the point where any small failure and pop, there goes another studio and 200 jobs. So studios are afraid of taking risks because despite the demands for originality. No one bought the imaginative wonder game and instead settled for mass market swill. (See the so called hardcore gamers proclaiming that originality is going to save the industry and then ignoring hidden flawed and original gems like Split/Second and Alpha Protocol and buying GTA on a horse instead last year). And then the so called hardcore get pissed because thanks to them not buying the risky stuff, publishers put DLC and online passes on the swill to protect their revenue and make up for the losses on the risky propositions.

    And when the industry says, "we don't want to take a bigger evolutionary step just yet. It will kill us" as with the wii-u. Gamers flip out histerically and demand bigger consoles and bigger games because it's not satisfying their materialistic erection to have the biggest and hardest console even if it means driving more developers into the ground and making publishers even less risk averse.

    Gamers caused this and they are too stuck in their own hubris and masturbatory fantasies to ever admit it so they will blame everyone but themselves for killing the industry.

  • TheRealBadabing #124 9 months ago

    The fact that games like Alpha Protocol got any sales at all is testament to the fact that the hardcore audience exists and is willing to take a risk on new IPs. Unfortunately, hardcore is by definition a small portion of the market and a title targeting that niche will never provide the returns expected of a summer blockbuster like Red Dead. As has been stated many times here, development budgets need to reflect realistically estimated sales, not some coke-fuelled promise dreamt up by a marketing cuntwad.

    Those two games are actually a good example of how the market is fucked up. RDR looked amazing, it was developed by one of the most recognisable names in the industry, it had a huge budget, it had TV ads, a massive marketing spend, almost unanimous critical acclaim, a multiplayer mode and the lure of the wild west. AP had a comedy crouch-walk animation. Both games retailed at £40 and amazingly one didn't do very well.

    If you are kicking off a new IP, don't expect it to be worrying any of the big names any time soon. That would be ridiculous and yet wannabees like Homefront appear all the time, immediately announcing they expect to be taken seriously as contenders, demanding their cut of the online pass cake and convincing themselves their product deserves a full price release. That is why so many new IPs fail and why studios close so frequently. It's not customers that have unrealistic expectations, it's publishers.

    Those of us that regard ourselves as "oldshool" (or just old) and enjoy originality might not be as big a market but we also don't have as many demands. Unfortunately for the money men, one of our few demands is to be treated with some respect.

    Off topic but Ironic_War_Criminal, if you are a dev, you really seem to hate your customers. That can't be healthy considering the hours you no doubt put in.

  • JadedSoul #125 9 months ago

    Post deleted at 08:10:55 26-04-2012

  • TheDarkFurie #126 9 months ago

    Aretak - Apparently all games from previous generations were little more than glorified 99p iPhone software, if this article is to be believed. There were certainly no titles in any previous generation that could "sustain a player for hundreds of hours of entertainment, to the exclusion of all other gaming" after all.

    I believe the writer was talking more about those that have such long lifespans due to their online components in this case, and the fact that such an online component will cost them money to keep up and running. This is the first real console generation where the onus was on the developer to sort out the servers (not counting the little games with servers that could just about handle a small asthmatic kitten last generation) for millions of people rather than having them sort their own servers out or having a small one for those few fans dedicated enough to go online and play their games as has been the case in previous generations.

  • OliverH #127 9 months ago

    @Ironic_War_Criminal
    "The customer is to blame, he's just too stupid to realize it" never was particularly healthy for any kind of industry.

  • Psihomodo #128 9 months ago

    I can not disagree more with the last few paragraphs; they are not longer, not bigger, not more supported, not more adaptive but less, way easier and less meaningful etc. Except you are talking of console games that led to this situation.

    And to be completely clear, this 'online costs' debacle is not by nature itself, but by big publishers - after buying and desecrating teams - took out server functionality that worked so they could make money on selling them by themselves, and now are whining that this costs money.

    And you gobble it like its icecream :p