Only epics should cost 40 quid - Charles Cecil

By Tom Bramwell Published 24 May, 2007

Stuff like Gears. Not Katamari.

Revolution Software's Charles Cecil reckons games should move away from the one-size-fits-all approach because it's getting in the way of sales.

"Gears of Wars was clearly a blockbuster, people are happy to pay GBP 40 for that and feel it's good value," he told our sister site GamesIndustry.biz in an interview published today.

"But then we have all these smaller games like Katamari Damacy that get very well reviewed and perceived very fondly by people within the industry, but don't sell to a wider audience. My view on that is you can only sell something for GBP 40 if it's truly epic."

"We've got to find different models where we have the epic games on one side and the more 'indie' games on the other," he added.

Cecil says he's currently working on projects based on Revolution's existing IP - the company owns Broken Sword and Beneath A Steel Sky IP - but isn't prepared to talk about details or potential sales models yet.

Episodic might be off the table though, because while he's "really interested" in how Telltale Games does with Sam & Max, "the jury is still out" as far as his own efforts are concerned.

For more Cecil-related Cecilling, read the full Charles Cecil interview on GamesIndustry.biz.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (68) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • trevd72 #1 5 years ago

    amen

  • Steroyd #2 5 years ago

    Looks at upcoming Sony's flexible PSN/Retail game strategy.

    Was it wrong for me to assume Katamari would be a PSN/XBLA title. :/

  • agparrot #3 5 years ago

    Is this the same Revolution that owns copyright on a load of the stories from the 2000AD comics?

    I have been in what seems like eternal anticipation of a Button Man game, or Zenith maybe, or Strontium Dogs.

    I suppose we got Rogue Trooper, but... meh.

  • DanWhitehead #4 5 years ago

    I've had more hours of gameplay out of Katamari than I got out of Gears of War, so I think it's a deeply flawed argument.

    Some games, by their nature, are just more limited in their appeal. Most of the audience that made Gears of War a huge success probably wouldn't buy Katamari even if it was a quarter of the price, so claiming that games that aren't "epic" (whatever that means - Gears can be finished in a day) should sell for less would simply ensure that they'd sell roughly the same amount, but make even less money. Therefore, less non-blockbuster games would be made.

    I could understand such talk coming from one of the big action game developers, but that hardly sounds like an ideal scenario for a company like Revolution.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 10:02

  • asphaltcowboy #5 5 years ago

    yep, sounds like a good idea to me!

  • XdarXideX #6 5 years ago

    I think that's down to personal opinions... I certainly don't think Gears was at all "epic". It was nice, yes, but very short lived and over hyped and I'm damn certain that Katamari takes a hell of a lot longer to complete than Gears of War - besides they're completely different games. Katamari wasn't as well received because people are lazy or too stupid to try new things because they can't see past the "kiddy graphics". Look at LocoRoco. It got amazing reviews and happens to be an excellent game but did it sell well? The problem does not lie in the pricing of games but the awareness of the consumers.

  • nickthegun #7 5 years ago

    True enough. Sadly, there have been a few games ive missed out on that, despite reviewing well I missed out on because 'full price' seems a bit much for a puzzle game.

    Take Crush, reviews today, for example. Good reviews, but I will probably only pick it up when its 10-15 quid from play asia.

  • Killerbee #8 5 years ago

    Cheaper games ftw!

    Actually, he does make a good point - there's no way something like Katamari is going to be perceived to be worth the same as something like Final Fantasy XII and publishers should have variable pricing strategies to help promote those quirky puzzlers that might not ordinarily get to the top of the charts (Mercury Meltdown Revolution should take note, but I believe it's a full £39.99?).

    A new Beneath a Steel Sky game would be cool. I remember getting that on my Amiga on 14 floppy disks! It took me about 2 hours just to install the thing, but it was well worth it.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 10:04

  • DanWhitehead #9 5 years ago

    Is this the same Revolution that owns copyright on a load of the stories from the 2000AD comics?

    You're thinking of Rebellion, which actually owns 2000AD, and developed the Dredd vs Death game and Rogue Trooper. Beneath A Steel Sky did feature a promotional comic and in-game art by Dave "Watchmen" Gibbons though.

  • Wayne #10 5 years ago

    I can't help buy agree with him.

    But on the other hand, other media are the same. I mean, recently I went to see Zodiac in the cinema which was two and a half hours long. I'd have paid the exact same price to see an animated feature that lasts 80 minutes.

    But yeah, I do agree with his point. Why should a game like Twilight Princess that gave me 54 hours of pleasure be the same price as the likes of a Prince Of Persia game that lasts 10.

    Then again, what factor should influence the cost of a game? If longer games can be sold at a higher price this will encourage developers to bulk out a game with unnecessary boring parts.

  • NoQuarter #11 5 years ago

    Maybe he means games developed by Epic should be 40 quid, all others only deserve to be 30?

  • BadBoyBonner #12 5 years ago

    Think any publisher will always be right up against it, trying to sell a puzzle game to the masses at a top drawer price. Think it has as much to do with general perception of puzzles as much as anything to do with the game industry. Must also admit I am pretty much in the same camp - and do think things like Live should be explored for this with more than the odd converted Flash PopCap game etc.

    Now if they Called it - Katamari Brain Training : Roll your brain to sucess.
    I perdict that sales would almost double or even triple.

  • SBfistfun #13 5 years ago

    Stupid name, stupid man

  • dirigiblebill #14 5 years ago

    Cecil's got his terms confuzzled, I'd say. By 'epic' I understand either many, many gameplay hours or a grand vision/narrative, whereas he seems to mean 'very accessible', 'mainstream' etc, as against 'small', by which he means 'indie' or 'niche'. Ico is an 'epic' game by my lights, but a 'small' game by his.

  • Wayne #15 5 years ago

    I think the price of a game should directly reflect the costs incurred in developing it.

  • RobertFoster #16 5 years ago

    Cecil says he's currently working on projects based on Revolution's existing IP - the company owns Broken Sword and Beneath A Steel Sky IP - but isn't prepared to talk about details or potential sales models yet.

    Apparently, it's a Broken Sword Movie...

  • menage #17 5 years ago

    He, a clever remark. 50-60 euro's for Wartech or EDF is insane. Bound to be budhet material in 2 moths so why not market it as such and get more in rhe long run.

  • smoison #18 5 years ago

    In other words, prices more like PC games....

    Supreme commander , STALKER, even Spider man 3 are all under 30 Euros NEW on PC...

    [link url=http://www.play.com/Games/PC/6-/RegionHome.html?cur=258
    ]    http://ww w.play.com/Games/PC/6-/RegionHo...[/link]


    That's why I stick with PC anyway.

  • BadBoyBonner #19 5 years ago

    Wayne - that sounds far too radical and sensible. ;-)

  • Horse #20 5 years ago

    Can't publishers just reflect the costs of making the game in the price of buying it? Games that cost less to make should cost less to buy, regardless of their innate quality. The console manufacturers insisting on one or two price-points for their games is one factor driving the constant stream of drivel available on any platform - if you can't compete on price, after all, you'll compete on appeal by licensing famous brands/movies/whatever else. Particularly when you know that being the Game of The Film is a far more reliable bet for decent sales over some vague promises about gameplay quality.

  • login_name #21 5 years ago

    Surely it's all personal opinion on what is or is not an 'epic' game. Like people have pointed out, you get more hours from Katamari than Gears of Bore. From his perspective, it would appear that only over hyped games deserve to make money, while the more modest titles don't, regardless of play time or fun factor.

    Just cos a game looks and feels like a movie and has a movie like budget and marketing, does not mean it's an epic game. It's just a different style and approach. If the publisher decides to spend all that money then that's their choice. It doesn't make it any better, just look at EA titles or the numerous movie tie-ins.

    Besides, I thought Live! and PSN were doing this anyway...

  • sickpuppysoftware #22 5 years ago

    Doesn't the market do this anyway? If people don't want to pay full price then the games sit on the shelves until the price comes down to shift stock anyway.

  • Tomnd #23 5 years ago

    ummm isn't revolution dead, hence why cecil made broken sword 4 at kuju.

  • FaceOmeter #24 5 years ago

    The fact is, if Wii games were £35 I'd have bought 2 or 3 more of them by now... £40 is a psychological barrier! I seriously think they'd make more money knocking a few quid off even the big ones - PC games are down in the £20 area these days, and that still works...

  • jonsaan #25 5 years ago

    Surely the bigger sellers could be sold cheaper? If something like Katamari doesn't sell well then they will need to get the highest price for each unit sold or no more Katamari. Gears however, has sold so hugely that it wouldn't hurt them to cut the price in half.

  • rashes #26 5 years ago

    shouldn't prices reflect costs too? I mean I'm sure Gears and the like cost a lot more to make that Katamari...
    Woops just saw your comment now Horse!
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 10:52

  • Agent_Llama #27 5 years ago

    I wouldn't pay £40 for Gears, but I would happily do so for Katamari.

    But I think publishers need to think about how their game is perceived - Katamari was a risky title that more 'casual' gamers would have been more reluctant to pick up. Having a lower price point would bring it more it to the range of impulse purchasing or sway their opinion.

    On the other hand, Game and their ilk could stop being twats and actually start promoting/getting enough copies in of games. Where was the promotion of Katamari, or Okami? Instead of seeing Clover's marvellous game plastered everywhere upon release, we had Little Britain instead.

  • Jdoki #28 5 years ago

    By 'epic' I can only guess he means epic development budget!! :)

    There was nothing epic about Gears except the name of the developer.

    I'm all for a variable pricing scale, but measuring a products relative worth is pretty hard. For some people Katamari on the 360 may be the pinnacle of gaming and worth every penny of it's (probable) 39.99 price tag.

  • _Price_ #29 5 years ago

    I'm all for cheaper games, but suggesting that Gears of War is somehow better value at £40 than Katamari is ridiculous. Yes, some game prices need lowering, but if anything it's the ten-a-penny FPSs/racing/GTA clones that should be the first to drop.

  • Horse #30 5 years ago

    sickpuppy, price reductions are used for PC software but nearly to the same extent for console games (other than the second-hand games market).

  • Steroyd #31 5 years ago

    DanWhitehead: I've had more hours of gameplay out of Katamari than I got out of Gears of War, so I think it's a deeply flawed argument.

    Maybe "Epic" wasn't the best word for Cecil to use, should have used "High Production values".

    It's like saying you got 1000 hours of Geometry Wars so it's well worth the price of a fully fledged game, others won't see it that way because it cost **** all to make in the first place and you'd feel ripped off if they charged you £40 for it, compared to bigger games like Final Fantasy, Gears of War etc.

    There should be a similar pricing structure for MP only games as well, which is why I admire Sony's efforts to mix and match the games they sell between PSN and Retail accordingly to what they are.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 11:05

  • DanWhitehead #32 5 years ago

    PC games are down in the £20 area these days, and that still works...

    PC games don't have to hand over a chunk of money to the platform owner though. Console games have to factor payments to to Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo into their prices.

  • Cappy #33 5 years ago

    He could have picked a better example. Katamari was always sold at a lower price in the United States and Japan. In the States the list price for We Love Katamari was $29.99 and the first game retailed for $19.99.

    It was EA who made the decision to slot We Love Katamari into its existing price structure for the European release. Just another Euro rip off.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 11:18

  • DanWhitehead #34 5 years ago

    Trouble is, you can't assign monetary value to a game based on how big it is. To return to the film example, nobody walks out of a 90 minute movie and demands half their money back because it wasn't as long as Lord of the Rings. You're paying to be entertained, not by the minute.

    A great puzzle game can entertain you for just as long as Oblivion, and is just as worthy of the same price point - but only to people who love puzzle games enough to get that level of entertainment from it. More people may pick it up at a lower price, but that devalues the product and probably wouldn't result in enough new sales to offset the reduced profit.

    It seems to me that what Cecil is arguing is that niche titles shouldn't command a premium price - which may be commercially true, but it seems like a curious cause to be championing when you develop niche titles yourself.

  • SBfistfun #35 5 years ago

    "lol, only on Eurogamer could a chap suggest some games should be cheaper and get torn to shreds for it!"

    You're missing the point, he has a ridiculous name.

  • Markusdragon #36 5 years ago

    Sorry, Katamari Damacy wasn't epic?

  • kangarootoo #37 5 years ago

    I think XBLA and The PS3 Store are already catering for customers in the way he describes. "Smaller" games for less than full shop floor prices is what XBLA is all about (though the wave of cynical "retro" tat that keeps getting released is harming the potential of the service IMO).

    He is quite right that some games don't really suit an RRP of £40. I think part of the problem is that declaring your game to not be AAA+++ with bells on is not good marketing.

    It never harmed the £1.99 ranges I remember as a kid though.

  • Overlush #38 5 years ago

    I dunno. I see both sides. I mean, I don't expect to pay less for an independent film than a Hollywood blockbuster.

    Big titles make the money by selling more and smaller titles are sustained with the revenue they generate. Less revenue might just kill them off.

    Would lowering the price help? I don't know. I buy what I really like, not what's really cheap...

  • Steroyd #39 5 years ago

    Trouble is, you can't assign monetary value to a game based on how big it is. To return to the film example, nobody walks out of a 90 minute movie and demands half their money back because it wasn't as long as Lord of the Rings. You're paying to be entertained, not by the minute.

    No your not, but your paying for the quality of the entertainment.

    If you went to watch a movie and all the special effects cheaply done 60's style retro, where you could still see the string, or the pathetic shakey cam to create the effect of an after shock of an explosion because of the budget, that type of movie in todays age would go nowhere near the Cinema's they'd go straight to Sky movies Indy channel or DVD's.

    Saying that you would need a cheaper way of distributing the smaller games last gen it was all down to Handhelds, this gen the Xbox 360 and PS3 have XBLA and PSN.

    Hell even Sony touched up on this, they sell the PS2's eye-toy with the Eye-toy Camera and game for £40, yet Eye-toy games without the Eye-toy are £25 I think they do a similar thing with Buzz.

  • kangarootoo #40 5 years ago

    @DanWhitehead

    "but it seems like a curious cause to be championing when you develop niche titles yourself."

    Not if he realises that for his titles to perform to the best of their potential, they need to be appropriately priced. Seems to me like he is savvy enough to know where to place his product.

  • Hugundo #41 5 years ago

    I love Beneath a Steel Sky, one of the best adventure games ever. I'd actually like to see a 3D Broken Sword style makeover but anything will do.

  • kangarootoo #42 5 years ago

    So long as they keep the "point and click" control option (as they did with the latest BS game) I whole heartedly agree.

  • mingster #43 5 years ago

    apart from KATAMARI was a better game than GOW and gave more hours of gameplay so in effect GOW should be cheaper.. argument makes no sense.

  • WiseNail #44 5 years ago

    I think his use of the word Blockbuster is more to the point than the word Epic. You need to look at it from a mass market rather than hardcore point of view. The like of Gears, Halo, Zelda, GTA etc are perceived as blockbuster due to a combination of graphics, advertising and hype as well as decent gameplay, regardless of their length.

    Despite it being a decent game, I doubt many casual consumers would judge Katamari worth £40 due to basic graphics and a lack of advertising / hype (plus the fact that it doesn't involve racing or guns). However, they might take a chance on it at £15 as the cost / risk ratio is much less.

  • kangarootoo #45 5 years ago

    @mingster

    I think it makes perfect sense when you realise that the only thing that really matters is public perception. However much you spend making something, and however many hours of fun it provides, it is only actually worth what people will pay for it.

  • WJF #46 5 years ago

    I agree with kangarootoo on this. I guess he's thinking that the lower price the more it will shift, the more revenue overall the game will get and therefore offset the impact of lowering the price in the first place *makes the most obvious point so far*.

    It really depends on what model of purchaser these 'minor' games attract though. Maybe they aren't selling as well as they could at the top price range because of price, or maybe it's just because they don't actually appeal to that many people in the first place.

    In the latter case lowering the price may attract a few more people but could actually be harmful in the long run due to just simply not having the wide-ranging attraction the 'Epic' games have.

    EDIT: I said "model of purchaser". You remember that gun I gave you? Take it.....you can do this!
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 12:53

  • login_name #47 5 years ago

    @WiseNail

    That's all your opinion though. There are many people that hate all of your examples of blockbuster titles but absolutely love Katamari and it's ilk.

    Why do the popular games deserve more cash than games that dare to innovate, or at least attempt to bring something new? Why is a bigger budget more important than a better core design? There are plenty of 'blockbuster' games that are complete shite. Equally, there are some excellent 'indie' titles that deserve far more coverage.

    Bigger budget and better/more invasive marketing do not automatically make a good game.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 13:06

  • kangarootoo #48 5 years ago

    Also, the pricing of your game not only affects direct perception of the title but also how it sits amongst the competition.

    Dropping the price of your game not only makes it appear better value to a customer (or it should do, but undervaluing can damaging to perceptions too, jewellery and fashion are good examples of this), but it also puts it alongside a different set of competitors.

    E.g. do you need to be the most appealing game on the shelves at HMV, or just the most appealing game on XBLA?

  • kangarootoo #49 5 years ago

    @login_name

    "That's all your opinion though. There are many people that hate all of your examples of blockbuster titles but absolutely love Katamari and it's ilk."

    Well of course, but unfortunately they are very much in the minority.

    "Why do the popular games deserve more cash than games that dare to innovate, or at least attempt to bring something new?"

    Truth is, "deserve" doesn't come into it. Games don't get funded because they have artistically integrity or push boundaries UNLESS that contributes to the profits they make.

    Thats why most of the games get made aren't that original. Its not because the publishers are all bastards, its not because they want the quick buck. Its because thats what the public has consistently shown they will buy and so that is what gets made if you need to make profit (and every dev or publisher needs to make profit, or there would be no wages, no employees and no games).

    I'm not saying its fair. I prefer KD over GoW as it happens and would pay more for the former than the latter (just my preference though, before GoW fans flip out on me).

    Edit: Just to clarify rather than ramble. I think Charles Cecil is talking from a business pov, and in that regard I think he is spot on.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 13:09

  • login_name #50 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I know all to well how and why games get funded, not everyone who posts on these boards is a young teenage fanboy, some of us actually work in the industry :)

    The point is, this guy is proposing a forced pricing structure based on how 'epic' or 'blockbuster' a title is. This is a stupid idea and has nothing to do with publishers/developers profit. It's all about being 'fair' to the consumer in how 'we' price games. My point is, who decides which games get premium and which don't? Surely that's up to the publisher, not some guy or group of people judging games based purely on hype or marketing strategies.

    All games have equal right to be judged on an even plane by the public. If it doesn't sell, drop the price, learn from your mistakes.

    Like I said before, this is exactly what Live! and PSN is for. Smart publishers will use these services, the less smart/greedy may not but at the end of the day, the public will decide what 'deserves' the price being asked and what doesn't, not Charles Cecil.

    Oh and you're right, not all publishers are bastards and after a quick profit but some of them are.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 13:30

  • WiseNail #51 5 years ago

    @login_name

    "That's all your opinion though. There are many people that hate all of your examples of blockbuster titles but absolutely love Katamari and it's ilk."

    Very true, I own it myself (purchased at full price) and my kids and myself have had hours of enjoyment from it. However, I would guess that the vast majority of purchasers of Katamari are hardcore gamers rather than casual. I sure part of the appeal of games such as Brain Training and Nintendogs (and the DS in general) is the much lower entry cost, as well as the quality.


    Why do the popular games deserve more cash than games that dare to innovate, or at least attempt to bring something new?

    Higher price doesn't have to mean more profit, for example 100,000 units @ £20 may be more profitable than 20,000 @ £40 after costs are deducted.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 13:33

  • login_name #52 5 years ago

    "Higher price doesn't have to mean more profit, for example 100,000 units @ £20 may be more profitable than 20,000 @ £40 after costs are deducted."

    Neither does a lower price. Who's to say that more people would risk the purchase of Katamari at a lower price. This is something the publisher has to decide for themselves, not decided for them due to it not being classed as an epic game.

  • kangarootoo #53 5 years ago

    @login_name

    "some of us actually work in the industry"

    So there is at least two of us, and certainly more. I didn't mean to patronise you if it came across that way.

    "The point is, this guy is proposing a forced pricing structure based on how 'epic' or 'blockbuster' a title is."

    No he isn't. He is suggesting that a product be priced according to how well it is expected to be perceived by the market. As a dev you will know well that perception is not always proportional to good the game actually is.

    What he is certainly isn't suggesting is some 3rd party body regulates the pricing, which seems to be what you are suggesting when you say "Surely that's up to the publisher, not some guy or group of people judging games based purely on hype or marketing strategies."

    "All games have equal right to be judged on an even plane by the public. If it doesn't sell, drop the price, learn from your mistakes."

    In an ideal world, absolutely. But again you will know it doesn't always work that way. One the one hand, learning from those "mistakes" may simply be too expensive a lesson. On the other hand, the "mistakes" could just as well be mistakes in pricing rather than in the quality of the product (which is exactly the point CC is making I think).

    Sometimes you have to choose between pricing your game to promote the best returns as it might not be viewed as a AAA title (KD being one example perhaps), or sticking to your guns, demanding the public view all games omnipotently and losing money as a result. I know which I would choose.

  • Meho #54 5 years ago

    As already pointed out in the thread, it is the market that ultimately decides on the price. And this does mean that consumers ultimately dictate the pricing range. I don't see the need to 'force' the pricing categories relative to the epic feel of the game but that might not be what whe was suggesting anyway. Either way, I don't think I like the idea that games that attempt to ape cinema in terms of visuals/ narrative are the ones to be percieved as the most valuable (even though he just might be saying they are the most expensive to make)...

  • login_name #55 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Then what was the point of this article? Publishers already price games to what they perceive to be competitive. It's not a new concept, not even for the current generation. If he's not proposing an unofficial pricing structure, why is it news?

    Again, it's not his business to comment on what is epic and what isn't.

  • kangarootoo #56 5 years ago

    @login_name

    "If he's not proposing an unofficial pricing structure, why is it news?"

    Whenever an industry vet voices opinion, that is news, because people want to know what they had to say. And again, he's not commenting on what is epic and what is not, except for using KD as an example (which I think it actually what pitched you against him in the first place).

  • login_name #57 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Not at all. I like KD but I'm not really into it as much as other people.

    He's not listing all the games he feels fall into these two camps but he is implying that a notable distinction be made between the two. Ok, fine, maybe, but who is to make the distinction. Again, publishers are already doing this based on what they think their title is worth, so unless he wants an unofficial 'labeling' system, why comment?

    It's already happening, he just doesn't agree with what is being charge as an 'epic' game and feels more needs to be done to distinguish the two. I don't agree. If you think it cost too much, then don't buy it and wait for the price to drop. If you think you need to sell your product for more than it's worth, good luck to ya, it works for EA.

    There, that's my opinion, an industry vet. Not well known perhaps but a vet none the less...where's my news article?

  • mingster #58 5 years ago

    I entirely agree with Login Names comments
    and unfortunately Kangarotoo you are painting yourself into a corner..

    This guy should not be making a distinction between what is epic and what isn't then naming two actual games .

    My definition of EPIC doen't include GOW in any shape of form but would include FFXII and ZELDA. Katamari was a stupid choice of a niche product that should be cheaper. When in reality it was well wort whatever its asking price.

    Also as login names states we the consumer have a choice if we don't agree with the price then vote with your wallets just wait.. they all end up in the bargain bin eventually else buy second hand (They hate the secong hand market) or if your particularly against the pricing structure then borrow or hire it even worse P2P it.

    So thank you Cecil your take on the pricing of games has been noted and confined to the bin as pointless we can decided what is a fair price t pay for a game based on other factors than 'epic' thank you very much.

    If Cecil de Ville or whatever his name is want's contoversy attacheched to his bizarre monniker then he has succeeded

  • kangarootoo #59 5 years ago

    @login_name

    "but he is implying that a notable distinction be made between the two"

    A notable distinction can be made. Its called "sales figures".

    "but who is to make the distinction"

    Savvy publisher people who decide how to prices the products they are releasing.

    "If you think it cost too much, then don't buy it and wait for the price to drop."

    That works fine for the customer, but the whole "wait for the price to drop" mechanic kills devs and it is this he is proposing to avoid. If there is a tiered system of RRP pricie points a publisher can place a product based on how they think it will perform, safe in the knowledge the customer base are familiar with said pricing structure.

    He has never said what games should into which slot, he is just saying that he thinks everyone would benefit from such a structure. Like I said at the start, it worked a treat back in the days of £1.99 C64 games. Both gamers and devs benefitted from that structure, so its has worked before.


    @mingster

    "unfortunately Kangarotoo you are painting yourself into a corner"

    Ah, hyperbole and metaphor. The perfect way to avoid saying anything of substance.

    "if we don't agree with the price then vote with your wallets just wait"

    We are drifting way off topic here. This issue has nothign to do with the consumers right to choose when they make their purchase. CC is saying that a tiered price model can help certain developers get better returns on their product. Thats it. Thats what he said.

    All sorts of accusations are being thrown about saying he is telling us what is epic and what isn't, but he never said anything of the sort. Can I simply suggest that we all read the bloody article again to refresh our memories?

    "Katamari was a stupid choice of a niche product that should be cheaper. When in reality it was well wort whatever its asking price."

    In YOUR opinion, which is fine for you, but as I said to someone else earlier you do NOT represent the majority of the market here.

    Its a pity, but its the truth. CC knows that, which is why he used it as an example. People didn't buy KD in high numbers. FACT. It disappoints me too, but not to point that I will deny reality. People that make business descisions have to react to fact, and that is what he is doing.

  • login_name #60 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    You don't appear to be reading or understanding my posts.

    Taking select quotes from my post and then using them to reinforce my view point against me is an odd tactic in a debate. What you're saying is that publishers need to decide, right? Well that's what I said. Then you say that sales figures decide what is epic or not, that's also what I said. So what's your point?

    It doesn't detract from the fact that this guy made a stupid, pointless comment.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/07 @ 16:15

  • kangarootoo #61 5 years ago

    @login_name

    Quoting sections of your posts is, as I understood it, a good way to attempt to respond to or refute some of things you said without being accused of putting words into your mouth.

    I always quote people's own posts to avoid getting into that whole "so what you are saying is..." thing (which drives me nuts). I believe its a pretty typical method of debate actually (law courts for one tend to do things that way, but they call it cross examination, which sounds rather too serious for in here).


    Anyway, I had a biggish typical (of me) response written, but I think this is just going in circles. Allow me one more quote for old times sake :)

    "What you're saying is that publishers need to decide, right? Well that's what I said. Then you say that sales figures decide what is epic or not, that's also what I said. So what's your point?"

    My point is that is exactly what Charles Cecil was saying too, with the addition that he suggested a few brackets of publicly recognised RRP that publishers could choose from (or ignore as is their right; he never used the word "forced", you introduced that one).

    So I think you, me, AND CC agree.

    I can get carried away with these things I admit, but I find it stimulating for the mind in my old age (32).

    Now I'm all worn out. Zzzzzz ;)

  • mingster #62 5 years ago

    Cecil's comment is pure conjecture.

    Which for the illiterate amongst you means:
    judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence. ie: guesswork.

    which is pretty much what all of this whole comments section is too..
    kangarotoo you are not an expert on sales figures nor have you any irefutable evidence to sugest that a lower RRP would equal more sales of an EPIC which costs more to develop.

    Or whatever Cecils the argument is its pure speculation on his part an idea or a view.

    If you chose to accept it then that is your choice as is mine to dismiss it as toss.

    Please don't quote parts of my posts to reinforce your view i find it offence but you find it helps prove your point .. see different views again.. no one is right or wrong on this subject it is pure conjecture remember.

    Don't put so much effort into defending yourself about agreeing with Cecil i doubt anyone cares as nor do i if you agree with me or not.

  • kangarootoo #63 5 years ago

    Well first off there is nothing wrong with putting effort into a discussion. The cynical "well I don't care and you are sad because you do" response is just what kids do when they can't respond any other way.

    I never stated my own speculations as fact. I made suggestions, or I referred to previous examples (such as £1.99 C64 price bracket) and even then used terms like "maybe" when suggesting they might work now as they have before.

    As for accepting or dismissing what conjecture has taken place, the biggest issue I've had throughout this thread is people misquoting the article and putting words into CC's mouth. I've repeated that point ad nauseum but people just kept doing it. You are doing it again when you accuse me of not having irrefutable evidence of the effect of a reduced price on sales, when in fact I never claimed to have any such thing.

    That is why I use the strawman reference so often, because people on internet forums absolutely love that method of diversion. But no matter how many times I do so, people keep on putting words in each others mouths and purposely misrepresenting what others are saying in order to create an easy target to tear down.

    On that front, I give up.

    As for my experience in the area of software sales, how could you possibly know either way? The posession of experience is not a binary state.

    And if you are actually saying you take offense when people quote your comments in internet forums, well I think you are just going to take that one on the chin. Many forums even include a quote function because people find it so handy. I'm certainly not going to stop doing it (though I will in this particular case as a courtesy :) ). Like I said earlier, its a great way of sticking to the facts. I realise the desire to do that often puts in the minority on here...

  • login_name #64 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Once again you appear to have completely misread my post. You're using quotes out of context to reinforce a point that I have previously made in my own post against me. That is the part I don't understand. You're arguing against me, using my arguments. I have no problem with people quoting, if they use it correctly.

    Ok, so we all agree that no one has the right to determine what is deemed an epic title or not other than the creators and the public. Glad we got that sorted. So, on to my beef with this guy. Why mention anything at all? These so called voluntary price brackets already exist. Like I said, Live! and PSN have the lower end covered. Budget ranged products are already out there, and have been for a while. So what's his point? These things exist now. It was a pointless comment, in a pointless article. I don't care if he's an industry vet, what he said was pointless and deserves to be ignored as such.

  • davisorle #65 5 years ago

    If people that pay 600 Euros for a console what made him think they would complain for that game price? I say that Sony can go ahead and shoot him. Not good for their bussiness.

  • NegativeZero #66 5 years ago

    Epic or not, they all end up costing far too much in Europe/Australia. :(

    I'm still wondering how Ubisoft expect to sell any copies of Senko no Ronde in Australia with an RRP of $119.95 AUD - that's about 60% more than the US price.

  • bdc #67 5 years ago

    I would pay 40 for GoW, but not even 15 for Katamari. Cecil is right.

  • Golgo #68 5 years ago

    Cock. Maybe games should be priced higher in accordance with their ingenuity, inventiveness and willingness to depart from the mainstream. In which case, these `blockbusters` would be packaged free inside boxes of cornflakes.