How much SHOULD xbox 360 games cost?

i dunno why you yanks are complaining, in the UK, the RRP is equivalent to $100, and newly released games are always like $80/$90.

don't you people realise that the companies making these games need to make a living?

i dunno why you yanks are complaining, in the UK, the RRP is equivalent to $100, and newly released games are always like $80/$90.

don't you people realise that the companies making these games need to make a living?

cheames748

YAAAAAAAY!!!! Someone understands that games are not made by robots, but by people!

[QUOTE="cheames748"]

i dunno why you yanks are complaining, in the UK, the RRP is equivalent to $100, and newly released games are always like $80/$90.

don't you people realise that the companies making these games need to make a living?

RichyRulez

YAAAAAAAY!!!! Someone understands that games are not made by robots, but by people!

Games, with in-game advertising should be about $30. W/O adverts, $50 is the most it should be.gatsbythepig

I believe 50 bucks it is simple. it is not too high and not too low.monkeysrule16

$60 is fine.

Should stay at 50.

Ive been paying 50$ for a long time, it seemed pretty fair for the customer and the business.

I don't think people really appreciate how much money gets pumped into making games these days. It's like producing a Hollywood movie in some cases. $60 per game is appropriate in my opinion.

Of course, the answer in the US (and indeed all other Westernised countries) to the question "How much should a game cost?" is "However much people are willing to pay."

That's what we call living in a free market economy folks - if people stopped paying $60 a game, publishers would drop the price overnight. But look, they haven't dropped the price for new games in the 2+ years of this console generation, so obviously people are willing to pay $60 for a new game. They might be happier paying less (let's face it, only an idiot wouldn't) but they're still willing to go up to $60. Until a serious backlash against new game prices happens - and I don't think it will unless there is a serious recession and parents have to say no, and/or adult gamers really need the money for food and gas - games will cost $60 new.

I don't think people really appreciate how much money gets pumped into making games these days. It's like producing a Hollywood movie in some cases. $60 per game is appropriate in my opinion.

Of course, the answer in the US (and indeed all other Westernised countries) to the question "How much should a game cost?" is "However much people are willing to pay."

That's what we call living in a free market economy folks - if people stopped paying $60 a game, publishers would drop the price overnight. But look, they haven't dropped the price for new games in the 2+ years of this console generation, so obviously people are willing to pay $60 for a new game. They might be happier paying less (let's face it, only an idiot wouldn't) but they're still willing to go up to $60. Until a serious backlash against new game prices happens - and I don't think it will unless there is a serious recession and parents have to say no, and/or adult gamers really need the money for food and gas - games will cost $60 new.

grayoldwolf

Uh.. wow think about it this way Gears of War cost 10 million dollars to make ( no where near what a movie costs to make! which wouldn't even pay some actors salaries let alone the whole movie) anyway back to the point Gears cost 10 million to make now think about 60 dollars a game 4 million times.... yeah thats a lot. I think you should re-think your argument although your spot on about whatever the masses are willing to pay is what things will cost.

Also I heard, but cant confirm that Too Human is going to be the most expensive game ever made which is going upwards of 80 million (again no where near a motion picture price tag) so if thats the most expensive game made to date think about games that sell really well that are made for much less they must make a lot of money even if they don't sell relatively well.

[QUOTE="grayoldwolf"]

I don't think people really appreciate how much money gets pumped into making games these days. It's like producing a Hollywood movie in some cases. $60 per game is appropriate in my opinion.

Of course, the answer in the US (and indeed all other Westernised countries) to the question "How much should a game cost?" is "However much people are willing to pay."

That's what we call living in a free market economy folks - if people stopped paying $60 a game, publishers would drop the price overnight. But look, they haven't dropped the price for new games in the 2+ years of this console generation, so obviously people are willing to pay $60 for a new game. They might be happier paying less (let's face it, only an idiot wouldn't) but they're still willing to go up to $60. Until a serious backlash against new game prices happens - and I don't think it will unless there is a serious recession and parents have to say no, and/or adult gamers really need the money for food and gas - games will cost $60 new.

julianwelton

Uh.. wow think about it this way Gears of War cost 10 million dollars to make ( no where near what a movie costs to make! which wouldn't even pay some actors salaries let alone the whole movie) anyway back to the point Gears cost 10 million to make now think about 60 dollars a game 4 million times.... yeah thats a lot. I think you should re-think your argument although your spot on about whatever the masses are willing to pay is what things will cost.

Also I heard, but cant confirm that Too Human is going to be the most expensive game ever made which is going upwards of 80 million (again no where near a motion picture price tag) so if thats the most expensive game made to date think about games that sell really well that are made for much less they must make a lot of money even if they don't sell relatively well.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of smaller Hollywood movies (rather than the likes of Spider-Man or X-men) but I didn't really make that clear.

I agree with you that Gears was a smash hit and they made buckets of money out of it, but very few games sell like Gears. Most games are lucky to sell a million copies. Also, the ten million dollar price tag for Gears was what it cost Epic to make it. That doesn't include advertising, manufacturing, Microsoft's cut or any of the other logistical stuff it takes to get a piece of software into the hands of the public. That adds up to a heck of a lot of money.

At the end of the day, it's business - they set the price of the game high enough that they make a profit, but not so high that their competitors can undercut them by any significant margin. They're definitely not making $50 profit on each copy of every game that is sold. I'd be willing to bet that most games don't make a significant profit until they've sold over half a million copies, and the truth is that the majority of games don't get that far. That's why so many small developers have gone out of business or have been bought by the likes of EA - it simply costs so much to make a game these days that if they don't have a big hit they will make a huge loss and go bankrupt.

[QUOTE="julianwelton"][QUOTE="grayoldwolf"]

I don't think people really appreciate how much money gets pumped into making games these days. It's like producing a Hollywood movie in some cases. $60 per game is appropriate in my opinion.

Of course, the answer in the US (and indeed all other Westernised countries) to the question "How much should a game cost?" is "However much people are willing to pay."

That's what we call living in a free market economy folks - if people stopped paying $60 a game, publishers would drop the price overnight. But look, they haven't dropped the price for new games in the 2+ years of this console generation, so obviously people are willing to pay $60 for a new game. They might be happier paying less (let's face it, only an idiot wouldn't) but they're still willing to go up to $60. Until a serious backlash against new game prices happens - and I don't think it will unless there is a serious recession and parents have to say no, and/or adult gamers really need the money for food and gas - games will cost $60 new.

grayoldwolf

Uh.. wow think about it this way Gears of War cost 10 million dollars to make ( no where near what a movie costs to make! which wouldn't even pay some actors salaries let alone the whole movie) anyway back to the point Gears cost 10 million to make now think about 60 dollars a game 4 million times.... yeah thats a lot. I think you should re-think your argument although your spot on about whatever the masses are willing to pay is what things will cost.

Also I heard, but cant confirm that Too Human is going to be the most expensive game ever made which is going upwards of 80 million (again no where near a motion picture price tag) so if thats the most expensive game made to date think about games that sell really well that are made for much less they must make a lot of money even if they don't sell relatively well.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of smaller Hollywood movies (rather than the likes of Spider-Man or X-men) but I didn't really make that clear.

I agree with you that Gears was a smash hit and they made buckets of money out of it, but very few games sell like Gears. Most games are lucky to sell a million copies. Also, the ten million dollar price tag for Gears was what it cost Epic to make it. That doesn't include advertising, manufacturing, Microsoft's cut or any of the other logistical stuff it takes to get a piece of software into the hands of the public. That adds up to a heck of a lot of money.

At the end of the day, it's business - they set the price of the game high enough that they make a profit, but not so high that their competitors can undercut them by any significant margin. They're definitely not making $50 profit on each copy of every game that is sold. I'd be willing to bet that most games don't make a significant profit until they've sold over half a million copies, and the truth is that the majority of games don't get that far. That's why so many small developers have gone out of business or have been bought by the likes of EA - it simply costs so much to make a game these days that if they don't have a big hit they will make a huge loss and go bankrupt.

I hear the sound of Julian's arguement crashing :lol:

$60 is alright - $50 would be better, but $60 is fine. I would hate to have them be less expensive and have the developers get the shaft on profits which would result in bad games.

Plus you can get a $60 game for $45 used and a $50 game for $35 - so if you have to save your duckets that bad - just buy the game used.

:)

[QUOTE="grayoldwolf"][QUOTE="julianwelton"][QUOTE="grayoldwolf"]

I don't think people really appreciate how much money gets pumped into making games these days. It's like producing a Hollywood movie in some cases. $60 per game is appropriate in my opinion.

Of course, the answer in the US (and indeed all other Westernised countries) to the question "How much should a game cost?" is "However much people are willing to pay."

That's what we call living in a free market economy folks - if people stopped paying $60 a game, publishers would drop the price overnight. But look, they haven't dropped the price for new games in the 2+ years of this console generation, so obviously people are willing to pay $60 for a new game. They might be happier paying less (let's face it, only an idiot wouldn't) but they're still willing to go up to $60. Until a serious backlash against new game prices happens - and I don't think it will unless there is a serious recession and parents have to say no, and/or adult gamers really need the money for food and gas - games will cost $60 new.

soccerdude256

Uh.. wow think about it this way Gears of War cost 10 million dollars to make ( no where near what a movie costs to make! which wouldn't even pay some actors salaries let alone the whole movie) anyway back to the point Gears cost 10 million to make now think about 60 dollars a game 4 million times.... yeah thats a lot. I think you should re-think your argument although your spot on about whatever the masses are willing to pay is what things will cost.

Also I heard, but cant confirm that Too Human is going to be the most expensive game ever made which is going upwards of 80 million (again no where near a motion picture price tag) so if thats the most expensive game made to date think about games that sell really well that are made for much less they must make a lot of money even if they don't sell relatively well.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of smaller Hollywood movies (rather than the likes of Spider-Man or X-men) but I didn't really make that clear.

I agree with you that Gears was a smash hit and they made buckets of money out of it, but very few games sell like Gears. Most games are lucky to sell a million copies. Also, the ten million dollar price tag for Gears was what it cost Epic to make it. That doesn't include advertising, manufacturing, Microsoft's cut or any of the other logistical stuff it takes to get a piece of software into the hands of the public. That adds up to a heck of a lot of money.

At the end of the day, it's business - they set the price of the game high enough that they make a profit, but not so high that their competitors can undercut them by any significant margin. They're definitely not making $50 profit on each copy of every game that is sold. I'd be willing to bet that most games don't make a significant profit until they've sold over half a million copies, and the truth is that the majority of games don't get that far. That's why so many small developers have gone out of business or have been bought by the likes of EA - it simply costs so much to make a game these days that if they don't have a big hit they will make a huge loss and go bankrupt.

I hear the sound of Julian's arguement crashing :lol:

Well the main things that you pointed out that would be expensive was Distribution, and greedy Microsofts cut. Let me start off by saying lots and I mean LOTS of games sell over a million I mean even dare I say 50 cents Bulletproof sold over a million copies and that was probably one of the worst games in two decades. Now back to Microsofts cut I don't know what they were paid, but I do know that doesn't change what kind of turn over it got not to mention I can tell you Microsoft would only make money if the game made money because their cut was most likely a fixed percentage of the profits i.e. 20% of whatever it made. So anyway I'm sure somewhere in that over 200 million dollar turnover that they made they found some way to pay for advertising and Microsofts cut just fine and probably had 100 million dollars to spare.

[QUOTE="grayoldwolf"][QUOTE="julianwelton"][QUOTE="grayoldwolf"]

I don't think people really appreciate how much money gets pumped into making games these days. It's like producing a Hollywood movie in some cases. $60 per game is appropriate in my opinion.

Of course, the answer in the US (and indeed all other Westernised countries) to the question "How much should a game cost?" is "However much people are willing to pay."

That's what we call living in a free market economy folks - if people stopped paying $60 a game, publishers would drop the price overnight. But look, they haven't dropped the price for new games in the 2+ years of this console generation, so obviously people are willing to pay $60 for a new game. They might be happier paying less (let's face it, only an idiot wouldn't) but they're still willing to go up to $60. Until a serious backlash against new game prices happens - and I don't think it will unless there is a serious recession and parents have to say no, and/or adult gamers really need the money for food and gas - games will cost $60 new.

soccerdude256

Uh.. wow think about it this way Gears of War cost 10 million dollars to make ( no where near what a movie costs to make! which wouldn't even pay some actors salaries let alone the whole movie) anyway back to the point Gears cost 10 million to make now think about 60 dollars a game 4 million times.... yeah thats a lot. I think you should re-think your argument although your spot on about whatever the masses are willing to pay is what things will cost.

Also I heard, but cant confirm that Too Human is going to be the most expensive game ever made which is going upwards of 80 million (again no where near a motion picture price tag) so if thats the most expensive game made to date think about games that sell really well that are made for much less they must make a lot of money even if they don't sell relatively well.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of smaller Hollywood movies (rather than the likes of Spider-Man or X-men) but I didn't really make that clear.

I agree with you that Gears was a smash hit and they made buckets of money out of it, but very few games sell like Gears. Most games are lucky to sell a million copies. Also, the ten million dollar price tag for Gears was what it cost Epic to make it. That doesn't include advertising, manufacturing, Microsoft's cut or any of the other logistical stuff it takes to get a piece of software into the hands of the public. That adds up to a heck of a lot of money.

At the end of the day, it's business - they set the price of the game high enough that they make a profit, but not so high that their competitors can undercut them by any significant margin. They're definitely not making $50 profit on each copy of every game that is sold. I'd be willing to bet that most games don't make a significant profit until they've sold over half a million copies, and the truth is that the majority of games don't get that far. That's why so many small developers have gone out of business or have been bought by the likes of EA - it simply costs so much to make a game these days that if they don't have a big hit they will make a huge loss and go bankrupt.

I hear the sound of Julian's arguement crashing :lol:

Well the main things that you pointed out that would be expensive were Distribution, and greedy Microsofts cut. Let me start off by saying lots and I mean LOTS of games sell over a million I mean even 50 cents Bulletproof sold over a million copies and that was probably one of the worst games in two decades. Now back to Microsofts cut I don't know what they were paid, but I do know that doesn't change what kind of turn over it got not to mention I can tell you Microsoft would only make money if the game made money because their cut was most likely a fixed percentage of the profits i.e. 20% of whatever it made. So anyway I'm too tired to argue so I'll just make this short I'm sure somewhere in that over 200 million dollar turnover that they made they found some way to pay for advertising and Microsofts cut just fine and probably had over 100 million dollars to spare.

P.S. The point of all this is games could stand to be a bit cheaper, but they aren't so I guess anyone looking for a deal can go to Gamestop and buy their games used.

[QUOTE="soccerdude256"][QUOTE="grayoldwolf"][QUOTE="julianwelton"][QUOTE="grayoldwolf"]

I don't think people really appreciate how much money gets pumped into making games these days. It's like producing a Hollywood movie in some cases. $60 per game is appropriate in my opinion.

Of course, the answer in the US (and indeed all other Westernised countries) to the question "How much should a game cost?" is "However much people are willing to pay."

That's what we call living in a free market economy folks - if people stopped paying $60 a game, publishers would drop the price overnight. But look, they haven't dropped the price for new games in the 2+ years of this console generation, so obviously people are willing to pay $60 for a new game. They might be happier paying less (let's face it, only an idiot wouldn't) but they're still willing to go up to $60. Until a serious backlash against new game prices happens - and I don't think it will unless there is a serious recession and parents have to say no, and/or adult gamers really need the money for food and gas - games will cost $60 new.

julianwelton

Uh.. wow think about it this way Gears of War cost 10 million dollars to make ( no where near what a movie costs to make! which wouldn't even pay some actors salaries let alone the whole movie) anyway back to the point Gears cost 10 million to make now think about 60 dollars a game 4 million times.... yeah thats a lot. I think you should re-think your argument although your spot on about whatever the masses are willing to pay is what things will cost.

Also I heard, but cant confirm that Too Human is going to be the most expensive game ever made which is going upwards of 80 million (again no where near a motion picture price tag) so if thats the most expensive game made to date think about games that sell really well that are made for much less they must make a lot of money even if they don't sell relatively well.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of smaller Hollywood movies (rather than the likes of Spider-Man or X-men) but I didn't really make that clear.

I agree with you that Gears was a smash hit and they made buckets of money out of it, but very few games sell like Gears. Most games are lucky to sell a million copies. Also, the ten million dollar price tag for Gears was what it cost Epic to make it. That doesn't include advertising, manufacturing, Microsoft's cut or any of the other logistical stuff it takes to get a piece of software into the hands of the public. That adds up to a heck of a lot of money.

At the end of the day, it's business - they set the price of the game high enough that they make a profit, but not so high that their competitors can undercut them by any significant margin. They're definitely not making $50 profit on each copy of every game that is sold. I'd be willing to bet that most games don't make a significant profit until they've sold over half a million copies, and the truth is that the majority of games don't get that far. That's why so many small developers have gone out of business or have been bought by the likes of EA - it simply costs so much to make a game these days that if they don't have a big hit they will make a huge loss and go bankrupt.

I hear the sound of Julian's arguement crashing :lol:

Well the main things that you pointed out that would be expensive was Distribution, and greedy Microsofts cut. Let me start off by saying lots and I mean LOTS of games sell over a million I mean even dare I say 50 cents Bulletproof sold over a million copies and that was probably one of the worst games in two decades. Now back to Microsofts cut I don't know what they were paid, but I do know that doesn't change what kind of turn over it got not to mention I can tell you Microsoft would only make money if the game made money because their cut was most likely a fixed percentage of the profits i.e. 20% of whatever it made. So anyway I'm sure somewhere in that over 200 million dollar turnover that they made they found some way to pay for advertising and Microsofts cut just fine and probably had 100 million dollars to spare.

Okay, so we've got twenty percent going to Microsoft, a fair ammount of money going to manufacturing and advertising, and then transportation, and it's not $60 going to the devs and publishers, it's $60 going to the retailers.

i dunno why the decided to make the games 60. i realize they need to make money back that is being lost on the system. i realize that when you break down where the money goes it really isn't that much. i guess the only annoyance i have is that gamestop makes money hand over fist by selling used games at basically the same price as new.

thats off topic though. i think by making these games more expensive people are less likely to buy these games in the first place. what i mean is that a lot of people just buy games that they trust to be good and no longer takes as many chances on games.