[Yahoo! Games] How playing Madden online could cost you $10

Why would game companies drop the price. They make a mint on new games and would make more is used games go away. no way they drop gaming prices. I serioulsy douvt that they would on grade A downloadable games. People will pay 60 bucks for MW2 if its on a disc or not

 

I know this is apples and oranges, but many CD's I downloaded from Itunes were 9.99, where as in Best Buy they are 13.99-14.99......

I am no expert in the industry, but I do not think they are going to be charging the same price for a downloaded game when they don't have to foot the bill for putting the game on a disc, packaging it and distributing it.

 

They can charge the same price, and they will. Just look at the response from DD the company man. They want more money.

 

Not our problem, if they get the short end of the stick. Should try to negotiate a little bit better for the developers profit margin.

 

Instead of spending $10 a month in addition to an xbox live subscription, one could buy one of these, bank the rest of the money, and get some exercise.

 

That's total BS...from a profit standpoint, I get what they're trying to do, charge the consumer more $$$...It is a use tax, which I don't agree with...If I had a couple of PS3's, could i use the same game, or would I have to pay and additional $10 use tax for use on the other console...

And companies will not naturally drop prices...your entire argument is more revenue...can't do that with lower prices...in effect, you'd have to have EA create a used game business concept or have EA charge an additional $10 on used games, which it can't...no way to control or monitor the secondary market unless they're in it...

 

Uh, the prices already are dropping, but the used market has killed that space completely.

It is akin to the bargain bin on PC games.

They do it to increase demand.....what happens now is the games are pulled BEFORE they get to that point because the used games take the shelf space.

Not every game is MW2, try finding a new copy of Sabatuer, a great great GTA style of WW2 game set in occupied France....I would bet almost all the copies you find are used, and in limited number.

DD

 

DD - why do the used games squeeze out the new ones? Wouldn't the new price drive the used market? If a developer introduced a game at $20 would the retailers not carry it even if their customers would buy it?

And don't most retailers only carry new games?

I (obviously) don't know if the market for games is broad enough that a price drop would increase sales sufficiently to offset the lesser unit revenue -- but -- using DVD's as a reference -- when they were 4-5 times the price they are today, I knew very few people who collected them -- but now -- it's almost too much of a hassle to rent (or buy used) given the price you can buy them new. When they dropped the price -- the increase in volume made DVD sales a significant revenue source rather then the smaller, niche source it had been at the higher price. And squeezed out the rental places.

Now I know lots of people who buy movies they're only marginally interested in, just in case they might want to watch them. At $40-$60 a game -- I'm only buying if I'm absolutely sure I want it.

My only game buying experience is with the Nintendo DSI. I did not hesitate to buy Shawn White's skateboarding game at $12. (kids loved it by the way). I borrowed the pricier games from the library, but balked at the purchase price. The kids are currently working Grandparents for those games...

All this is based on my morning coffee bbs reading. Shape your own business plan at your own peril,

 

First Sabatuer was mediocure at best.
second, used games are not killing the market, bad games are killing the market. they have oversaturatted the market to make a buck, then complain when no one buys these games.

 

It is Saboteur, not sabatuer. The game was garbage and its sales had nothing to do with piracy or used games.

 

I don't get that at all...How are the used games killing the new game market...two totally different markets, and have nothing to do with EA trying to bend you over...BB, Walmart, etc do not sell used games so how are they limiting shelf space? GS does, but they sell both...

I agree, not every game is MW2, sometimes new games go on sale, especially around xmas...does that affect the used game market? absolutely, but in any business, GS's of the world would have to adjust prices as well...but the so called revenue you need an increase on is driven by supply/demand, not whether EA needs more $$ for online play...

I know nothing of Sabatuer, but if its about France, it's probably ghey...

 

I'm starting to think arguing with him is a lost cause. Each time someone points out the massive flaw in his logic he either repeats it or moves on to some other nonsensical point that will quickly be torn apart.

 

madden sucks anyway.

 

This I cannot agree. If EA think the same way as you do, they are definetely going down.

Yes they attempted to make some new IPs, some succeeded and some failed. Sure there are other ways to gather some profit in the short term, like running ****ti servers, shutting down previous game servers, cut disk content to make DLC, and etc, but they just give customers more reasons not to buy their games.

At the end of the day, customers are only willing to spend money on GOOD games. I bought 2 copies of Demon's Souls at full price for me and my girl, but I didn't buy Mercenaries 2 even though it was only $10.

FIFA is going up while Command and Conquer is going down. The reason is pretty clear.

Also, I don't think developers are the industry. I think developers like EA, game stores like GameStop, game medias like GameRankings.com, and customers like you and me are all part of the industry. One cannot leave another. What drives the industry forward is developers making GOOD games.

 

"Good games" are a subjective decision, some folks here did not like Saboteur, I thought it was GREAT, they could have polished it a bit more and it took 1 hour of game play to get to the great part, but overall, an awesome experience.

Anyway, arguing with a bunch of folks that feel they have been wronged is not going to end well for me.

So, suffice it to say, I applaud the move, Used games are crowding out shelf space for new games, and compressing the timelines for games on the shelf.

And, $60 is not that much for 100s of hours of entertainment......

So, I am not going to feel sorry for anyone, if you don't like what EA is doing, simply don't buy their games, and this will probably open the door for others to create stuff that does not charge extra...so it is all a win win for everyone.

DD

 

Excatly.

My money only goes to whoever makes games which I consider to be good. I will not pay for shtti games, shtti servers and shtti services. If everyone does the same, it will help the industry moving forward.

 

Just realized it is hard to talk about Digital Distribution and DaDakota in the same thread. What does DD stand for?

Probably. If you are that concerned though, you can probably call them up and have them transfer over rights to a new username. Can probably link the two accounts to the same email or something.

It is a very fine line you have to walk if you wish to compete with the retailers that stock your games.

That said, the industry would definitely love to compete with them in the form of digital distribution.

It is a used game tax IMO. There are rational (IMO) arguments for having one though.

Don't know if that matters too much. A week or two after release, tons of copies of Final Fantasy and other JRPGs hit the used game stores in Japan IIRC. A lot of people just wait a week or two for all the used copies to show up. And these are generally 40+ hour games. Guessing it is similar elsewhere, but that is what comes to mind.

They should think of Gamefly the same way (and not just because Gamefly also sells used games). At least I would. Rentals are just as "bad" as used game sales. But guessing it isn't a bigger focus because it doesn't have as big of an impact.

Renting games would more or less be the same as buying used. Except EA has provided the 7 day trial, so if you are only renting a game for 7 days, probably won't affect you. If you rent it for longer, then yeah, you'll need to pay the "tax," at least for online play.

Because they still make up a pretty good portion of sales for new games, especially for certain titles (probably not so much EA Sports games though). They'd probably have to have all publishers agree to cut them out, or else some other publisher would take advantage of these lost (new game) sales.

And while GameStop might be the primary target, don't think they'd want to stop there.

(and I'm not even sure if this would be legal or possible? Don't know much about extreme business decisions like this).

This is a fair point. That said, developers are obviously trying to find another solution for it. Nowadays, just about every game has a demo available to check out. Mostly on consoles, although handhelds are going that route too. Maybe another generation or two, but eventually, you'd have free demos to check out before you decide to purchase a game. Of course, some publishers (maybe even EA?) somehow think they should charge for demos, which is ridiculous...even though I was pretty tempted with the FF13 demo.

And to be fair, this kind of stuff can happen with other forms of entertainment (or software), and you're usually stuck with your purchase. Of course, those purchases are generally much smaller, which, as I mentioned, is a problem with the video game industry. $60 is a tough pill to swallow, no matter how much entertainment might be offered.

Yes, this kind of stuff is great. Definitely need more of it.

Definitely will be some experimentation with the new system. As you said, it may turn out that publishers can get away with charging $60 with digital distribution.

But I'm guessing at some point, some publisher will decide that they can try to undercut the prices of these other games and create some competition. With much more money going to developers under this model (and costs being reduced), there would be much more room to drop prices in order to compete.

And imagine the bundles, which Steam has gotten me addicted to. Couldn't really put out a 20-30 game bundle at a retailer, but digital distribution allows for that sort of transaction. Steam certainly wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison, but I'd like to think that the sort of pricing we see there could be an indicator of how console games would be priced under a similar system. Eventually.

Don't know how they will implement this exactly, but I'd think you wouldn't have to pay. I'm assuming it will be like Steam. Or it should be.

DaDakota more or less said this already, but publishers often do lower their prices over time. Not to mention you have programs like Greatest Hits, Platinum Hits, Player's Choice, etc. Some are better at this than others though.

You'd have to convince the retailer that customers would buy it, which isn't always easy, especially since you'd likely be cutting into their profits. Out of $20, $7-$10 would probably have to go to MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc., maybe another $5 for actual manufacturing/shipping/etc costs, leaving $5 for the publisher and retailer to fight for. And I'm guessing the retailer will want most of that.

Been a while since I saw the breakdown costs for a video game, but think you can see what I mean.

I think so. Though GameStop and the rest are big enough to have a pretty big impact on things.

I agree with all of this. As I mentioned earlier, I would love to see the industry tweak its business model to allow for cheaper prices. I don't know if they'll bother in the current environment, but maybe with digital distribution, we'll see more experimentation.

Really? Now it is true that BB, Walmart, etc., don't sell used games, and they do make up the majority of sales for games.

But as I mentioned earlier, GS does have a large influence, especially on certain titles. Again, maybe EA isn't the best example, but imagine a more niche title that Walmart, BB, etc., don't even bother to carry (or they carry very few games). They have to rely on new game sales at GameStop that much more, though GS will certainly be focused on selling used versions of the game instead. Which can be a bit of a problem.

Well, making "good games" would seem to be taking them down anyway, so what's the difference? And with their experience, they've already seen what makes them money...and making good games isn't a requirement.

Not saying I agree with it or even like it. I hate it if anything. But it is a business, and "making better games" has not proven to be all that profitable...it fact, it may even be at odds with profits in some cases (or at least, they might look at it that way given their history).

Of course, maybe some of the problem is that so many developers are making better games. I know I have problems keeping up with all the new releases, and I'm guessing it could be a problem across the industry (lots of games bomb in Q3-Q4 because they got lost in the shuffle so to speak). I certainly don't have the time or money to play all the good ones. So perhaps making better games is accurate, but not exactly easy. Ideally, they'd still shoot for it, but from a business perspective, not easy to do. The $20M-$30M you spent on the last game? That wasn't enough...you need to spend at least $60M in order to be as "good" as those other games, and maybe profits will follow. Or you'll have to drop everything you know, and try something completely different and unique. Good luck to anyone at EA trying to convince them that this would be the route to go. Obviously, I'd prefer them to go that route, but I don't have my job or the company on the line.

I think the game industry has become a bit of a feast or famine type industry. While this gives us some great things, it can be pretty unstable from a business point of view. Would like to see things change a bit in the future.

 

There is no money in selling a game for $20.....

COGS is between $7-$10 alone.....

Then you have to recoup marketing and development costs.

Games are not cheap to make, they are labor intensive, and most quality games are in the 10s of millions.

If you consider games are entertainment and most offer tens of hours, or with multiplayer, hundreds of hours, it is a very inexpensive form of entertainment.

Consider the $10 you spend to go to a 2 hour movie........

DD

 

Yea I suppose shtti games may also take a lot of efford to make, and shtti servers may also take a lot of efford to maintain. And that's why I won't support them. It's like a chef spent 3 days making a duck but it tasted like sht. Should I pay to encourage him to make the same duck again, or should I not pay to let him know his failure.

MW2 removed dedicated server support; Bioshock 2 disabled on disc contents and charge people as a "DLC"; Lost Planet 2 cut big chunk of content from the CD and made release day DLC...

Now EA says "Though our servers are crappy and will be shut down soon, we want you to pay $10 to activate online play." Some would say "I am glad to pay cause I totally understand that you want to increase profit", but I say "go to hell".

 

People don't care how much it costs to make something.

It's all about how much they are willing to pay.

If you push consumers too far, they will not pay for it.