Who cares about the price, if the game is worth it buy it if its not don't simple as that

I'm willing to pay $60 for a game that is worth it.  Am I the only remember paying $80 for the Turok on N64 or $70 for Street Fighter 2 on snes?   Count your blessings.

Or you could borrow from a friend or relative.

i live in Canada where games MSRP is also 60$ nowadays. I found an old ad from 2002 - xbox and ps2 games sold for 79.99$. Prices can go down.......

The only way you'll say goodbye to 60 dollar games is when the price rises to 70 dollars. No business is going backwards on pricing, especially when every competitor is having no problems selling games for more money. Further, few companies sell a 60 dollar game today. That sixty clams pretty much buys you a shell of a game, or half the content on the disk, while taking a further investment to actually PLAY the game. Or (as EA likes to do) they make the gameplay way of unlocking content such a dreary, painful grind that it's basically punishing you for NOT paying more money to unlock things. 

The games with the least innovation and dull, yearly money grab sequels (CoD, Madden, etc) all fly off the shelves on release day at full retail- then do booming business with DLC. Obviously the masses have spoken- and they not only don't mind the 60 dollar price point, if you include the commonality of DLC purchases (especially for these repetitive titles) then the crowd has collectively agreed to $80-$100 games for the current console platforms. 

The next gen of consoles will have higher prices for games. The games will be bigger and harder to make and so devs will always have that excuse for their prices. But looking at today's market, a game on the next gen console could easily pull a 75 dollar retail price, plus whatever for DLC after. That's just the reality of what the market will bear.

CONT.

On the other hand, I got many emulators and roms, so, the games I've played when I was a child and teen, and for some I paid high and rented like crazy, and the ones I never played I have for free now. This was the best thing that ever happened to me, otherwise, I wouldn't be able to save money for other important things. I used to be a guy who never gave much thought about money and today I still have slight struggles to deal with in a better way for me. There's no pay off in spending 60$ on a new, exciting game. You just get into debt that, in the long run, it's not worth it and make you feel silly, no matter how many times you played the hell out the game and felt it was the time of your life.

Of course, I wish I could have a powerful computer, to play with more quality and more power games, so, I've been considering a transition to PC gaming for some time now. I think it's for the best, taking into account the money I've already spent on systems and their games. This is personal experience, don't feel offended about it.

I really don't remember the precise last time I rented a game but it's been more than 10 years. I just buy the games I want today and I could gather a nice collection of 50 titles, although, over the years, I've had perhaps 70 titles and I managed to exchange some in deals with game's stores for new games. These stores hardly ever offer decent evaluation for your used games and you even end up giving a little extra money for the games they are selling at ridiculous prices, it's a shady business.

I don't know exactly how much a new BlueRay film costs, but I'm sure it costs less than a new video game, even for the PC. The budget for making a film isn't any cheaper than making a video game I think. The difference is justified by the value that a video game has in the market. A video game, in terms of value for the consumer is estimated higher than a film, and more or less I agree with that.  The film industry and music industry as older and more massive were the ones that defined prices long time ago, and a video game,  is based on the same market system. They share the same media of distribution too. In my mind the higher price that a video game costs is merely a multiplier of the value of a film.

This is why I wait for good sales. Spent about $1k on Black Friday. Bought a 360, PS3 and 60 games. These games include XCOM EU, Dishonored, Max Payne 3 and Borderlands 2. Also got some older games that are amazing, like the Mass Effect series, Skyrim, the Gears of War series, all the Halos, etc.

If you don't want $60 games, dont buy them. Just wait, prices always go down. You just have to wait for them.

This is why game rental is huge right now because people dont wanna go out and spend £80 on 2 games, I thought bout this myself and if games released had a sell price of £20 instead of £40 it would be great but its stupid prices and in todays word not everyone can dish out lots of can on a small amount of games, I actually think they would make more money halfing the price because that would influence people into treating themself to a game instead of saying its just 2 expensive.

This is why game rental is huge right now because people dont wanna go out and spend £80 on 2 games, I thought bout this myself and if games released had a sell price of £20 instead of £40 it would be great but its stupid prices and in todays word not everyone can dish out lots of can on a small amount of games, I actually think they would make more money halfing the price because that would influence people into treating themself to a game instead of saying its just 2 expensive.

If they dropped there prices down to $40 things would still stay the same only people will be paying even less for second hand games

Well, personally I like to buy the games new, as in first hand. I like supporting Devs. However, few are the games that I buy at 60?. I usually wait for a price drop to buy games. Like I'm thinking of buying AC Brotherhood and Revelations now, mostly the Brotherhood one. I know it may be hard to get people on MP, but I just can't buy games at 60? on a yearly basis for all the series that I love. I've bought RE6 at launch, but RE is my favourite series. Other than that, all other games I buy at most in the 40? price... Usually I wait for the 20? price.

But I do agree games should be less expensive. I'd buy games at 40? on launch... So they would make money from my wallet right away, instead of waiting for my 20?... But hey, it's their loss... I am patient enough to wait for most games... There were a good amount of games I wanted during holidays, but I also know that I don't have the time to complete them all at 100%, so I just stick to those I have, complete them, then go buy a new one.

However, I do have to keep isolated from any new of those games, so that I don't spoiled on story and stuff.

Great article. I always say to my friends, jokingly I might add, that Steam is going to take over the gaming industry some day because they can offer games for so much less than their console counterparts. There is a grain of truth in that statement though. Why would I pay $60 to play blops 2 on my PS3 when I can play Team Fortress 2 on my PC for free? I realize that each game has its redeeming qualities and each one is good in its own right, but for a casual gamer - say one who will put maybe 3 days tops into a game before he gets bored - it's pretty much a no-brainer to go for the free one. But I digress, not only do they need to stop releasing games for $60, but the whole nickel and diming us has got to stop. The example that comes immediately to mind is the add-on Hearthfire for Skyrim. That was something that could've easily been added into the vanilla game without too much effort at all. I doubt it'll happen any time soon, but a guy can dream, right?

Oh, $60 games are going away, but not for the reason you're hoping. When the next gen launches later this year, its titles will retail at $5-$10 more than current-gen titles.

But it's not all doom and gloom. There is a ceiling, as consoles such as the Neo Geo have demonstrated, and no matter how flashy or fancy consoles get, they're never going to break that ceiling. Also, with digital downloads and the prospect of streaming on-demand services being a more practical alternative, there's every chance your gaming dollar will dramatically increase in value in the coming years. 

And let's not forget about the advent of the indy title. Last year's nearly-unanimous game of the year was Journey, a game that costs $15. Just as digital downloads killed the record store and made it so nobody had to ever pay $20 to listen to a crappy record just so they could hear the two songs they liked from the radio, downloadable games (particularly of the indy variety) will kill the GameStops of the world, and make AAA titles much less viable. You'll never be rid of your main franchises, but the odds of you spending $70 on a Scribblenauts title are going to drop to nil as AAA developers who can no longer compete in an expanded marketplace either join a different pricing tier or go out of business. 

AAA developers and distributors are trying to nickle-and-dime you, adding microtransactions and on-disc DLC so your gaming dollar is lessened by the hour, but the natural evolution of the industry should correct that. It's all about availability, and so long as indy titles and downloadable content are real things, chances are gaming will become less and less expensive. 

Nice article I do agree with the sixty dollar price tag on video games must go, but your statement here " The only real reason why I keep buying games new is because I just hate knowing the fact that there are games out there now that I want. " sounds like your contradiction yourself, but your honest if you going to write about a topic argument then you have to fully support that topic argument and that a silly excuse. I?m not trying to criticize you, I not going to hate on people opinions and statements everyone entitled to what they say, but being hostile I think that childish and immature, (So a heads up I can be critical because I?m looking forward to more of your work it caught my attention), but can you fully explain what you mean by your statement unless you?re a hardcore gamer or a game-freak as for the sixty dollar price tag. Economics 101 it?s all about supply and demand. As the factory makes more games the supply increases, therefore the price eventually goes down. As for me I wait for a couple months before I buy my product there no rush for me I?m a very patience gamer and I?m very selective on the things I buy either way this is an amazing article. 

I agree with the idea that $60 games should go away or become a rarity. To say that it is a recent development though is inaccurate. $75 for Strider on Genesis back in the day was ridiculous, even though it was pretty damn good for early 16 bit. No single game should be that high, especially now with all the options available.

Lets not forget too how things are going more and more digital so these greedy game companies arent even paying for mass manufacturing of physical media like they did in the old days. Just toss the software data on some online game store and get profit while treating loyal customers like second class citizens by temporarily locking them out of exclusives if not permenently. As usual instead of the amazing technology available now being used to make things better its used to rip the customer off  and create division while playing marketing mind games to con people into buying a console just to play some dlc addon.

Like a great Modder once said when a certain high profile game which had strong pc roots was released with a very console style design, "THEY SOLD US OUT!". How the truth has unfolded to prove him completely right.

Thank goodness my other hobbies are more "honest" though still driven by a profit margin.

Thanks for the excellent article JustPlainLucas :D

in 1982 I paid 60 dollars for Defender on the Atari 2600

Yeah.....

Im not 100% on $-£ right now..... but back in the snes days we were paying £60 for the likes of DK Country and Killer Instinct. I think thats $80-$100, so i very much doubt the Special Editions were a "test"....

I was about 10 when the snes was in its prime, and relyed on others to buy me games... £60 wasn't a walk in the park lol.... £40 seems ok in comparison... I only buy like 1 or 2 games a year, so i'm rarly disapointed with a game

I like your post and Ideas, however futile. In 1978 I was paying $20-$30 US for new games on the Atari 2600. So compare that to today's prices. We are very lucky they aren't 100 or more. =/

I completely agree with this story unfortunately it seems that the price drops will not happen.  I just hope that when the next consoles come out that there is not another 10 dollar price jump.  It seems like every console generation the price of games jumps 10 dollars and it's bull.

Lastly, the devs are hypocrites. One moment they offer exclusive info and content for preordering, an agreement they make with Gamestop. The very next moment, they whine about loss over used sales? What a crock! Mind you, I've purchased used games before and still went and bought some DLC because I genuinely liked the game and wanted more. But because it was used, I was "locked out" of the online access unless I bought an access code which often costs as much or more than the DLC itself. (i've never bought these codes and never will). I understand server maintanance is not free. But again, there was an initial sale of these titles to begin with and people do have the chance to still purchase some new content.

Anyone here ever buy or owned a used car? Does the original auto manufacturer (Toyota, Dodge, Mercedez) ever try to find a way to charge you again for owning it second hand?  The world of finance refers to such tactics as "double-dipping".

How and why were so many titles more expensive on console than their PC counterpart? Forgive me for not taking specific note and record of which titles I've noticed this while at a store, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen this throughout the years.

Another thing is that gaming has come a long way since SNES. True cartridges were more expensive but today the installed user base may be triple of what it was then. You can't really say that would have no impact because they would just have to manufacture more since mass production always come with the stipulation of creating more at the lowest cost possible. And now the format is on discs made mostly of plastic! That is a huge difference!

I paid £60 (around $100) for Conkers bad fur day on N64, tbh i dont mind paying higher prices if the game is worth it but not every game merits the price they publish at and needs to be more flexibility in the launch prices of games

I said goodbye to the $60 game years ago. With rising prices and the lack of pay increases, I either buy at discounted prices or else I just wait a year or two and buy used. Other industries have had to find ways around the current economy, yet the gaming industry, who keeps putting out the same game with minor updates year after year, is still asking the $60 price and then dings us for DLC. Not only that but they've tried to find ways to block used purchases. Is there any other industry in the world that is so abrasive to its consumers? 

so anarchy reigns is a sequel to mad world? or is it a spin off type game?

The problem is human nature wants to get a discount, if they start with $40 or $30 in no time people will complain It is expensive and they should drop the price, they start with a higher price because It will eventually drop.  They have a business to run.

Games are the cheapest they have ever been.
Take into account inflation, development time and development workforce and you'll see that we are paying less than we used to and for bigger games too.

Back when cartridges were used it was very expensive to produce the cartridge so the cost of the game was much higher.
SNES games averaged at around $50 Take inflation into account and you would be paying $88.07 for a game in 2013. And that would be a SNES game; not your Red Dead Redemption or Skyrim or GTAV.
I think we're lucky to have amazing games for the prices we can get them.