Look, a guest article! This one comes from Roynaldo.
Gaming. We all love it, even if it is expensive. The UK seems to have it good with ‘the norm’ being around £35-£40 for a new title. It sometimes seems that publishers and developers are squeezing us for every penny they can, although they’re simply charging what they know the market will bear, if we weren’t willing to pay it then they wouldn’t charge it.
However it does seem a little unfair that we should suffer equality with initial release prices when games are so varied in quality. Why does an RPG title or sandbox title that provides the customer with a minimum of 30 hours playtime, a very enjoyable 30 hours as well when looking at Grand Theft Auto or White Knight Chronicles, have the same initial price tag as Mindjack that lasts a fraction of that time and has a serious lack of quality in comparison?
What about Gran Turismo versus F1 2010? One has a gulf in class and support yet they both require you to part with the same amount of cash upon release. Why do we allow ourselves to be sucked into this whirlwind of greed and cost covering when the mediocre games inevitably fall from grace and end up in the bargain bin?
The fact of the matter is it’s all opinion. I may hate that samey feeling of Formula 1 games over the diverse, crisp feeling of Gran Turismo, you may not. You may prefer Cars 2 to Sonic Allstars. I would then tell you to sit on one of Sonics prickly bits and purchase Formula 1. I may scream at you to purchase Dragon Age but you might show me the finger whilst strutting your stuff around Fallout.
[drop]Call of Duty on the other hand is a complete dominator. It will sell millions whether it gets absolutely slated or is the best received game of all time. Activision know this and have upped the RRP. Greed? Yes. Fantastic business practice? Obviously.I believe that quality should be represented in price. For example Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Grand Theft Auto and all those other top notch titles should be top price whereas your yearly upgrades (usually from EA sports) should be lower down the ladder as the effort and development costs are a mere drop in the ocean. How can Activision warrant pumping out a set of new music tracks at £40 a pop? What about new IP? Should these be top price? It also begs the question what is top price if representation were to be put in place? We could then end up spending £50 on the AAA titles and £25-30 on the likes of FIFA.
Now I suppose all these questions need some sort of concluding question. What do we do about it? You could do what I do and only buy your most anticipated games upon release while stockpiling a back catalogue for the off peak. On the other hand you could remain being sucked into the whirlwind of profiteering, sit in your armchair playing a game that doesn’t deserve your £40.
The choice, is yours.
colmshan1990
I guess that to each their own, but a copy of FIFA is always worth full price to me.
It certainly deserves to be ranked AAA, and you’ll be hard pressed to find another game series as played, and that includes Call of Duty.
FIFA is a game where local multiplayer is not dead, where online is ridiculously strong, single-player is played to death, and is a game enjoyed by ALL ages. It might be a yearly update, but you’ll be hard-pressed to beat it for value.
stingraz
I completely agree. I wouldn’t like to put a number on the hours I’ve spent on the FIFA games over the last decade.
After the hours and hours of fun each game gives, I’m always happy to purchase the next one. Besides, they’re only about £20 – 30 on launch now anyway. And then there’s always the trade in, in the run up to September, so after everything, I’m hardly spending anything on a game I can garuntee 100+ hours.
GamingBlueBoy
I agree too. I haven’t got a new FIFA since 09 and that’s still a great game now.
( I will be getting FIFA 12.)
YOURMUMANDME
I completely agree, FIFA or even EA Sports games in general are ripping people off. Not only are they releasing the same game, slightly shinier each year but they have the brass to make you pay even more for updates by DLC when each iteration could be DLC itself !
Origami Killer
Fifa i believe should be priced at £20 each year at release, not much changes apart from the kits and which league the teams are in. It’s a rip off in my opinion. One disc, then every year pay for a new set of DLC including all the squad changes.
I was in GAME two days ago and I looked at the shelf for the latest games, there was Harry Potter and Infamous 2 selling at the same price, surely Infamous 2 has the better value for money, better quality and longer play time, but same price of the games, doesnt add up really.
Origami Killer
i mean the DLC could be priced at £20 not the disc
teflon
Why not just purchase FIFA every 2 or 3 years, then? The changes are incremental, so you’ll not miss out on much in that period, and the improvement will be more pronounced. However I do agree with the idea that they should offer a squad update package for previous games, so you could get the latest faces for those that care.
As for HP vs. inFamous 2, they’re targeted at different audiences, like a chick flick versus a superhero film. HP is worth the £40 to that parent who just wants some peace and quiet for an hour, whilst inFamous 2 is worth the £40 to others, but certainly holds no appeal for many. (fools!)
But really, the system balances itself. If something sells well then you’ll see another instalment, or at least similar games. If it doesn’t, then the franchise will get shelved, just as it is with films. You can’t consider your purchase as a single entity when looking at worth. Look to the bigger picture, since you’re actually taking part in a massive time-lapsed Groupon scheme, where everyone is watching what the masses are doing.
Origami Killer
I buy Fifa once it is down to £20 then it feels worth it. I’m inclined to agree with everything you have just said as well, I see what your getting at with the different audiences etc.
lenn117
I sorta agree with your point on Fifa there Teflon, but if you go from say Fifa 08 to 11 (which I’ve done numerous times at my mate’s house) then the differences are vast and can take away from the experience and fun of it. I do hate having to pay full price for a game whose series I buy year in year out. I’d much prefer if it was say €40 for a new Fifa…maybe less. Paying €50-60 each year is annoying, but Fifa is one of my most played games so I do get value for money.
Also…great article there Roynaldo
Darth Newdar
I think games’ prices are pretty fair, because, while at launch all games cost about £35-£40, low quality games quickly drop from those prices, while higher quality games maintain their price point. So Gran Turismo 5 is still £31 on Amazon.co.uk, while Mindjack is just £4, and FIFA 11 is £17.
I also think games, overall, provide excellent value for money. If the average new film on DVD costs £10, and you watch it two times, you get 3 hours for £10, or about £3.33 per hour. If you spend £35 on a game, you only need to spend about 10 hours to get the same value.
Personally, I spend hours and hours in any individual game – I spent about five months playing F1 2010 – so I feel the pricing is fair enough.
cam the man
I’m still playing F1 2010 now, I bought it at launch so I think I’ve had my monies worth.
Starman
Theres plenty of big releases I’ve felt were a let down, and theres plenty of games that didn’t get good reviews that I’ve picked up cheap and enjoyed more than the hyped-up titles. I believe its up to the buyer to decide whats worth our money. Too many big releases launch full of bugs & problematic online which means I trade it within a week while the values high
cc_star
If FIFA can deliver an online experience in the form of FIFA online (Tiger Woods Online & all the others) and update the game with live updates to tweek, balance & improve it incrementally there’s no reason why this can be the case with the disc based games with live updates tweeking players performances & hefty DLC-style updates overhauling larger aspects.
For me gaming is a good value pastime, but thanks to a variety of factors I’ll hardly ever fork out day1 full price for games again. It’s known there’s always an offer after couple of weeks knocking a hefty amount off and apart from some games where you need to be in there from the start FPS etc then what’s to gain by paying more?
cc_star
Apart from games like CoD & FIFA who’s demand throughout the year ensure the price stays high for longest time
nemesisND1derboy
Sorry to be the one to point this out, but “comes in Roynaldo”?
May want to rethink your choice of words Kris :P
Sympozium Pawa
lol…
teflon
Filthy minds see filthy words in every filthy crevice! ;)
Iainz
when looking at the value for money each game provides what people seem to often ignore is the comparison in price to other forms of entertainment. If you look for example at a cinema ticket its around £9 for two hours worry of entertainment, a football match a minimu of around £20 for 90 minutes. When you really work out how many hours of entertainment you get from even an average quality game it is in my opinion usually very good value for money
mynameisblair
Good read, Roynaldo!
Glad you said “Activision” pumping out a new set of music tracks; Rock Band 3 was anything but that.
spooferbarnabas
I agree, i won’t buy FIFA each year as the changes are not fundamental and only very slightly alter gameplay….although i may be more tempted to buy it yearly if the online wasn’t a complete and utter shambles.