Analyst: Publishers potentially slashing $60 pricing

[xtop]

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/03/an...ng-60-pricing/

In this day and age of economic downturn, people are holding on to their hard-earned greenbacks. For some, the $60 price tag on new gaming software is a bit too rich for their blood and – as if sensing their trepidation – Signal Hill analyst Todd Greenwald says it might be on its way out. Greenwald points to this trend using retail and publisher-supported price reductions during the past holiday season (Mirror's Edge, Madden NFL 2009) as examples of what could become stationary in 2009.

Consumers might be smugly smiling at the possibility of future software price cuts; however, such a move to counteract slowing sales would only be a brief riposte. In the long run, it would cut the industry deeply and would be "devastating for margins." That means more of this and less of that. In the end, it's a double-edged sword for both the industry and consumer alike.

[Goodintentions]

i think the price is fair but obviously yes it does cut down the amount of spending i do .. and certainly makes me more weary of what i purchase .. for me with the current state of my money i no longer make ANY blind purchases .

like they said though a price cut in hte long run will actually just hurt us as it would mean they make less money and then they start cutting corners to recoup it .. which means more bad rushed incomplete games

[BluOgre]

I think if the title is good, $60 is not a lot to ask. I would have no problems paying that amount for FF13, KZ2, God Of War 3, ect....

The problem I have is half the time the game isn't worth $60......and there is a lot of those out there. Even games like madden, IMO it's not worth $60 for a game that is released annually that has little to no difference from the previous years. Why can't they reduce the price of games like that? Heck Need For Speed is another perfect example.

[Terjyn]

This is a terrible idea. It's like those people who think Sony should have slashed prices to sell more units at a major loss. It is neither a good short term nor long term strategy.

Why do people (analysts included) constantly ignore the fact that a bad economy affects companies as much as it does individuals?

[ussrelativity]

If I were with Sony, if the decision was to cut the prices, I wouldn't cut them lower than to $50. It may move more software, but how much more?

I've been on this forum for a long time, but only have gotten a PS3 yesterday. Sure it sounds good, but I care about the well-being of Sony as a whole.

[Marine Mike]

I think that if they lower the prices of the games then it will just give gaming companies an excuse to produce lower quality games.

[alphapyro]

not to chide the developers too heavily, but I do agree that I've been duped into paying too much for an underdeveloped game.


If developers and game companies really want to keep their prices, I should expect software titles that don't have glitches or are rushed to completion. They should release the games when they are ready, and tease us just before release.

That brings me to their marketing strategy. It sucks. Completely. How are you going to wet my appetite and then tell me the game won't be out till the end of this year (or next year for that matter)? I'm going to have forgotten and moved on. If you want to increase sales then advertise your games maybe a few weeks before release so I'm still excited about it before I read all the speculation and craptastic publicity the game magazines will give it either with unfair ratings or obviously biased ratings.

There's more going on than just the price of the game that they can fix - they're just looking for the easier answers first.

[richieb1971]

The price of the game should be calculated by its review scores.

Paying $60 for a movie tie in is usually a waste of money. If a game gets 60% or less in reviews its going into bargain basement anyway. I don't see how pricing affects games sales, because as said above, if the game really is that good its going to sell.

[BillCable]

I think dropping the price of games to $50 would lead to a significant increase in retail software sales. Right now many people just wait a week and pick up the game at GameStop used for $10 cheaper. Those people would be inclined to purchase new if the price was already that low. I can't see GameStop offering week-old games at $40... they'd probably be $45. For $5 more a lot of people would just buy games at regular retail. Since developers see money from retail sales and not from used sales, they'd end up making significantly more money, which they'd invest in developing better games. The main reason the used market is so strong is because the games are overpriced.

[Maximus]

I think dropping to $40 for average games while blockbuster games could keep the $60 or even go up to $70 to counter the drop on the other side.

It all depends on what you buy though...

[SleeperAgent]

Oblivion Game of the Year Edition would be worth 100 when it was brand new IMO. ES5 will be worth it.

But crap that takes less than 10 hours to beat (SW Force Unleashed) that has no replay value should be 30-40 max.

[Hedchekr]

Why is it that a $60 game on a console is $35-$45 on a PC I have never understood this.

I hate to seperate consoles and prices for games, but its kinda understandable if Sony kept prices at $60 since the games are on a Blu-ray disc.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by alphapyro

If developers and game companies really want to keep their prices, I should expect software titles that don't have glitches or are rushed to completion. They should release the games when they are ready, and tease us just before release.

This is insane. If you wait till you have no glitches, you will never release.

Name one game in the past 10 years that didn't have a single glitch, I dare you. I double dog dare you.

[BluOgre]

Originally Posted by Hedchekr

Why is it that a $60 game on a console is $35-$45 on a PC I have never understood this.

I hate to seperate consoles and prices for games, but its kinda understandable if Sony kept prices at $60 since the games are on a Blu-ray disc.

There isn't much to it, a game on the console is higher because of the royalties you must pay.

On the PC there is no royalties I believe.

[air_max]

$60 is worth it for the games i buy on release date. then there are the games i buy only because i find them on sale. in fact, there are only a few games i actually paid $60 for (MGS4, LBP, Fallout 3, Resistance 2, Oblivion GOTY), while i have found many games for $30 (Burnout, COD4) and some for even $20 (Lair, Battlefield: BC, Bioshock, SOCOM). there is already a great market for lower priced games, you just have to wait a few months after their initial release.

me, unless they drastically slash the price, i still won't be buying more games. i buy the games i know ill love and play for awhile. i rent the games that ill like and play only once. regardless of any price tag. i cannot think of one additional game id buy over the past 6 months if it was $40.

obviously if they do this i wont be complaining, but IMO i think its the wrong move. maybe im the only person in the world who buys games like this tho

[alphapyro]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

This is insane. If you wait till you have no glitches, you will never release.

Name one game in the past 10 years that didn't have a single glitch, I dare you. I double dog dare you.

I don't think I need to explain the obvious difference between a game that you can actually play (Uncharted) vs a game that has critical flaws disrupting gameplay (Oblivion, for example, at the end screeches to 1 frame every 2 seconds almost on the very last quest). Forgive me if I don't take more time to come up with more or better examples to satisfy your double dog dare. I trust you have some sensibility in this matter. Don't shoot your eye out.

If you take my words literally, which I'll give you since that is all you have to go on in a forum like this, then I see your point, but I'd hope others could read better into what I meant. Duly noted for the future that I should be more clear.

[bilbravo]

I don't think $60 is way too much, however it hurts your ego a bit to buy a game at $60 and then see DLC 2 days later (game release on Tuesday, PSN releases on Thursday) for $10.

If publishers plan to keep up with the DLC coming very very soon after release date, then an initial price drop will make it a bit less insulting.

[jamclaur]

Originally Posted by bilbravo

I don't think $60 is way too much, however it hurts your ego a bit to buy a game at $60 and then see DLC 2 days later (game release on Tuesday, PSN releases on Thursday) for $10.

If publishers plan to keep up with the DLC coming very very soon after release date, then an initial price drop will make it a bit less insulting.

I agree... Or what's worse getting me to pay 60 bucks for a game then giving xbox exclusive DLC.

My 60 bucks is the same as theirs why am I being shafted? I almost would rather buy used games from gamestop just so they DON'T get any money from me. (only on those shitty companies... I'm looking at YOU Fallout 3).

[FendersRule]

For me at least, $60 is a ripoff for MOST titles.

The only title that I have agreed to pay $60 for is Little Big Planet. This is because is has an infinite amount of updated content (user created), and the fact that I can build my own levels if I so choose.

Your average play-through game with some multiplayer does not justify $60. That is a lot of money.

Left4Dead is the biggest example of this. 4 levels, a basic Valve Port if you will, and they want $60 for this........no way in hell.

[reiella]

If margins drop, innovation drops with them unforunately. Why take a risk when you can release Madden 2k9 and get a guaranteed return.

However, price reduction is a natural correction to a downturn in demand. We'll see.