Micheal Pachter says game prices are too low, we're getting a gift at 60 bucks

here's the link for anyone who wants to watch it.

http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=3&pt=1

I think some games can be worth that much. Oblivion is a long ass game, I see no problem charging 60 bucks for it. Then you have other games that are shitty ports of an Xbox game that just runs in a higher resolution and they charge 10 bucks more for it, fuck that. (Gun, lego Star Wars)

They also talk about the fact that games sell less at higher price tags means developers take fewer and fewer risks, I personally don't see that as a good thing. I'd like to see some more risk taking in the industry, I think if we start getting nothing but sequels, the game industry could end up in a slump similar to the one for the movie industry.

Who the fuck is Michael Pachter?

an industry "observer".

i just googled it.

he's with wedbush morgan, he's like the main analyst for the video game industry.

Michael Pachter is a tech industry analyst at Morgan & Wedbush. He's the go-to business guy quote machine for the gaming press. Whenever IGN or EGM or nextgen.biz need a "stock market guy says Sony is fucked/Nintendo rules/ Xbox 360 is totally important to the real world" blurb they've got him on the phone. Seriously, he's got a different quote out there three times a week.

He's also got like the worst batting avg. ever, his predictions are often wildly off. He's not stupid or anything, but at the end of the day I don't think his opinions are worth much more than mine.

Now PJ McNealy at American Technology Research, there's an analyst who knows what he's on about.

Just watched it. The guy is off the mark. The other two guys seemed to be more down to earth and realistic. The host was annoying and definitely liked anal stimulation.

I'm not watching this, but give me a fucking break. A gift? Yeah, I'm sure game companies are losing their shirts selling us their shitty $60 games. They're all a bunch of charities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

He's also got like the worst batting avg. ever, his predictions are often wildly off. He's not stupid or anything, but at the end of the day I don't think his opinions are worth much more than mine.

---

I agree with this pretty much. I mean did you see his last quote for the overall console war. That at some point World Wide every console is going to be winning that every couple 2 - 3 years its going to change or something along those lines, I think he's fucking nuts if he thinks thats the case.

Just when he said we should be paying more for games and that 60 bucks was developers giving us a gift I was like fuck that shit.

I think it was you or mech, or some one on here, I could have sworn it was some one on here, that said the main problem with these analysts is that they treat the video game industry the same way as the tech industry. Which its not, its part of the entertainment industry and should be treated as such. Who ever said it I fully agree with them.

I'm not paying any more for domestic games. I'll just stop buying them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

Sony is fucked/Nintendo rules/ Xbox 360 is totally important to the real world" blurb they've got him on the phone

---

Pachter's always been pro-Sony, doubting Nintendo, and bullish on Microsoft. You're right, his batting average ain't great. He thinks Blu-ray is the key to PS3 success, and always overestimates 360 sales by a lot (he might've been close for December, but that's about it). He rarely ever acknowledges Nintendo, though I imagine that's changing. Mid and late last year, he was always shocked at DS Lite sales and guessed they'd slow down the next month.

95% of videogames are not worth 50 dollars, let alone 60. When a game like Gears of War, Rainbow Six Vegas or Dead Rising drop that are of quality they're legitimately worth 60 bucks and I don't mind paying it.

But fuck the rest.

Just watched the video. I think Pachter's trying wayyyyyy too hard to earn his paycheck as an analyst. $60 a bargain, and prices should be $70 or $80? Based on what?

Movie budgets are in most cases much, much higher than video game budgets, but you can see a movie for $10 in a massive theater with thousands of dollars worth of screen and audio equipment, or go buy the movie a couple months later for $20 and own it forever. Also, the price of movies doesn't vary with the cost of producing the movie. I paid $10 to see Pan's Labyrinth, just like I paid $10 to see Casino Royale--but they certainly didn't cost the same to make. DVD prices are similarly the same no matter the budget behind content. The only time DVD prices vary (in most cases) is well after initial release (like video games that also, for the most part, sell for the same intial price). Consumers don't generally judge the value of a product by how much it cost to make but rather by how much it's worth to them. If we were so concerned with the manufacturing/production cost of merchandise, no one would pay $2.00 for a soda.

Even if/when video game budgets are consistently up there with movie budgets, further increasing the price of games isn't going to help the industry. Movies can get away with lower prices than games because they sell to a much larger audience. But if movies sold for $50 a pop, you can bet that audience would shrink. If the game industry wants to grow, they honestly need to focus on keeping prices low--and possibly lower than they currently are. Upping game prices will just further segregate the hardcore gamefans from the mainstream, and that's not a healthy direction for the industry.

Also, I giggled when Pachter said you can't sell a Pixar game for $40. Cars came out on current gen systems this year for $30, I believe. Because you can't sell that sort of game--a game that appeals strictly to the mainstream and not the hardcore--for hardcore prices.

Also giggled at the prediction that we'll see a lot of sequels as game production costs go up. Like that hasn't been the case throughout the history of video games. There will always be room for non-sequels to succeed big, though--just look at Gears of War.

If Pachter thinks gaming can thrive with people going back to paying $70+ out of their salary when the expenses of this economy keep getting worse, then he's one hell of a dumbass!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Mid and late last year, he was always shocked at DS Lite sales and guessed they'd slow down the next month.

---

Nintendo always rules Christmas. Always. Being shocked at that is like being shocked that the sun rises tomorrow. Anyone who can't analyze that has no business talking about the industry.

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

Nintendo always rules Christmas. Always. Being shocked at that is like being shocked that the sun rises tomorrow. Anyone who can't analyze that has no business talking about the industry.

James

---

It wasn't just Christmas, though. When DS Lite first launched, I believe he was pretty surprised it sold 600k in one month (June) and predicted it'd be back to normal (around 150k) for July. But in July DS Lite sold another 400k. Of course he expected it to go back down in August 'cause nothing was happening, but it didn't. And it won't ever.

games have just been too expensive for me for a while. i can't afford $50 (and certainly not $60) for a game. even if it's something i really really want, i either wait for it to drop in price or i ask for it for christmas/my birthday. but for $60 i can't go out and buy every game i think looks fun. most games really aren't worth it. i'd buy more games if they cost less, and i think most other people are the same way.

unless i know that a game i want has gone on sale, i never walk into best buy with the intention of buying a video game. i rarely even bother glancing at the section to see what's there. the high prices have turned me off from browsing, and i'm sure i'm not the only person who thinks that way. there's no way that can be good for the companies.

and i don't think i own a single game, i don't care how much i love it, that i'd be willing to be $70 or $80 for. screw that. i could wait.

I can afford $50 a game, but it's still a ridiculous asking price. I buy most of my games way after a pricedrop and most off of eBay. I can count the number of games I bought day one in 2006 on one hand. I may not play many videogames anymore but if brand-new games sold for $30 instead of $50-60, I'd probably buy a lot more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

He thinks Blu-ray is the key to PS3 success,

---

Actually, I sort of agree with him on that. All the people here going "LOL Sony" don't get what they're really up to. I soured on the PS3 because they kept downgrading the gaming specs and losing exclusives, but in terms of corporate strategy it's going to work out for them.

People dont understand that the gaming divsion represents like 1/10th of Sony's operating profits as a whole. Their movie and home electronics divisions are far, far more vaulable - 2/3rds of the company. PS3 sales mean blu ray is going to win by default. I've been saying it for a year and nobody believes me, but there isn't a contest for the next HD movie format and there never was.

Nobody cares right now, but in 3 years HDTV penetration will be huge and PS3 being (by that point) a $3-400 blu ray player is going to be a definite asset to them. What's more, the format's success is going to drive the sales of Bravias, stand alone blu ray players and most importantly - brd royalties.

Now, could the PS3 have done better simply by being a juiced up PS2 that was closer to the 360's price, not a huge loss-per-unit generator and not bleeding 3rd party support? Hell yes. But this wasn't about the gaming division, the blu ray decision was about Sony as a whole. Time will tell what kind of damage it's done to the Playstation brand, but if blu ray takes off it will have an interesting effect on the next generation if Microsoft's system can't play the dominant entertainment medium without licensing Sony technology.

I think Blu-ray is far more a detriment to PS3 than anything else. Sony wagered the success of PS3 on Blu-ray proliferation. It's a massive bet with massive stakes. Blu-ray has a lot more to gain from the pairing than PS3. The added $200 that Blu-ray carries isn't at all matched by the appeal of added functionality. No one cares. Not now. Not until Blu-ray v. HD-DVD is decided, if it ever is. Right now I'd say that's a pretty big if. And PS3 is suffering because of it.

We're getting very close to HDTV becoming the norm. Which is exactly what Sony needs (and wants and profits from in every conseivable way). In a year many people are going to forget the rough PS3 start and want one to go with their new HDTV. The hard part for Sony is getting to that time and hoping that downloadable/on demand content doesn't completely take off.

MS just needs to make sure the hits keep coming (no problem this year, 2008 needs to take shape).

HDTV will be pretty well proliferated just because it's getting so cheap that it won't make sense to not get HDTV. But the number of people that are willing to spend premium dollars for stuff like HD-DVD and Blu-ray players isn't going to grow much until the players and media become much, much more affordable. The market that's interested in paying $600 for a new movie player is pretty small. Definitely not big enough to make PS3 a success, or even barely affect its success. Compared to the market that lapped up a $299 PS2 (or better, a $199 PS2 a year and a half after launch), that market is nothing.

I feel like I'm rambling tonight, so forgive me. Feeling kinda dizzy from too much caffeine, so please pardon any retardation.

Bottom line is, I don't feel Blu-ray will at all drive PS3 sales. Sony is betting on the opposite, that PS3 success makes Blu-ray dominant--they know that if PS2 had ushered in their own format instead of DVD, they'd be in an oustanding position with formats. But I think the $600 price tag is preventing PS3 from being anywhere near as successful as PS2. And without that same success, I don't know how much PS3 will help Blu-ray.

I feel like making a bad analogy, so here goes: I think Sony hitched a horse trailer to their race car to help their horse win its own race. There, that's awful, and I can't believe I'm posting it, but there. I should go to sleep.

The problem is that Pachter analyzes from a real gamer's standpoint. He's up on MS because they have the best stuff out, while he was down on Nintendo because its a piece of dogshit. The problem is that you can't underestimate the delusional Nintendo kids, the poor/stupid people who buy the Wii because they think its just as viable of a next-gen system, or the people with ass taste.

And this is why Joust would fail as an analyst. He understands what he understands and writes off the rest as crap.

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

The problem is that Pachter analyzes from a real gamer's standpoint.

---

Man, POTY already. It's only February!

I don't write anything off as crap. I see everything that comes out. I am just telling you why Pachter thinks/thought the way he does. I didnt say it was wise...just that as a gamer with good taste, you see Nintendo's efforts as half-assed.

Oh yeah as for the real topic...60 bucks? Hell yeah, bring on that crazy shit. I have no problem with it. If you want cheap games, buy a Wii or a PS2 and GTFO of my internet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv

Then you have other games that are shitty ports of an Xbox game that just runs in a higher resolution and they charge 10 bucks more for it, fuck that. (Gun, lego Star Wars)

---

Then you have PS2 ports that add Wiimote functionality and pay $30 more for it.

Game prices stuck in neutral since the Atari 2600, combined with ever-escalating costs, have bankrupted a lot of companies.

hurray for game analysists

I really need to look into a job doing this shit so I can pass off an almost comical bias as "analysis" and get paid for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

All the people here going "LOL Sony" don't get what they're really up to. I soured on the PS3 because they kept downgrading the gaming specs and losing exclusives, but in terms of corporate strategy it's going to work out for them.

---

Agreed, but when people point this out about Nintendo, they're attacked. "I don't care about Nintendo's profits, I care about games."

In '04 and '05, especially in the holiday season, $50 games were bombing left and right. Probably only 15-20% of games were hitting the publisher's target at their initial price, and if you take away licensed games that percentage drops signifigantly. Look at all the titles that ended up in blow-out clearances at CC and TRU, not even half a year old. If retailers are dropping products in price by 80% in that short of a period, I don't know how the fuck anyone can argue that the industry's pricing isn't fundamentally flawed, let alone make the case for an even higher tag.

Like Andrew said, there are some games that are viable and justifiable for full prices. Well-established franchises like Halo, Final Fantasy, and Mario will do well at that price. A new IP that pushes the hardware and has a ton of marketing (like GoW) will usually sell well. But then you've got stuff with no marketing, no buzz, and a much smaller budget that somehow think they can hang at the same price point. And they can't.

The industry needs a tiered pricing model. $60 for the stuff that's guaranteed to sell, $40 or less for the stuff that's not such a sure bet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

The market that's interested in paying $600 for a new movie player is pretty small.

---

Sure looks that way right now, but how much will the thing cost in 2-3 years?

Quote:

---

I feel like making a bad analogy, so here goes: I think Sony hitched a horse trailer to their race car to help their horse win its own race. There, that's awful, and I can't believe I'm posting it, but there. I should go to sleep.

---

But that's what I'm saying - you're looking at it like "hey, they could have made PS3 differently and it would have sold better," and you're right. But if it goes off, blu ray is more valuable than the Playstation is, and bundling it with the PS is the best way to make it happen. Sacrificing short term marketshare could still pay of in the long term.

PS3 might find itself in a rut it can't get out of - at the end of the day it's still a gaming machine first, and if the competition performs its primary function better than it does, it'll get beat.

But imagine how it looks on shelves in 3 years, when the majority of homes have HD sets, the PS3 costs $299 and plays blu ray, and HD-DVD is already dead. It'll look more appealing vis-a-vis the competition than it does now.

[quote=Bacon McShig In '04 and '05, especially in the holiday season, $50 games were bombing left and right. Probably only 15-20% of games were hitting the publisher's target at their initial price, and if you take away licensed games that percentage drops signifigantly. Look at all the titles that ended up in blow-out clearances at CC and TRU, not even half a year old. If retailers are dropping products in price by 80% in that short of a period, I don't know how the fuck anyone can argue that the industry's pricing isn't fundamentally flawed, let alone make the case for an even higher tag. [/quote]

The thing is, they're stuck. Next gen games require tons and tons of hi-res art assets and licensed engines and software. You either spend alot of money on it, or you wind up with a game that comes across as second rate.

Pachter's right insofar as profit margins have gone down this gen, and games have to sell unrealistic amounts just to break even. That's why everything's going multiplatform. If you need to move 300k units to make a dime, it's just not going to happen on one platform unless your game's a top 15 seller that year. Obviously more than 15 games are released in a year, so alot of companies are screwed at $50.

That's why I'm kind of surprised more publishers haven't embraced the Wii; you could probably produce an impressive looking game on that for $2 million, and make money at 100k units sold.

I love www.cheapassgamer.com, I hardly pay MSRP anymore. Mr. Pachter can suck it.

Remember when games like Chrono Trigger, Phantasy Star II-IV launched at $70-90?

I remember in the Nintendo days when games were $50. Why they didn't go up in price until years later is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefy Hits

I remember in the Nintendo days when games were $50. Why they didn't go up in price until years later is beyond me.

---

Because they sell alot more copies now than before. The gross sale is millions more than even the best sellers back then.

Actually it's because DVDs are a shitload cheaper to produce than cartridges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

Sure looks that way right now, but how much will the thing cost in 2-3 years?

---

If PS3 was priced evenly with the competition, I wouldn't have so many doubts. But at $600, it's going to be a long time before the PS3 is mainstream affordable. I just don't see PS3 being the dominant force after 2-3 years of being overpriced for the market. Not after 360 and Wii have captured their own markets and publishers go after the larger install bases.

Quote:

---

But that's what I'm saying - you're looking at it like "hey, they could have made PS3 differently and it would have sold better," and you're right. But if it goes off, blu ray is more valuable than the Playstation is, and bundling it with the PS is the best way to make it happen. Sacrificing short term marketshare could still pay of in the long term.

PS3 might find itself in a rut it can't get out of - at the end of the day it's still a gaming machine first, and if the competition performs its primary function better than it does, it'll get beat.

But imagine how it looks on shelves in 3 years, when the majority of homes have HD sets, the PS3 costs $299 and plays blu ray, and HD-DVD is already dead. It'll look more appealing vis-a-vis the competition than it does now.

---

I agree with all of this. I just think those "ifs" are a lot bigger than you're making them out to be. I know what Sony's trying to do. I just doubt it's going to work. Sony's most successful format is the Memory Stick which shares market share with about a half dozen competing products. That's the best they've ever done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint of Killers

Actually it's because DVDs are a shitload cheaper to produce than cartridges.

---

Bingo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

I think Blu-ray is far more a detriment to PS3 than anything else. Sony wagered the success of PS3 on Blu-ray proliferation. It's a massive bet with massive stakes. Blu-ray has a lot more to gain from the pairing than PS3. The added $200 that Blu-ray carries isn't at all matched by the appeal of added functionality. No one cares. Not now. Not until Blu-ray v. HD-DVD is decided, if it ever is. Right now I'd say that's a pretty big if. And PS3 is suffering because of it.

---

I agree completely. There's no real reason to think Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will replace DVD's as the dominant media format in the next 4-5 years (or ever). Look at all the superior media formats that tried to replace the CD in the music industry. People are going to keep buying DVD's and watching movies on-demand or via download services. The mainstream market has never adopted a new format because of increased audio/visual quality, the mainstream market adopts new formats because of convenience (which is why on-demand is the true "future format").

Sony is paying way too much attention to the PS2's effect on DVD sales in Japan. This notion that PS2 ushered in the DVD format in the west is nonsense. People already wanted DVD players (DVD sales had been steadily climbing for 3 years and prices were reaching mainstream levels). PS2 launched with a weak lineup; people bought PS2's in that first year because they wanted a DVD player and figured "why not have the dominant videogame system at the same time at a mass-market price?" Then great games started coming out, and by the time Xbox and Gamecube hit a year later the war was already over. PS2 didn't sell DVD, DVD sold PS2.

As for PS3,

A) There isn't a huge mainstream interest in Blu-Ray as there was for DVD.

B) The PS3 isn't the obvious choice as the dominant console. Dominant 360 + Interesting/Affordable Wii > Abandoned Dreamcast

C) PS2 was at a mainstream price point. $600 is not a mainstream price point.

Sony has completely misread the market and misread history. The Playstation brand will be tarnished forever as a result.

In the 32/64 gen, I remember it being the devs and Blockbuster (not the gaming public) that demanded the cheaper, smaller CD's over cartridges. Consumers (and Blockbuster) wanted DVDs because they were smaller, extra content, didn't snap and didn't need to be rewound. The new DVD formats are just prettier, and that's a hard sell.

And I'm far from convinced that Blu-ray will win the DVD format war, especially with the porn industry siding decisively with HD-DVD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

And I'm far from convinced that Blu-ray will win the DVD format war, especially with the porn industry siding decisively with HD-DVD.

---

The DVD format war was won by DVD's a long time ago. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are fighting for the right to be the next Laserdisc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

In the 32/64 gen, I remember it being the devs and Blockbuster (not the gaming public) that demanded the cheaper, smaller CD's over cartridges.

---

You remember wrong. People went batshit over FMV back when the PSX first came out. I remember my roommates in college drooling over the FFVII commercials, which I believe showed no game play whatsoever.

You're right, it didn't. I was sorely disappointed (give me a break, I was 11-12) when all I had was a shit story and a few FMVs to look forward to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint of Killers

Actually it's because DVDs are a shitload cheaper to produce than cartridges.

---

I don't necessarily agree with this. It is true that CD/DVDs are cheaper to make than cartridges, but it does not determine the MSRP because the first PS1 games were $59.99 (I paid that amt for Twisted Metal and Warhawk). And look at GBA/DS cartridges, they are much bigger than the SNES/Genesis games but the price has not gone beyond the $40 price point (whereas, some PSP games are $50). The main reason that price has not gone up is that the market has grown tremendously and publishers are making more money by selling more copies of games (so they don't need to raise the price to cover cost).

The game prices are too low and the console prices are too high. It should be razors and razor blades.

"And look at GBA/DS cartridges, they are much bigger than the SNES/Genesis games but the price has not gone beyond the $40 price point"

That's because the GBA/DS market is mostly comprised of 8 year olds. That's not a troll BTW. If hey were "full" price, they'd never sell (and then Nintendo games really would be the only games that sold).


"That's why I'm kind of surprised more publishers haven't embraced the Wii; you could probably produce an impressive looking game on that for $2 million"

No you couldn't. And this whole "Next gen costs 50% more" is a total myth. If you had two games, one developed for the 360 and one for the Wii, and they were comparable as far as "pushing the hardware" goes, the difference would be maybe 2 million. MAYBE. Gears' *development* costs were not much more than Red Steel's.

If you're looking to slit your wrists, I wish games could help you, but that pricing model would absolutely suck ass for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

It should be razors and razor blades.

---

It actually is. It's why PS3 sells for $600 and not $900.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

No you couldn't. And this whole "Next gen costs 50% more" is a total myth. If you had two games, one developed for the 360 and one for the Wii, and they were comparable as far as "pushing the hardware" goes, the difference would be maybe 2 million. MAYBE. Gears' *development* costs were not much more than Red Steel's.

---

IBTN. Adding a bit more geometry and texture detail (which s the extent of what most games are doing) doesn't cost THAT much. In the case of the latter, they're probably making textures at just about the same resolution as they did on last gen's games initially, it's just that last gen they had to downgrade the quality to accomodate the memory limitations, and now they don't have to worry about it as much. You don't think they started by making a mosaic-y low res textures, do you? They did a clean one and then downgraded the quality until the system could handle them well.

I thought this dude was totally full of crap when he said consumers are getting a gift when they buy a game for $60. However, after I went to my weekend job today and realized that millions of people are buying ONE LARGE PIZZA FOR $20 at Pizza Hut every day....I realized that this dude may have a point. $20 for a Pizza that will be eaten in half an hour...or $60 for a game that will last you 20+ hours...whats the better deal?

I realize I'm comparing apples and oranges here...but its just retarded. How many of you are actually paying $20 for one large pizza? Thats retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magnifiedplaid

I thought this dude was totally full of crap when he said consumers are getting a gift when they buy a game for $60. However, after I went to my weekend job today and realized that millions of people are buying ONE LARGE PIZZA FOR $20 at Pizza Hut every day....I realized that this dude may have a point. $20 for a Pizza that will be eaten in half an hour...or $60 for a game that will last you 20+ hours...whats the better deal?

I realize I'm comparing apples and oranges here...but its just retarded. How many of you are actually paying $20 for one large pizza? Thats retarded.

---

Pretty dumb post.

1 large isn't 20 bucks 'round here(Pittsburgh). Besides, food is necessary for survival, games aren't.

I look at certain multiplayer games that I've played for hundreds of hours and feel satisfied that I got my money's worth. Shit, I'd pay 100 bucks for my next FPS that I know I'm gonna get hundreds of hours with. At the same time, I think Live demos are great. They easily save me hundreds with those. I think every game should have a demo available. Thats one positive that most people don't really talk about when speaking of Microsoft.

I'll pay 60 bucks for a great game anyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

The DVD format war was won by DVD's a long time ago. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are fighting for the right to be the next Laserdisc.

---

No. Blu-Ray has already won (thanks to Disney mainly). What you're going to see is a weaning away from the traditional DVD format once HD-DVD is safely in the ground, and in five years or so there won't be a player that only uses DVDs. Once the price of the tech hits consumer levels, most people will just blindly accept it, and DVD will go the way of VHS.

Disney's kids movies will decide the future of $600-1,000 disc players?

Disney = Buena Vista, Touchstone, Miramax, Dimension, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magnifiedplaid

I thought this dude was totally full of crap when he said consumers are getting a gift when they buy a game for $60. However, after I went to my weekend job today and realized that millions of people are buying ONE LARGE PIZZA FOR $20 at Pizza Hut every day....I realized that this dude may have a point. $20 for a Pizza that will be eaten in half an hour...or $60 for a game that will last you 20+ hours...whats the better deal?

I realize I'm comparing apples and oranges here...but its just retarded. How many of you are actually paying $20 for one large pizza? Thats retarded.

---

1. You shouldn't be buying Pizza Hut pizza, it's fucking awful crap.

2. You are getting ass rapped on the price. The absolute most I've ever seen a large pie go for around here is about 10 - 11 bucks, with most places charging about 8 - 9.

3. You need food to live, you do not need video games to live.

4. This analogy was asinine.

Food in general is a necessity. Pizza is a luxury. The analogy works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordPerrin

Food in general is a necessity. Pizza is a luxury. The analogy works.

---

By that logic than any form of food is a luxury. The analogy does not work, not just for that, but who the fuck pays 20 bucks for 1 large pie.

Yes it does. There's a reason why people get upset that you can use food stamps at certain places.

The pizza cost thing...who cares, don't get hung up on that. I think 60 dollar games are fine. If you think it's too much, you don't have discerning taste (or are one of THOSE people that thinks "everything should cost less"). Period. Games were 50 bucks then...20% inflation over a couple decades...seems trivial.

Honestly, with video games I find it's more time than money anyway. Who's got time for all of this?

I'm still not paying more than $60 for this generation's product, though, unless it's a really fancy special edition or Guitar Hero 2.

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv

By that logic than any form of food is a luxury.

---

In America... yeah, pretty much. We take it for granted that we can make food choices for pleasure as much as (in fact, usually more than) for nutrition. You need nutrition. You don't need it to be tasty or convenient.

Live on unflavored rice and kelp for a few years, or grind your own flour to make your own bread, then you'll understand how pizza (or MacDonald's, or Olive Garden, or even deli meat) is a luxury. ;)

Quote:

---

The analogy does not work, not just for that, but who the fuck pays 20 bucks for 1 large pie.

---

That part I'll give you. That is pretty crazy, unless it's from some gourmet outfit (which Pizza the Hutt obviously isn't).

Porn or Disney? Porn or Disney? hmmmm....

We already know the answer:

http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/d/divx.htm

Disney sucks. Porn all the way.

This Micheal Pachter sounds like a douchebag.

And Blu-Ray is going to bite Sony on the ass for years to come.

The importance of porn is being grossly (heh) overstated. It had the impact it did in the video tape war because prior to that there was NO WAY to see porn in your own home - you had to go to a skeezy adult theater, usually in the dangerous part of town. I really doubt upgrading from SD to HD is gonna have the same effect as upgrading from the smut house to the living room, especially when there are whole internets full of free porn out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

"And look at GBA/DS cartridges, they are much bigger than the SNES/Genesis games but the price has not gone beyond the $40 price point"

That's because the GBA/DS market is mostly comprised of 8 year olds. That's not a troll BTW. If hey were "full" price, they'd never sell (and then Nintendo games really would be the only games that sold).

---

Regardless, publishers make money selling cartridges at that price point. They are not non-profit organizations doing this for charity for the 8 year olds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

"And look at GBA/DS cartridges, they are much bigger than the SNES/Genesis games but the price has not gone beyond the $40 price point"

That's because the GBA/DS market is mostly comprised of 8 year olds. That's not a troll BTW. If hey were "full" price, they'd never sell (and then Nintendo games really would be the only games that sold).

---

But that's not really an issue endemic to portable games, as much as the industry's pricing tries to reflect otherwise. Most console games don't sell all that well at full price, either. For every game that sells over 500k at full price, there's 30 games (probably more) that don't break 150k.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ammadeau

No. Blu-Ray has already won (thanks to Disney mainly). What you're going to see is a weaning away from the traditional DVD format once HD-DVD is safely in the ground, and in five years or so there won't be a player that only uses DVDs. Once the price of the tech hits consumer levels, most people will just blindly accept it, and DVD will go the way of VHS.

---

Why would the average consumer care about Blu-Ray over DVD? Disney's not dropping DVD support and the average consumer isn't looking for a new format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

That's because the GBA/DS market is mostly comprised of 8 year olds. That's not a troll BTW.

---

Then source it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Gears' *development* costs were not much more than Red Steel's.

---

Once again, source your bullshit.

Quick, Spo! Refute his claims with Glamour scans!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Why would the average consumer care about Blu-Ray over DVD? Disney's not dropping DVD support and the average consumer isn't looking for a new format.

---

That's a good point. You can watch Disney DVD movies and porn DVDs in 480p on either Blu-ray or HD-DVD players.

You should just buy games when they become greatest hits 2 years late like me.

"Once again, source your bullshit."
http://www.gamewad.com/development-c...on-1884-p.html

Straight from the VP of Epic Games.

I don't think Red Steel cost $10 million to make, more like $10.

It cost 12-13 million dollars.

What a waste of $$.

Just setting you guys straight on this "next-gen" BS and why people aren't bringing the "quality games" to the Wii. I bet RE4's costs were insanely high. Why would someone spend all that extra $$ to make a Wii game look OK when you can make a 360 game look ridiculous for almost the same money or simply "much better than Wii" for less?

Do people that read this thread think Pachter is talking to gamers? This whole thing is out of context.

He isn't saying "You should be so lucky. It is a steal you ungrateful son of a..."

He is talking to investors and non-gamers that may not understand the impact that higher pricing will have on the industry. He is saying "the higher prices may be justified as games are getting better. The industry may be able to sustain this model, so don't expect a crash. Not a crash due to pricing, anyway."

In this respect, I agree with him. Though, nobody likes to hear "you should be grateful" or "it is a bargain, if you think about it". Though, as I said, I think we are all reading a little to much into it.

For me, it is whether a game is worth my time rather than my money (as has been mentioned before).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Just setting you guys straight on this "next-gen" BS and why people aren't bringing the "quality games" to the Wii. I bet RE4's costs were insanely high. Why would someone spend all that extra $$ to make a Wii game look OK when you can make a 360 game look ridiculous for almost the same money or simply "much better than Wii" for less?

---

Because they want to sell games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

[B]
http://www.gamewad.com/development-c...on-1884-p.html

Straight from the VP of Epic Games.

---

"However, as Rein clarified, Epic has not had to budget for the cost of a game engine - since GOW runs on the proprietary Unreal Engine 3."

Maybe you should pick a more intellectually honest comparison (or include the cost of developing the Unreal Engine 3).

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...1-ArticlePage1

"THQ Inc. (THQI.O: Quote, Profile , Research) Chief Executive Brian Farrell said that investment in a next-generation video game can run roughly $12 million to $20 million, while a title for the Wii could be in the $5 million to $8 million range. "It's that order of magnitude lower," said Farrell."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been thinking about ports on the Wii. Right now they look like an easy way for companies to sell more copies of their games in order to make a profit. As time goes on, and the graphical differences between the Wii and the other two consoles becomes greater, will this still be the case? Are companies going to be willing to not only have to implement an entirely new control scheme, but to also downgrade their games graphically to be on the Wii?

I'd assume that most would, if the money's there, but I'm also thinking that they'd probably refrain from doing this with their biggest titles. Something tells me we won't see Rainbow 6: Vegas (which is coming to PS3 later this year) on the Wii, and I'm afraid this might become a trend.

Eh, I'm just thinking out loud. Not a knock on the Wii, mind you, just a concern.

I don't think the graphical difference between Wii and 360/PS3 will ever be greater than it is right now (Gears compared to a bunch of GameCube ports). I don't think games like Rainbow Six Vegas will ever hit Wii, but developers will make other games for Wii instead. That's got it's own pros and cons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Why would the average consumer care about Blu-Ray over DVD?

---

Because the average consumer is getting an HDTV when they buy their next television, and they don't want artifact-laden standard def content on it since that defeats the entire purpose of buying it in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

Because the average consumer is getting an HDTV when they buy their next television, and they don't want artifact-laden standard def content on it since that defeats the entire purpose of buying it in the first place.

---

The average consumer doesn't know what an artifact is, and still thinks that Full Screen is the best way to watch movies, cause they don't want to watch it with those black bars added in to the movie.

You give the average consumer waaaaaaaaayyyy too much credit.

"Maybe you should pick a more intellectually honest comparison (or include the cost of developing the Unreal Engine 3)."

Why? The engine exists and you can license it (like everyone else who doesn't want to make an engine from scratch is) for somewhere around 1 million dollars. You still lose. THQ has no idea what they are talking about if they are comparing apples to apples. What have they made that pushes anything at all (maybe they're comparing Saint's Row to some crappy Nicktoons Wii game)? I'll challenge you to tell me where that huge extra cost would come from and why you would think it costs what it does. Just so you can humor me.



"Because they want to sell games."

Why would a AAA developer want to sacrifice months of dev time for a new "keep up with the Joneses" 360 game that'll definitely move units to port their previous 360 game to the Wii that may or may not...because that's what it'd take. Months of port time. How in the blue hell are you going to scale something back so far? And why is that worth it? Everyone that would buy the game already bought the game last year!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

The average consumer doesn't know what an artifact is, and still thinks that Full Screen is the best way to watch movies, cause they don't want to watch it with those black bars added in to the movie.

You give the average consumer waaaaaaaaayyyy too much credit.

---

If what you say is true, everybody wouldn't have DVD players. People wouldn't be buying HDTVs. People don't have to know the ins & outs, they just have be told something's better, then when their neighbour gets it they feel shamed into buying it. If people can appreciate HD tv broadcasts, they can apprciate HD movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Why? The engine exists and you can license it (like everyone else who doesn't want to make an engine from scratch is) for somewhere around 1 million dollars.

---

Come on dude, don't play retarded. You're comparing the most expensive Wii game yet by a long shot (with an engine built from scratch for new hardware) to a game developed for a relative bargain with an existing engine.

THQ's CEO knows more about game development costs than you do, I'm sorry if that shuts down your latest silly tirade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

If what you say is true, everybody wouldn't have DVD players. People wouldn't be buying HDTVs. People don't have to know the ins & outs, they just have be told something's better, then when their neighbour gets it they feel shamed into buying it. If people can appreciate HD tv broadcasts, they can apprciate HD movies.

---

Mainstream consumers have DVD players because DVD's are more convenient to use and store than VHS tapes, not because of increased quality. People are buying HDTV's because the prices are becoming similar to SDTV's and because it seems like the only real option; it's convenient. If quality really mattered to the average mainstream consumer the Laserdisc would have replaced Betamax (which would have beaten out VHS) in the mid-80's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been thinking about ports on the Wii. Right now they look like an easy way for companies to sell more copies of their games in order to make a profit. As time goes on, and the graphical differences between the Wii and the other two consoles becomes greater, will this still be the case? Are companies going to be willing to not only have to implement an entirely new control scheme, but to also downgrade their games graphically to be on the Wii?

I'd assume that most would, if the money's there, but I'm also thinking that they'd probably refrain from doing this with their biggest titles. Something tells me we won't see Rainbow 6: Vegas (which is coming to PS3 later this year) on the Wii, and I'm afraid this might become a trend.

Eh, I'm just thinking out loud. Not a knock on the Wii, mind you, just a concern.

---

Look at Konami. They made 2 new ips, probably not breaking their wallet on making these games and they will probably hit a profit. No reason why that strategy won't work next year and the year after that.

As far as game prices go it's really hard to feel sympathy for you guys. Many gamers compalin of game prices or whatever, but their also the one's with huge backlogs of games that haven't finished and still buy new games on their first day out. if it's to expensive then rent this shit or get gamefly or I don't know...something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Mainstream consumers have DVD players because DVD's are more convenient to use and store than VHS tapes, not because of increased quality.

---

LOL!

Argh. How come all threads these days turn into Wii flamewar threads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Mainstream consumers have DVD players because DVD's are more convenient to use and store than VHS tapes, not because of increased quality. People are buying HDTV's because the prices are becoming similar to SDTV's and because it seems like the only real option; it's convenient. If quality really mattered to the average mainstream consumer the Laserdisc would have replaced Betamax (which would have beaten out VHS) in the mid-80's.

---

Okay, you're totally right. People are so freaking stupid they're going to spend thousands on HD home theatres to watch SD movies on. Their movies will all look worse than the episode of Oprah they TiVod earlier in the day but nobody will notice or care.

People buy HDTVs because they are flat and can hang on their walls. Believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

Okay, you're totally right. People are so freaking stupid they're going to spend thousands on HD home theatres to watch SD movies on. Their movies will all look worse than the episode of Oprah they TiVod earlier in the day but nobody will notice or care.

---

That's the unfortunate truth my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

People buy HDTVs because they are flat and can hang on their walls. Believe.

---

Truth.

I've worked retail. The average consumer is a fucking idiot. They don't know jack shit about what they buy.

Actually, my point is people don't care. Once the development costs of Blu-ray go down, the players and the discs will cost the same as DVDs. At this point, no one is going to make DVD players anymore, but Blu-Ray players that also play DVD discs. Disney (and others) will continue double releases until the market for them gradually fades away, and then discontinue them. Blu discs will be pushed to the front, while DVDs get stuck in the back. Idiot consumers will buy whatever is in front of their face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

People buy HDTVs because they are flat and can hang on their walls. Believe.

---

:lol: Actually, I almost do. They're big, too - don't forget that.

But come on, I don't know anybody who's bought one without saying "ooh the picture's so clear." This includes alot of people who know fuck all about video quality and would need a two week course to wrap their heads around interlacing, they've just been programmed to say that about their gigantic self-esteem purchase.

"You're comparing the most expensive Wii game yet by a long shot (with an engine built from scratch for new hardware)"

Red Steel used the Unreal Engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Red Steel used the Unreal Engine.

---

LOL Joust wins.

Not only that, is uses the cheaper to license (at least I'm assuming it's cheaper) Unreal 2.5 Engine.

Yes.

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html...ng/terms.shtml

But yeah...<3 Unreal 3. Spo, I think you'll find that this board has lots of people that know their stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Why would a AAA developer want to sacrifice months of dev time for a new "keep up with the Joneses" 360 game that'll definitely move units to port their previous 360 game to the Wii that may or may not...because that's what it'd take. Months of port time. How in the blue hell are you going to scale something back so far? And why is that worth it? Everyone that would buy the game already bought the game last year!

---

Its crazy, but people seem to like that little system, and that gimmicky controler. Especially if it is a wildly different user base than the 360.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

People buy HDTVs because they are flat and can hang on their walls. Believe.

---

It's true. Early last year there was a survey done that had some crazy statistic that 60% (I think it was closer to 70%, it was awhile ago I'm not too sure) of people that bought an HD set thought they were getting an HD picture just by screwing the cable feed into the tv. They thought that smeared SD picture on their new $3000 TV was HD. I think people know better now with the many
"how to HD" buyers guides and equipment packages/deals all over the place now.

It's getting better though, the HD industry is really taking off now. I read in the paper last week that there were 2 million HDTV's sold in the past month for the Super Bowl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Spo, I think you'll find that this board has lots of people that know their stuff.

---

Absolutely, but you're usually not one of them (I've been here longer than you but thanks for the tip). I didn't know Red Steel used Unreal 2.5 but neither did you until just now, back up with the fronting. You still haven't made your point that Wii development is more than roughly half the cost of 360/PS3 development on average.