59.99 is becoming the new PC price point

[Kabob]

Which is utterly ridiculous. Steam has COD:MW2, Star Trek Online, and Assassin's Creed II for $59.99 each. Now granted, Star Trek Online is "on sale" for 49.99 at the moment, but it won't be when it's released.

This highlights an annoying trend towards PC gamers getting charged console prices without the royalty fees. This obviously is straight revenue for the developer. Add on all the DLC that's coming out and we have a recipe for $100+ for each game you want to enjoy.

There's the argument that the average game equates to a very low cost to entertainment value, but still, this isn't a trend that I like seeing.

No offense, but this is nothing new.

PS1 games: $39.99
PS2 games: $49.99
PS3 games: $59.99

PC games ~ $1997: $39.99
PC games ~ $2002: $49.99
PC games ~ $201*: $59.99
PC games ~ $2020: $79.99

It's undoubetly going to happen eventually.

 

[Modelworks]

I will not pay more than $39 for any game pc, console or otherwise.

 

[TheJTrain]

Assumptions:
* We're eliminating the Special Ultimate Collector's Edition SKUs that include night-vision goggles and stuff
* Therefore we're talking about the lowest-priced retail product that contains an entire core game (no expansions, DLC packs, etc.) at launch
* We're not talking about the price people actually pay retailers, but the MSRP, which is what you'll see struck-out on Amazon & GoGamer right where they tell you how much you're saving by buying it from them

With those three items in mind, there are only three (2 1/2 really, with the last one showing differing MSRPs at retailers) titles I can think of that have a publisher-recommended MSRP of $60:
* Modern Warfare 2
* Assassin's Creed 2
* Splinter Cell Conviction (MSRP $60 @ Amazon,but unlike the previous two, it's not even out yet but being discounted to $53; and GoGamer lists the MSRP as $50 & discounting to $35!)

Still keeping to those same three assumptions, a few alternate choices, either not out yet or released this year at a publisher-recommended MSRP of $50:
* Mass Effect 2
* BF:Bad Company 2
* Bioshock 2
* Just Cause 2
* Supreme Commander 2
* Aliens Vs. Predator

Where's the trend @ $60? I just don't see it.

Full disclosure: I'm usually a bargain-hunting maniac (Riddick: Dark Athena for $5) & used-game buyer (Goozex rocks) but I sprung for the retail priced Limited Editions of Mass Effect 1 (360) and ME2 & DA:O 'cause I wanted the extra goodies and I wanted them NOW. What's really cool is that I sold the ME LE (360) two full years after it came out for exactly what I paid for it. The LEs seem to hold their resale value much more than the standard editions.

 

[thevan]

I haven't bought a game at MSRP in quite awhile!

Same. I refuse to buy a game unless it's <$40 (excluding say, anything Half-Life or Starcraft )

 

[Skott]

I have never payed more than $50 for a new game. I don't play console games either so I don't get suckered into that mess. If you pay more than $50 for a new PC game (tax not included) you have no one to blame but yourself. Just my thoughts.

 

[TheUnk]

You can thank COD:MW2 for that, along with all the fags who bought the PC version.

 

[plion]

Be careful of ebay. A lot of games ship from india mumbai. I remember buying red alert 3 around $25usd at launch but it took 3 months after release to arrive in the weirdest looking package, some type of cloth held together by wax. lol weird stuff.

 

[thilanliyan]

Be careful of ebay. A lot of games ship from india mumbai. I remember buying red alert 3 around $25usd at launch but it took 3 months after release to arrive in the weirdest looking package, some type of cloth held together by wax. lol weird stuff.

Got scammed by one of the Indian sellers. I've had much better luck with the Thai sellers though.

 

[SunnyD]

To be honest, the $49.99 price point IS indeed dead. The new price point is generally the <$10 Steam weekend sale price point.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

To be honest, the $49.99 price point IS indeed dead. The new price point is generally the <$10 Steam weekend sale price point.

for real. and, they games are either old or simple so i dont need to upgrade my comp every other year

 

[Arsinek]

it sucks. paying less used to be one of the perks of playing pc games opposed to console games. seems like companies are trying to kill the pc gaming market.

 

[Jadow]

not for me!

I don't need to get the games as soon as they're released any more. I can wait till they're in the bargain bin

 

[DefDC]

The only games I remember paying MSRP for are DA, ME2, and NWN1. All of these were because of poor planning on my part and wanting them IMMEDIATELY. I generally don't have a problem waiting until games come down in price.

However it used to be a real treat to have the MSRP $10 cheaper than console counterparts AND getting sale prices $10 less on launch week. That's what kept me as an almost exclusive PC gamer. (7+ years ago it wasn't uncommon to see a AAA new title for $29 on sale on launch week)

WoW kept me from playing almost anything else that came out. PC or otherwise. A new GTA was enough to get me to come up for air.

Thankfully, the WoW addiction is over. And a massive Steam X-mas sale backlog will keep me busy for a long time.

 

[Zenoth]

not for me!

I don't need to get the games as soon as they're released any more. I can wait till they're in the bargain bin

And perhaps more importantly, until they are patched.

 

[byteman99]

I wonder what is justifying that hefty price increase in game? Does this mean they are going to start shipping games with fewer bugs? Or that the developers are planning on providing free additional content after release? I think we can speculate many reasons but I think we can all agree that there is no reason for games to cost that much. Especially ones that you digitally download. Though luckily only a few games are doing this, and most of them seem to be console ports.

 

[tviceman]

This thread is about expensive new games, yet there are still many many games that are released with a really low initial price.

Defense Grid and Torchlight were $19.99.
Darkest of Days was $39.99.
Trine was $29.99.
Crysis Warhead was $29.99.
If you got in on either the L4D2, Borderlands, or Bioshock 2 4-pack those were $34.

That's all just off the top of my head. Then there is Amnesia: Dark Descent coming up for $16, which looks amazing, and it's the same guys who made the Penumbra games which were the scariest games I've ever played.

 

[exar333]

I don't think we get more for our money. We get a lot less. Too many companies replace multi-play for a good single play experience which is sad. I love multi-play but gone are the days of epic single play 20-30 hour games. FPS's are all 8hrs tops and the few RPG's that get released are so consolized it sucks.

I am not saying modern games are better (IMHO they are not) but there is a lot more in the game. Compare an old RPG from the mid-90's to a recent RPG like FO3 or DA:O. You not only get all the quests and items, but you get detailed environments and immersive areas. There is a lot of art work and rendering work that goes into every game. Its hard to argue that a lot more work goes into a modern game, although again that doesn't make it better.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Price point is becoming the new word for price. It's utterly ridiculous. Why can't you just say price.

 

[Martimus]

I thought the new price points were under $10. I haven't bought a game for more than $10 in over a year I think, and I have a huge backlog. I really don't mind what new games come out for - I likely won't be buying it unless it is around $30. I can wait for them to come down, or just play something else.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

This dude at work buys all the new releases when they come out and then doesn't get to playing them for months. He's got a huge backlog of games he's working through. WTF?

 

[JoshGuru7]

This dude at work buys all the new releases when they come out and then doesn't get to playing them for months. He's got a huge backlog of games he's working through. WTF?

It's pretty common for people to put value on owning a product above simply the benefits of using that product. Plenty of Blu-Rays have been bought and then only watched once (or never). I have dozens of unread books on my bookshelves but still pick up more from time to time.

In his case, when he knows that he's going to buy a game eventually he just picks it up on day 1. Any extra money spent over waiting isn't necessarily wasted, he just puts that much premium on owning those titles and being able to play whatever title he wishes whenever he wants.

 

[brencat]

I don't need to get the games as soon as they're released any more. I can wait till they're in the bargain bin

That's great if you tend toward single-player games. But for those of us who play only for the multiplayer (like me), waiting too long is not an option...else people have moved on by the time it becomes a bargain and servers are depopulated or people have gotten so good that it is frustrating to train a noob in your midst.

Now that hasn't been the case with L4D/L4D2 which were on sale before release and within a month afterward, but CODMW2 for example is still selling for $60. Even if I wanted to buy it (which I don't), I would be at such a disadvantage by now in multiplayer that it wouldn't be fun.

I have been waiting for BF BC2 for months and am not happy to have to pay $50 for this but at least it's not $60. Plan on getting that within 2 weeks of release.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

It is ridiculous but, only affects the 'must play it NOW crowd.' The argument that you have to buy mmorpg's now before the players move on is likewise ridiculous. If the servers are depopulated by the time the cost comes down, the game wasn't worth the money in the first place.

The idea that not having early dlc or special release goodies puts you at a disadvantage would be laughable, if it weren't how so many of the online 'kiddies' think.

 

[TheJTrain]

Reading through this thread, and all the mentions of folks waiting until prices drop before buying, something occurred to me. What triggered the thought was the announcement of new content coming for Mass Effect 2 through the Cerberus Network (meaning, free DLC), and the fact that it included not only a new vehicle but 5 new missions. For a game like that, I'm not sure I really want to play through the game once or twice because I bought it on Day One, then play it again to experience the new missions. This approach is really making me WANT to wait to play the game at least until the majority of the DLC missions are available, so I can play those the first time I play it. I unintentionally did that for Assassin's Creed 2 as well - when I knew that the DLC was memory sequences from inside the timeline of the game (meaning, before the endgame, as opposed to "extending" the game like Fallout 3's Broken Steel & others did), I purposefully waited to play it because I knew I was going to want to see those sequences in the right chronological order.

So with DLC approaches like this, it's almost like they're *encouraging* us to wait until it goes on sale rather than buy it Day One. I'd be very curious to see if future sales numbers are the same aggregate/total numbers, but less of a Release Week peak, more spread out over time and steady instead.

 

[LumbergTech]

i guess...the prices drop fast though..so i really dont care

i just bout 30-40 games on steam for the holiday sale for 120 thats 3-4 dollars a game