PC Game prices

[Chosonman]

Has anyone else noticed the prices for PC games are much less than for the same title on a console like the Xbox360 or PS3?

For example,

Grid is $39 on the PC and $59 on the console
Lego Indiana Jones is $29 and $59
Wall-e is $19 and $49
Kungfu Panda is $19 and $49
Gears of War is $20 and $49

And these games are virtually identical to the console versions.

The only explanation I can think of for the difference in price is that there's probably no royalty fees for PC. Which probably means royalty fees for console games are probably up around 50% or more for a given title. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Modeps]

I'm pretty sure you mean licensing fees, and not royalty fees.

 

[MikeyLSU]

all this generation it has been cheaper. From the start all games on the PS3 and 360 are $60, while PC games are still $50.

But you aren't going to see this brought up by Console people when discussing prices.

 

[Chosonman]

Originally posted by: Modeps
I'm pretty sure you mean licensing fees, and not royalty fees.

I think I mean both. I'm sure game developers pay both licensing fees along with royalties for each game sold. Not to mention the cost of the dev kits which can run $10k or more for each unit and the licenses to use those as well.

I can just see game devs getting royally screwed in this kind of arrangement. Piracy or no piracy, I think the PC is a better platform for developers as long as someone can get PC gaming to be a streamlined as console gaming (ie. wide screen resolutions, driver incompatibility, crappy PC ports of games that don't include gamepad controls (Stranglehold, EA Sports Series...)

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: Chosonman

Originally posted by: Modeps
I'm pretty sure you mean licensing fees, and not royalty fees.

I think I mean both. I'm sure game developers pay both licensing fees along with royalties for each game sold. Not to mention the cost of the dev kits which can run $10k or more for each unit and the licenses to use those as well.

I can just see game devs getting royally screwed in this kind of arrangement. Piracy or no piracy, I think the PC is a better platform for developers as long as someone can get PC gaming to be a streamlined as console gaming (ie. wide screen resolutions, driver incompatibility, crappy PC ports of games that don't include gamepad controls (Stranglehold, EA Sports Series...)

That's the biggest problem that I see. There's way too many console ports and they always release games on 360/PS3, make some money and THEN give us a castrated, buggy PC version.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: Chosonman

Originally posted by: Modeps
I'm pretty sure you mean licensing fees, and not royalty fees.

I think I mean both. I'm sure game developers pay both licensing fees along with royalties for each game sold. Not to mention the cost of the dev kits which can run $10k or more for each unit and the licenses to use those as well.

I can just see game devs getting royally screwed in this kind of arrangement. Piracy or no piracy, I think the PC is a better platform for developers as long as someone can get PC gaming to be a streamlined as console gaming (ie. wide screen resolutions, driver incompatibility, crappy PC ports of games that don't include gamepad controls (Stranglehold, EA Sports Series...)

Couldn't agree more with the last paragraph. I wonder if the PC gaming scene will improve once Intel's new integrated graphics (Larrabee) comes out. That should raise the lowest common denominator.

I mean think about it, if every PC (even the cheapest of the cheap) had graphics cards on par or better than every console, I really doubt PC's would get the shaft in ports or exclusive titles. There's far more PC's around than consoles.

 

[mindcycle]

Console games are $60 because people are willing to pay it. PC games are typically less because us PC gamers aren't willing to throw down $60 for a shitty console port since it's been proven they suck 90% of the time. As long as people willingly spend money on overpriced console games the publishers will keep charging it. ..and we'll continue to get the leftovers.

 

[Chosonman]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Console games are $60 because people are willing to pay it. PC games are typically less because us PC gamers aren't willing to throw down $60 for a shitty console port since it's been proven they suck 90% of the time. As long as people willingly spend money on overpriced console games the publishers will keep charging it. ..and we'll continue to get the leftovers.

But Lego Indiana Jone, Grid, Wall-e, and Kung Fun Panda are not "cheap console" ports. They were release simultaneously along with the console version. I've been noticing lately PC versions are on par or better than their console counterparts. But in the past there is a history of companies like EA who liked to make cheap knock offs of their console games and sell them as PC versions. (Damn you EA, I want my money back for entire EA Sports 07 pack that I bought)

What's amazing to me is there they are on the shelves side by side, PC games along with their console rivals and the prices in plain site... $19 for PC and $49 for PS3... And people are still buying that?

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Chosonman

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Console games are $60 because people are willing to pay it. PC games are typically less because us PC gamers aren't willing to throw down $60 for a shitty console port since it's been proven they suck 90% of the time. As long as people willingly spend money on overpriced console games the publishers will keep charging it. ..and we'll continue to get the leftovers.

But Lego Indiana Jone, Grid, Wall-e, and Kung Fun Panda are not "cheap console" ports. They were release simultaneously along with the console version. I've been noticing lately PC versions are on par or better than their console counterparts.

You may be right about those titles, and I for one hope that trend continues. In the meantime i'm still sticking to 90%

 

[TheEarthWillShake]

You still have to pay $1200+ dollars for a decent rig, don't forget upgrading too.

 

[Chosonman]

Originally posted by: TheEarthWillShake
You still have to pay $1200+ dollars for a decent rig, don't forget upgrading too.

not really, I built my AMD X2 4800 with 8800GT for under $500

There are plenty of budget builds you can get for under $500 and their bench scores are respectable. You won't double their scores with a $1200 rig either.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: TheEarthWillShake
You still have to pay $1200+ dollars for a decent rig, don't forget upgrading too.

I don't know about you, but I would still have a decent PC whether I played games or not. So all that playing games costs me is about $200 for a good video card.

If you buy 20 games a year, and save $20 a piece by buying PC games instead of console games, you're saving $400 a year in the cost of games.


Even if I didn't have a good PC, I could still upgrade my PC for a reasonable price.
$100 motherboard
$200 Quadcore CPU
$150 video card
$80 4GB of RAM
-------
$530 to upgrade a PC to a great gaming rig. A good deal when you consider how much a high end console goes for and that console games cost more.

 

[I4AT]

Originally posted by: TheEarthWillShake
You still have to pay $1200+ dollars for a decent rig, don't forget upgrading too.

I've never spent more than $500 on a PC in the past 4-5 years, and have always been able to play the newly released titles. I upgrade the video card maybe once a year or less, and CPU's don't even get released often enough to be upgraded on a regular basis, even if you wanted to.

 

[PingSpike]

The price differential between a PC and a console really isn't a great argument as it once was. At least people aren't saying you need "a $5000 computer" to play games anymore. I mean, that is just a lazy exaggeration at this point...when was the last time it was really possible to waste $5000 building a stupidly overpowered PC? 1996? The $1200 is a much more plausible exaggeration.

PC hardware has gotten pretty cheap these days. Gone are the days of $700 processors and expensive ram. Video cards even seem to be moderating a little bit lately. At the same time, consoles have increased in price comparatively in order to offer comparable graphics and features. I'm not saying PCs are the cheaper platform. But the argument that PCs are way more expensive then consoles just doesn't have teeth anymore. You can throw together the basic guts of a reasonably good gaming PC for $600. And you probably already have a PC. Yeah, yeah, yeah...a monitor costs extra. So does a television. We can go back and forth, but the fact is the hardware prices aren't really all that different anymore. And from the topic of the thread, the games cost more for the console. And the used games cost more and the prices stay high longer.

The console is just easier though. You pretty much just plug it in and play games. And thats all a lot of people want. The PC isn't as bad as the IRQ shuffling or memory boot disks days, or even the plug and pray and windows 9x crashing days...but its still more difficult. There's still tweaking. And drivers. There's still patching and you're never entirely sure if when you put the disk in that the game is going to play. Its better...but you're still not entirely sure. And I can't blame people one bit for not wanting to waste their time doing that when all they really wanted to do was play a game. You have to love the hardware to put up with that shit, otherwise it just isn't worth it.

At the same time though, consoles have started to develop some of the PCs bad habits as they've gotten more complex. Internet connectivity led to the ability to patch. (good) The ability to patch led to the ability of developers to push unfinished shit out the door just like on the PC and patch it later. (not so good) While I'm sure that later doesn't happen that often on consoles...It didn't ever used to happen that I recall.

 

[Chosonman]

I think you hit it right on Spike. The only thing I would like to add to that argument is that now a days you don't even need a monitor anymore. You can just hook your PC up to your TV. The line between PC and console is getting finer and finer by the day. You even have to install console games to the console's hard drive just like PC's now a days. Once playing PC games becomes as easy as popping in a game disc and not having to worry about setting your optimal resolution and having the game support your joystick or game pad is the day PC games will finally be on par with consoles. I think we're heading in the right direction thanks to Game for Windows and AMD's Game! and Steam and Direct2Drive.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I wonder if the PC gaming scene will improve once Intel's new integrated graphics (Larrabee) comes out. That should raise the lowest common denominator

For all the hell that Vista catches, at least Aero has gotten many integrated graphics makers to improve their 3D support.

I really doubt PC's would get the shaft in ports or exclusive titles.

The PC does not have a single entity behind it pushing it and subsidizing it. Almost everything that I do (save gaming) is done on Linux now. PC Gaming is the only reason that I have a Windows license. Hopefully, Microsoft will eventually come to view PC Gaming as a valuable weapon against Linux and support the xbox and Windows gaming equally with their 1st / 2nd party titles.

Internet connectivity led to the ability to patch. (good) The ability to patch led to the ability of developers to push unfinished shit out the door just like on the PC and patch it later. (not so good) While I'm sure that later doesn't happen that often on consoles...It didn't ever used to happen that I recall.

Eventually, publishers will use that internet connectivity to shove DRM down the throat of console gamers. Imagine the revenue that a console could generate if it was impossible to buy / trade used games or to rent games. I have given up buying games for my PS3 after getting burned by generally well received games. I mainly rent my PS3 games now, so I am mostly a lost source of revenue thanks to renting.

a monitor costs extra. So does a television

This argument is no longer relevant thanks to HDMI video card support. PCs can plug into the same big screen HDTVs these days. Many monitors now have HDMI, so they can accept consoles as well.

Once playing PC games becomes as easy as popping in a game disc

Thanks to alcohol 52% Free Edition, one does not even need to plop in a game disc

not having to worry about setting your optimal resolution

Newer PC Games have gotten better at detecting optimal settings and automatically applying them, but it is still not easy enough for many.



I have to say that the main reason that I prefer the PC over my PS3 is the modding potential for PC games. NeverWinter Nights is a fine example of what the community can do for a game. There are so many free player made singleplayer and multiplayer adventure games out there for it (NWN modules)... some even better than most commercial RPGs that I have played.


By the way, some of you may be interested in the state of PC gaming thread (more focused on Console versus PC).

 

[Thraxen]

Gamefly

/thread

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Chosonman

Originally posted by: Modeps
I'm pretty sure you mean licensing fees, and not royalty fees.

I think I mean both. I'm sure game developers pay both licensing fees along with royalties for each game sold. Not to mention the cost of the dev kits which can run $10k or more for each unit and the licenses to use those as well.

I can just see game devs getting royally screwed in this kind of arrangement. Piracy or no piracy, I think the PC is a better platform for developers as long as someone can get PC gaming to be a streamlined as console gaming (ie. wide screen resolutions, driver incompatibility, crappy PC ports of games that don't include gamepad controls (Stranglehold, EA Sports Series...)

I doubt the PC ports are crappy, as xbox360s are basically stripped down PCs. The problem lies in the fact that PC users want much higher resolutions than what the game was originally designed for. Imagine playing all the console ports at 720p like they were originally developped... most computers can handle them without much of a hiccup. Lastly, I havn't really encountered that many games without customizeable gamepad support or you can just map keyboard strokes to the gamepad.

 

[450R]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Console games are $60 because people are willing to pay it.

Actually, console games are $60 because that's how Microsoft and Sony recoup their losses on the hardware. It takes years for them to turn a profit on their systems.

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: 450R

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Console games are $60 because people are willing to pay it.

Actually, console games are $60 because that's how Microsoft and Sony recoup their losses on the hardware. It takes years for them to turn a profit on their systems.

Yep... when you buy a console game, a portion of your bill is basically a subsidy for the console itself, that's why console games almost always cost more than PC games (sometimes they are equal in price, but never cheaper). That way the console makers can sell you their hardware for cheap, stimulating sales and creating a (false) impression of good value. The losses the hardware makers incur, however, are recouped through the sale of game titles, so the end result is that you are paying full price for your console - most people simply don't realize it.

 

[Chosonman]

So buying a console is like taking out a loan. You get the console for cheaper than you would expect for the given technology but pay for it in the end with the high price of games.