Developers dish next-gen game prices
by Nick Doerr 
{ Jun 28th 2006 at 9:30PM }
We've all heard about the supposed pricing of the next generation of games. Kaz says we're getting off easy when it comes to PS3 games. But what about the developers making these games?
Recently, Brian Eddy (Midway Games), Todd Howard (Bethesda Software), and Evan Wells (Naughty Dog) discussed their take, as developers, over the pricing issues on the latest Gamasutra podcast. Evan Wells says that games are still a bargain at $60, claiming that "a small [price] increase is completely warranted" in regard to price. Could Wells' position be tied to Sony's stance on higher game prices, since he is currently the lead designer on Naughty Dog's PS3 title Naughty Dog (c'mon guys, name that thing something else already).
Brian Eddy and Todd Howard disagree, saying games are too expensive as is. Eddy says that as game prices go up, gamers "simply can't afford that many games" and this may reduce sales numbers. Howard agrees and adds "I'm a proponent of a $19 price point."
With these differences of opinion between developers, do you think that game prices will really affect third-party support on our next-gen consoles? If the games are more expensive, will developers be attracted to the chance to make large amounts of money quickly, or conversely, if they are cheap, will developers tend toward higher sales numbers instead?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
adamsb @ Jun 28th 2006 9:31PM
I definitely agree: at 20 bucks a pop, my game library would be quadruple the size it is now.
And welcome aboard PS3 Fanboy Nick!
nickd @ Jun 28th 2006 9:41PM
Thanks! Good to be here.
Ross Miller @ Jun 28th 2006 9:49PM
"Naughty Dog" better not end up being Crash-Daxter-over-indulged-cart-racing ... they better pay my ass to sit through that.
Night Elve @ Jun 29th 2006 1:54AM
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------
"Eddy says that as game prices go up, gamers "simply can't afford that many games" and this may reduce sales numbers. Howard agrees and adds "I'm a proponent of a $19 price point."
----------------------------------------------------
Im starting to love this guy. I agree games are too expensive nowadays.
Mee @ Jun 29th 2006 7:19AM
It's always easier to draw 20 bucks from your wallet instead of 60/70, lowering prices would help instinctive buys, not planned before, raising prices will do the opposie, ppl would think more before to buy, they'll take their time and certainly buy the more rich content titles, (the moste expensives to dev. too) forcing devs to add always more content, raising prices again... infernal loop.
Also the more expensives are the games the bigger used games market will grow.
Scott @ Jun 29th 2006 11:38AM
If games were $20, I'd buy one every week. Hell if they were $30-$40, I'd buy ones that I was just slightly interested in. With the price at $60, I do a whole lot of research before I buy a game. Even then, I usually wait for the price to drop or buy it used.
SuicideNinja @ Jun 29th 2006 12:14PM
I think a more important issue is the value per dollar.
A lot of games, even if great, lack replay value. If you drop $50+ on a game that you only get a handful of hours out of (God of War, Shadow of the Colossus), then you may end up feeling screwed if you can beat the game in less than a day. At that point you'll have to drop another $50+ to get continued entertainment.
Some RPGs on the other hand, last 40+ hours. We definitely get our money's worth there.
Other games can use online features, co-op play, side-quests/missions, etc to extend the value. Unfortunately, it's obvious when little thougth was put into these extra features, leaving them to fail their purpose.