"Gamers aren't overcharged, they're undercharged"; New study claims games are too cheap.

[JoostinOnline]

This is under the assumption that farming = fun.  Besides, it's not a subscription service.  Imagine if books were entered into this equation.  I've read a lot of my books (especially the Harry Potter ones) a ton of times, and they usually cost me $10 each, give or take.

[Matu20]

Either games are too cheap, or other sources of entertainment are too expensive. But there is an error somewhere.

[michaelocarroll007]

3 hours ago, IKnight said:

According to one New York analytical company, games are too cheap for the hours of entertainment that they provide. KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Evan Wingren wrote in a note to clients on Sunday,

So how was this 'found out'?

The analyst instead reiterated his overweight ratings for Electronic Arts, Activision Blizzard and Take-Two with price targets of $134, $78 and $144 respectively.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/gamers-overreacting-on-ea-star-wars-game-firms-should-raise-prices.html

 This is garbage due to the fact that its calcualting 2.5 hours on one specific game who spends 900 hours on every single game they buy? Most gamers have never hit 900 hours in a game period ever. thats 37.5 days played on a single game Most ive hit was 8-10 on COD MW2 back when i didnt have a job as a kid. and thats only 200-240 hours.........

 

I agree games have not went up in price in a long time and They probably deserve some small hike. but while they haven't gotten more expensive with inflation the other side of things is that productivity to make the games has gone up also to help keep it even.

 

 

Im Fine with removing every single microtransaction and season pass BS for a $69.99 or $79.99 MSRP

[michaelocarroll007]

3 minutes ago, Matu20 said:

Either games are too cheap, or other sources of entertainment are too expensive. But there is an error somewhere.

the error is no one spends 900 hours on every game they play. i have never spend even half that on a single game.  that would be like caclulating the move as watching it 15 times. pretty rare someone does this. 

[Doobeedoo]

HAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow such a pile of shit, I can't even take this seriously it seems like a joke!

Like fps games that are MP focused coming out every year for $60 with being broken, being the same with more content that could be in previous one and MT shit and such. You know games like CoD and other specific FPS cashcrab online fps games. Such games shouldn't be released more than every couple of years for example. 

And per hour charge like some TV sub which is also a joke, but for games? Idiocy. 

To add, adding subscription lately into every media shit out there is pathetic and insulting. Like X as a service, lame. Not paying for any media subscription specially like a shitty TV and for games like in this way, simple no. Only sub I'll continue is for WoW and that's about it.

[michaelocarroll007]

15 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

This study was brought to you buy the gaming industry consortium......

 

Seriously though, what a load of nonsense. Games are designed to be play and forget experiences just as much as TV shows and Movies are, thats the whole reason why this currect bullshit has taken hold. They claim "games as a service" but the fully understand that outside of a few fringe cases games are played for a few months tops then their uninstalled and never touched again.

 

Try 2 hours every other day for 2 months, 3 tops, and see how those figures work out.

i would find this to be a pretty good average for the regular consumer. 60-90 hours spent in each game ( Some play way less some way more but a good realistic AVG) 900 hours is for the 0.01% 

[Matu20]

4 minutes ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

the error is no one spends 900 hours on every game they play. i have never spend even half that on a single game.  that would be like caclulating the move as watching it 15 times. pretty rare someone does this. 

Yeah, makes sense, I didn't personally look at the data they used, but if they weighed every game identically, then it's carbage.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

There is an interesting discussion to be had about games stalling out at $60USD, for the most part, as their point-of-sale price. I'm pretty sure we were setting $60USD as the price point for AAA games around 2005? Obviously, we had the Plastic Instruments boom in the 2000s, which went for a whole lot more.  Next-gen graphics takes a lot of people to create compared to the previous days, but that cost has increased while the sticker price has been stationary.

This sounds reasonable at first, but in reality it is false. Let's look at EA's financial records shall we?

 

2006

Net revenue - 2.951 billions

Cost of goods sold - 1,181 billion

Gross profit - 1,77 billion dollars

Money spent on development - 0,758 billions

 

2017:

Net revenue - 4,845 billions

Cost of goods sold - 1,298 billion

Gross profit - 3.547 billions

Money spent on development - 1,205 billions

 

 

So from 2006 to 2017 the cost of development increased by 59%, and their gross profit increased by 100%. This whole idea that companies need additional revenue streams is simply not founded in reality.

They make more money now per dollar invested in developing games, so I don't think the whole "it costs more to develop games" argument holds up. Also, we're talking about a company with a gross profit of 3.547 billion dollars. 

They could give each and every of their employee a bonus of 333158 dollars and still make a profit of 1 billion dollars.

 

 

 

Edit:

Another thought I had regarding this, who is to say that movie tickets should be the yard stick for dollar per hour? Maybe it's those things that are overpriced and games are reasonably priced? Movie theaters are not exactly know for being reasonably priced.

 

Edit 2:

Holy crap as someone else pointed out this guy says games are cheap if you spend over 912.5 hours in the game. What about the average game where you might spend ~10 hours? All of a sudden games are expensive and should actually drop in price.

[michaelocarroll007]

Just now, Matu20 said:

Yeah, makes sense, I didn't personally look at the data they used, but if they weighed every game identically, then it's carbage.

yeah there suggesting that 2.5 hours a day at 365 days a year 912.5 hours a year is spent on a single game every time you buy one..... i have dozens of games with less then 5 hours played i could easily BS and say games are the most expensive entertainment at that point thats 4x the cost of going to the movies per hour $. Its dumb as shit and they just made the numbers look this way on purpose everyone can spin these there. they have no proof that the avg time on every game bought is 900+hours at all. 

[KnoT]

2 hours ago, IKnight said:

Steam game prices are adjusted to region though, so it's still kinda relevant. 

They are not! Stop spreading this BS...

 

I would love 2 see you paying 250€ for a BASE game because thats how prices are translated for me here on steam.

[Cookybiscuit]

To be fair, I remember  when the Xbox 360 launched 12 years ago, and for the entirety of it's life cycle games were £44 if memory serves me right. Games these days are still in the £45-£50 bracket from what I can tell, which is about 20% less if you account for inflation. It's not that much of a surprise that publishers would feel the need to make up the money on shitty micro transactions and on-disc DLC's.

[Herman Mcpootis]

1 hour ago, Brainless906 said:

 

2.5 hours for 365 days (a full year) is 912.5h of gameplay. Whats the last game you bought that had 912.5h of gameplay in it.

most of us probably won't go near that long, unless you're this guy:

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198064147640/recommended/333600/

[Zodiark1593]

Those that bought Skyrim on a Steam sale surely made out like bandits.

[Spenser1337]

Who the fuck plays battlefront for 3 hours a day 

[Brainless906]

7 minutes ago, Spenser1337 said:

Who the fuck plays battlefront for 3 hours a day 

what, you dont play every game you buy for 912.5 hours a year? what are you a casual?

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, Spenser1337 said:

Who the fuck plays battlefront for 3 hours a day 

The last part wasn't necessary.

[Taja]

3 hours ago, IKnight said:

Yeah exactly. And this study claims that people play games for 2 hours per day. I somehow doubt this, considering most people have responsibilities; jobs, school, kids.... 

I game more than that, but still, thats not how is works. I can play a 10$ game for 100 hours and a 60$ game for 10hours.

 

And if I pay for a tv and use it 15h/day, than im being undercharged? If another buys the same tv and use it 1h/week he is being overcharged? That is really stupid.

 

In a club they will measure your "happiness level" and charge you proportionally?

[79wjd]

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This sounds reasonable at first, but in reality it is false. Let's look at EA's financial records shall we?

In 2006 EA had a net income was 236 million dollars (on a net revenue of 2.951 billion dollars).

 

2006

Net revenue   2.951 billions

Cost of goods sold   1,181 billion

Gross profit 1,77 billion dollars

Money spent on development 0,758 billions

 

2017:

Net revenue   4,845 billions

Cost of goods sold 1,298 billion

Gross profit 3.547 billions

Money spent on development 1,205 billions

 

 

So from 2006 to 2017 the cost of development increased by 59%, and their gross profit increased by 100%. This whole idea that companies need additional revenue streams is simply not founded in reality.

 

 

 

Edit:

Another thought I had regarding this, who is to say that movie tickets should be the yard stick for dollar per hour? Maybe it's those things that are overpriced and games are reasonably priced? Movie theaters are not exactly know for being reasonably priced.

That's what I was asking about a few weeks back, but how much of that additional profit is from microtransactions, and what is the profit split between different games and different countries? 

 

Personally, id rather games remain at $60 (or the regional equivalent) and add microtransactions for DLC and whatnot as an additional expense. Then only those who want the extra content have to pay more. Although, to be clear I DO have a problem with p2w microtransactions. I'm fine with microtransactions as long as you have an equal chance of winning.

[Mooshi]

This is dumber than Verizon trying to spin 2 unlimited plans that either cost slightly less with more restrictions/more for the same features as a good thing.

[Daiyus]

I think the last game I paid full retail on was Forza Horizon 3 at £50 for the standard version. The three before that were £35 (ACIV:BF, GTAV & Fallout 4). I fully understand developers need to be paid and things are getting more complex with bigger teams etc but it's just getting way too much.

 

As it stands I can afford a new game at retail maybe once every two months so I simply wait until I can afford to get a few games for that cash. Sure I'm usually one or two years behind the curve but I don't play multiplayer games anyway so it really doesn't matter. I don't think I've paid over £15 for a game apart from the four stated above for years and it'll take a very special game to make me not wait for a deep sale.

 

Sure I am one of those people that does do "entertainment" for around 2-3 hours a day but I don't go to the cinema (maybe once a year) or even drink much (pub meets maybe three times a year). My main use of expendable income is games and I still cannot afford to buy games at retail launch prices. Life is just too expensive all round these days.

[Ganz]

I have no problem paying more for something I spend more time in, sure. But that is willingly vs being forced.  I am much more of the attitude that I pay what I think something is worth to me.  If I want to support the Devs I pay more (DLC, MT etc.)  Example I have over 3000 hours in Guild Wars 2.  Bought the game for $45.  Had ~1500 hours before the first expansion and only had an additional $100 or so in cosmetic MT over 3 years.  So I had no problem dropping money on the DLC. 

 

But, to say that games are under priced is outrageous.  90% of games out there you're lucky to get 60 hours out of it.  There's also a lot of other factors that go into gaming that don't go into other forms of entertainment.  Sure, going to the movie theater is more expensive in cost/hr than gaming up front.  But don't forget you need all the tools to play said game at home which you should factor in cost/hr. 

[Sfekke]

47 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

To be fair, I remember  when the Xbox 360 launched 12 years ago, and for the entirety of it's life cycle games were £44 if memory serves me right. Games these days are still in the £45-£50 bracket from what I can tell, which is about 20% less if you account for inflation. It's not that much of a surprise that publishers would feel the need to make up the money on shitty micro transactions and on-disc DLC's.

Keep in mind games are not leaning towards £ 50, more something like £70-£90. Not evening counting micro transactions/DLC.

Black ops 3 with season pass (not even all DLC) is € 120, excluding micro transactions and DLC they released outside the passes reach.

[Tech_Dreamer]

as "us" "the consumers" we don't have the liability of having to have pay something that has a price we don't like from our perspective which  is severely overpriced compared to other necessities we have day to day . It's the company's tactic/job to lure us to buy their product in with attractive price which otherwise won't count for shit if the consumers refuses to accept the product at their recommended price.

 

what i hate about it is their way of putting it out like , it's because of the parent company's kindness & sheer loss of profits inorder to provide you with the product to entertain you.

 

Restaurant analogy , a 5 star restaurant owner explaining how menu prices are 'high' is less to a consumer by saying because that 7 star restaurant next door has a higher menu price , compared to that we're providing you with the same stuff & under charging you , While in reality both are ripping off the consumer with over inflated price menu for their profit . don't like the menu & price , don't buy .  Once the value crumbles due to lack of customers for their own estimated profits.  then the real source value comes near to face value just to sell the products which they so greedily put high up on a pedestal.

[NumLock21]

What nonsense!

Hope this analyst gets clobber by a city bus.

 

 

[Cookybiscuit]

1 minute ago, Sfekke said:

Keep in mind games are not leaning towards £ 50, more something like £70-£90. Not evening counting micro transactions/DLC.

Black ops 3 with season pass (not even all DLC) is € 120, excluding micro transactions and DLC they released outside the passes reach.

Yeah the prices of games that have a billion DLC's are pretty insane. I clicked on RS:Siege on Steam the other day and it's like £11 for the game itself and like £70 for the "ulta mega special" edition, crap like that just puts me off as you don't know what you're leaving on the table when you buy it. 

 

Rarely I pay more than £20 for a game these days, I think probably the only two in the last couple of years is GTA5 and Borderlands Pre Sequel, everything else I just wait for a sale, not worth paying £40 for a game on launch when it'll probably be broken anyway.