Gaming doesn't have to be expensive. Most games these days are so short you can just rent them, and if a game is long or is a good on-line game it can entertain you for weeks or months. I know people who spend over $200 a month on golf. I don't know anyone who spends $200 a month on games.

Xbox 360 is the first system to charge 60.00 consistently for games. Blame Microsoft for creating an inflation in the gaming industry that is unwarranted and simply shunned by the community. Hopefully Barack Obama will lower these economic prices which will create a domino effect on Xbox 360 going out of business.

$niper

... that's the point at which the game industry as a whole is most profitable.

If they charge more, although they would make more of each individual sale, the number of sales will drop so fast that total profit will be less. If they charge less than $60, they won't gain gaining enough customers to make up for the loss of profit in each sale.

Basic economics.

Start at $200 and only include $200 worth of technology in them. All this whining is damn annoying nobody is being forced to buy games or consoles. It is a hobby. Not one person needs to game to stay alive. If you can't afford it then do without and stop the damn whining.

“So if you can get movies for under $10 these days, hopefully before I die, the same will be for gaming. Then maybe I could afford another 2007 of gaming.”

I’m assuming he was speaking of DVD’s. Direct to DVD? Everyone has to go to the theater and pay anywhere from 5-15 to watch it ONCE. Now if you want to go to 3 video arcades and play GTA 4 for 1-12 months before it comes to your home console, only being allowed to play for approximately 2 hours for every 10 dollars you spend, that’s the closest approximation to how we will achieve lower prices. 15 a month for WOW- this game has cost me over 300 bones but how many games is that on a console? 5-6 before tax. Here’s a thought….Eventually, movies will be produced in serial form, like comic books, and the amount of time and technology will be almost DIY in comparison to the BIG projects. Imagine SpiderMan 1-12, full length movies downloaded directly to your home, produced using technology that 5 years from now will allow for customization and actual synthesis. Look at Japan and what their fans do with the work they love so in anime and manga- always adding to it, building off of it. Prices will not go down because there is nothing as of now to replace it. Other than not buying video games- or you could just pirate them and put them on your hacked console….but i didn’t just suggest that. Because thats not legal.

This is a poorly written piece of text, unable to support most of it's claims:

"Why is it that Sony is the only company that has significantly worked to make their console as affordable as possible?"

In what way has Sony made their console more affordable? It debuted at the highest price point and is arguably one of the most expensive console out there. In terms of affordability look no further than the Wii (albeit without the 'HD' experience). Next on the ladder is Xbox (without the overpriced accessories and online play). Sony is arguably at the last position with the most advanced technology.

"They don’t realize that they could sell many, many more copies of the game by lowering the price tag. There are plenty of consoles in the market right now and publishers could make a profit by selling twice as many copies at $30 instead of half the amount at $60.

But they’ve been implementing this strategy in the wrong way."

Companies are out to make the most profit and if a title is still selling well, why lower the price? After all, budget gamers will patiently wait anyhow until a price drop. Good games generally sell well, even years after it's release. Look no further than Gears of War for proof. It makes perfect business sense (for greedy corporate America).

"Companies have discounted the price for budget games (AKA “bad games”), instead of offering their great titles at a lower price. This makes gamers uneasy when they see a $40 price tag on a brand new game. They immediately think the game is a budget game and will instead pick up a $60 game, even if the $40 one is better. This type of thinking only promotes selling games at higher prices."

I buy almost all my games exclusively on sale. I have never once looked at a title and thought $40 games suck!

"Or is it a problem with the rising cost of game development? Games are now costing nearly as much as movies to make."

I think this is largely an excuse for publishers to charge you more money. Sure development cost have risen and so have the number of gamers. Once the technology is built-in, i.e. game engine there shouldn't be as much cost to build it out a game relatively speaking.

What I don't get is why is a 10 million GeOW sells for 60$ and 100 million GTA4 sells for the same price?

I understand why PS3 games are 10 dollars more because they're on blu rays. I don't see why 360 games are 60 dollars though.

"Why is it that Sony is the only company that has significantly worked to make their console as affordable as possible?"

I stopped reading...this guy does not understand the "life-cycle" of a console. From start to end.

Well, from what I've noticed with each generation of gaming the price of games has increased. I know that back in the 6th gen. (PS2 era), games came out at $49.99 as the maximum price, and I think that during the 5th gen. (PS1 era) games were $39.99 max for a brand new game. I see the steady increase of the price of games as just natural inflation in the gaming industry. With each generation of gaming, the costs of producing games have gone up, so I guess it makes sense that the cost of games should go up as well.

I can kinda see why PS3 games are $59.99 because they are on Blu-ray DVD's, but I don't see why 360 games are $59.99 as well because they are just on standard DVD, and blank Blu-ray DVD's are more expensive to begin with.

I haven't really thought about this much, but I'm beginning to think that one other reason why this generation of gaming seems to be getting off to a slower than average start is not only because of the more expensive consoles, but the costs of the actual games as well. I mean, if there is someone out their that can't afford a 360 or PS3 right now, they surely couldn't afford to buy more than a couple of games per year at $59.99 a pop.

in the UK games retail for £45 on the high street, which is $90

tell me:

would you pay $50 for Super Mario Bros (the NES one)?
would you pay $50 for Metroid (the NES one)?

probably not, huh?

well, I DID pay $50 for those games back in the day. and that was before gaming became the multi-billion dollar industry it is today.

i think games should retail for $35-$40, with $50 special editions.

i think handheld games should sell for NO MORE than $20.

why do games cost $60? because certain hardcore gamers shelled out $60 for 2005 titles like King Kong, Kameo, Call of Duty 3, etc, and whatever swill EA and Activision were putting out when this "next generation" started, and that gave publishers everywhere carte blanche to charge $60 or more for their titles because of, "development costs."

Grand Theft Auto 4 reportedly cost $100 million to make.

at $60 a pop, the game has made what so far, over $400 million dollars?

they've easily made back development costs, and made a heft profit to boot.

Gears of War cost $10 million (plus whatever money Epic spent developing Unreal Engine 3). not only has Gears of War become a multi-million unit seller, but UE3 is being licensed by a large majority of the game development community. does that mean Gears of War 2 is going to cost $29.99? hell no. it's going to be $60 as well, and people are going to gobble it up.

there's no point in complaining about game prices, because we do NOTHING to make a stand and say "enough is enough." and we will continue to do nothing.

the Catch 22 is that if us gamers held off buying games until they dropped in price, the developers and publishers wouldn't make enough money to invest in their NEXT title, which would in turn cause the many graphics whores out there to slowly drift away from console gaming (and believe me, every single one of us is a graphics whore, looking at how many of us pore over the "comparison videos" released whenever a multi-platform title hits the PS3 and 360), and the developers/publishers would make even LESS money, and have less incentive to go all out and create games.

it's a symbiotic relationship that is what it is, and there's not much we can do about it. games are $60 now, and consoles will continue to raise in price each generation as the technology going into them gets more complex. we demand it. they deliver it. then we b*tch about it. ahh, it's the American way! i guarantee if Sony and Microsoft were to pull a Nintendo next generation, and release a console that is, fundamentally, the same as the previous consoles (that'd be PS3 and 360), there would be NO END to the hate spewed their way, even if they had an innovative gimmick to "wow" the masses.

the best we can do is quit throwing our money at games like Kane and Lynch and Turok (to name only a small, small few of sh*tty games released this generation), and back the games that are WORTH our time; the Gears, the Metal Gear Solids, the Final Fantasies, etc etc, and the uniquely game games like Little Big Planet, and XBLA and PSN titles. we need to be more discerning in what we spend our money on. we don't have to give up gaming, we just have to become more intelligent gamers.

you don't really NEED that latest version of Madden. it's hardly different from the previous version (i'm referring specifically to the past few years "iterations" of the series). you don't need to buy every single FPS and 3PS that hits the market because it has Achievements, or Trophies, or LIVE, or because it LOOKS good or whatever. if you can't get hands on time, find a way to borrow or rent it. too much crap gets amazing sales (once again; Kane and Lynch reached over a MILLION units sold that's absurd and the game didn't deserve that credit, but games like Blue Dragon, Eternal Sonata, Ratchet and Clank Future, and Uncharted had to literally STRUGGLE to reach 1 million)

we don't have to boycott gaming, just boycott mediocre sh*t and hope that publishers get the message that we are paying a PREMIUM for this content, and despite all the hard work that DOES go into making these games, we won't accept mediocrity anymore. it's OUR hard earned money that is helping these devs/publishers recoup the investment they've made on >insert generic shooter here<. if they want to continue to receive our patronage, they need to up the quality of their work significantly.

no, the games don't have to break bounds and be revolutionary. no, they don't have to redefine the genre they're in. but they have to be FUN. Kane and Lynch, Turok, Bomberman: Act Zero, Vampire Rain, Blacksite: Area 51 are NOT FUN. and we shouldn't have to pay what we're paying for it. and in truth, we DON'T have to pay for this. no one is holding a weapon to our heads and making us open our wallets or swipe our credit cards to buy this stuff.

over 23+ years of gaming, i've learned to be more discerning (hell, i used to own the original Friday the 13th video game on the NES, so i've been buying sh*tty games for a LOONG time now. actually, i STILL own the cartridge for that game; it's a constant reminder to me when i see a mediocre game trying to tempt me to purchase it), and try to be careful with my game purchases.

i support the studios that i see are genuinely TRYING to make quality games, but may be held back by whatever reasons (deadlines, publisher, technical hurdles, etc), but outright avoid things that are obvious bullsh*t filler (ie, Turok, Conflict: Denied Ops, etc).

we gamers have no UNION.

We need a Gamers UNION...maybe Jack Thompson could be the president..lol

If it isn't a triple A title, I won't pay a penny over 40.00 for it. That's just my standard, and often I will wait to find a used copy of a subpar game a few weeks after its release to play it. If it's really that terrible, but I still want to play, I cross the street and head inside blockbuster to rent.

They are charging us 5 times as much as the way they should. all games should be at about $25.00 max!

... then why are PC games still being released at 49.99. Look at Bioshock, PC was 49.99 and 360 was 59.99, wtf? This may be an issue with the console makers not the publishers. MS and Sony might just be charging more to put games on their machines. But I bout it.

I only buy $60 games when they are a must have (GTA IV,GRID,COD4 etc)The most I ever payed for a game was Halo 3 Legendary Edition which was $130 (I couldnt resist smh).I understand why games are so high since they cost millions of dollars to make but I think games should be no more than $40 and alot of games that are $60 now just plain suck (Iron Man,HULK,Haze,etc)

Not that I wouldn't love cheaper games but for me buying a game like cod4 for $60 bucks that I'm going to get 100 hours of enjoyment out of is way more bang for your buck than a $15 dvd that I might watch once or twice and only get 4 or 5 hours of enjoyment out of. Yeah I know some games are short and it does suck if you pay 60 bucks and get a 5 or 6 hour game with no multiplayer (except uncharted, can play that over and over), but when that does happen us gamers let them know we are disappointed at how short the game is and people wont pay the 60 bucks for it. Overall though I think you get alot more out of a game than you do a movie.

Demand is there for that price.

Gamers are willing to pay 50 bucks for games..... add the extra markup for consoles games of 10 dollars there is enuff ppl to buy at this price of 60 dollars.. Now if the game does not make enuff money in the 3-6 months since launch you tend to see these games dropped to 50 bucks.

If its not "reviews matter", its this 60 dollar game gibberish. Games were never cheaper, especially when you consider inflation. Games are sixty dollars because you cant charge thousands of people $10 to watch them in a theater or $30-150 dollars to sit in a crowded arena to witness the game in person (George Carlin face, rip). Add in the fact that there are no royalties for video games and you have yourself a logical answer, the money has to come from somewhere geniuses. Personally I like this model, it forces our games not to be the watered down versions of the product, unlike dvds and cds.

... So I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

$60? I WISH! Consider yourself lucky cause here in Norway the retail price for new games are normally around $80-$100+

I finally had the money to buy Super Mario Galaxy last week but that was only because it was on sale... for guess what, $60 -_-

This is a very shallow article. It adds no thought or reasoning into the conclusions other than "It just should be this way".

What kind of logic is sell it at half price and sell over twice the amount and make more profit? First of all the resources and cost involved with producing, distributing, shipping and having retailers stock twice the product on precious shelf space is going to cost you alot more. So, if you have to sell twice as much to make the same profit, it will cost you more to get that profit.

Then you have to have the publisher, console owner, retailer, developer all agree to accept half as much per unit which raises their risk on a title that could bomb since profit margins are now cut in half.

Also factoring in inflation (assuming ~2-3% per year). A game that cost $49.99 10 years ago would probably be about $59.99 now.

How often do you see games that eventually drop in price all of a sudden see huge volume sales? Even games that come out $60.00 and drop within a matter of weeks don't experience this.

I saw Viking Battle for Asgard in the Gamestop $29.99 bin during a week long sale. This game is only a few months old, but I didn't see it jumping into people's hands.

$60.00 is steep, I'll agree it does cost some money to be a gamer, but I don't see it as a huge price hike from past generations.

Also, the argument about PC games costing about $10.00 less has more to do with the console fee each console manuf. charges moreso than anything else.

Because when you factor in the cuts that the manufacturer's get in addition to the absolutely astronomical development costs, it is becoming industry standard for games to need to sell 1 million units to BREAK EVEN.

In case you haven't noticed, many of the small and medium sized developers and publishers are having a VERY hard time just staying afloat. I know $60 seems expensive, but $100 million dollar movies have no barrier to entry (owning hardware), and have revenue in theaters, DVD, Blu-Ray, downloads and television that can last for decades.

Modern games essentially have a 3 week window of shelf space to sell whatever they need to make a profit...then that is it.

selling twice as many games at $30 instead half the amount of $60, makes you a profit??????WTH???
here is an example...
i sell 100 games at $60 =$6000
or i sell 200 games at $30= $6000
plus i lost from production costs....wth???

Publishers will need to clear 1 million units to get in the black--and start making about $1 per game sold. The remaining $59 per game goes into many hands. The biggest portion--nearly 45%--goes toward simply programming and designing the game itself. Then the console maker, retailer and marketers each get a cut. Add in manufacturing and management costs, and depending on the type of game, a license fee. Some gamemakers also have to pay a distributor to help get their titles in stores. So much for the $9.99 ps1 games back in the day haha.

I can understand that PS3 games cost $60 for a few reasons.
1.) It uses a new next gen format Blu-ray and it costs some money to use and make games w/ Blu-ray.
2.) It's still a new technology and until Blu-ray becomes affordable to use don't expect PS3 games to go down in price anytime soon.

Now 360 on the other hand those games shouldn't be worth so much money.
They still use DVDs and not Blu-ray so why is it more expensive.

I love it when people complain about the cost of games in America. How much does the same game cost in the UK? I'll tell you:

£45. That's $90.

Count yourselves lucky.

Their only using a dvd! It costs like 10 cents in china to produce like 8 dvds! 360 games should be a max of $50. Like the Wii's games. Theirs another rip off 360 owners. $60 games for no reason. I can see the PS3 having $60 games, it uses blu ray.

I agree that the current prices of games is ridiculous, but I have had a good system ever sense I got my PS3. I use the pre order system. I start a pre-order for a game that I really really want and know that I will play over and over for a long time. This gives me on average 3 months to pay off a game 10 bucks a pay check.. This doesn't set me back at all. For games I want to play but don't want to buy, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, Assassins Creed, Metal Gear 4 etc. I rent them at blockbuster where I use their "end of late fee's system to its max. 7.99 I rent the game and keep it for 1month and 1 week, then take it back and pay the restocking fee of 1.25. Look into it people. My gaming habit hardly hurts my wallet anymore. And I get to take my time with every game I rent :)

Lol the cost of almost all forms of entertainment is up. My local movies went from $7 to $9.50 practically overnight. The main reason for this is because we as Americans love to escape from reality. People are paying $60 for these games, so there is no point in dropping them back to $50.
That being said, it does suck. I agree with most of you that I am a LOT more careful now in the games I purchase. In the old days, Gamestop had that 7 day return policy so making risky decisions wasn't that big of a deal because you could return it. Now, with the whole "you opened it you own it" policy at EVERY retailer, why am I going to risk $60 on an iffy purchase. I have no problem paying $60 for MGS4 or Fable 2 or Gears 2, but please PLEASE do not charge me $60 for frikkin Conflict: Denied Ops. W.T.F.

IDK, I think gaming isn't very expensive at all until you go bleeding edge. There's everything from PS2 to Next Gen consoles to Crysis running PCs...

Movies are expensive.

from books, movies etc?

for one thing most books movies etc do not hit the used aisle until much later. Most people hold movies for years and books for years vs. 1-2 weeks for games. 1-2 weeks to recoup all the costs associated with creating, advertising, publishing and distributing the game.
Price is up because gamers are cheap and places like Gamestop and EB hurt the developer.
piracy takes a bite as well - though not as much as the ESA would like us to believe as most people who pirate the game would not have bought it in the first place .. though there are those who would have.

EVERYTHING.

Dont like the rape? Flip them over for a change, and do em' dry!

Unless you have a 360, cause you'll get banned for playing online with a modded system.