Ask yourself this question: Do you buy video games on sale?
This article was written by forums contributor imthesoldier, with the help of Matt C.and Mike D.
Ask yourself this question: Do you buy video games on sale? I would imagine many of you do, especially when the offer is too good to pass up. I, myself, love a good deal, and if I\’m honest, it is also forcing my hand to talk about a particular gaming subject – value. We don\’t often really broach this topic. Are videogames truly worth their price tag? And how does the industry\’s current pricing structure reflect upon gaming in general? But I\’m getting ahead of myself, so let\’s take a step back and wonder how we got here in the first place.
As I\’m sure many of you know, especially if you were around during the 90\’s, videogames used to be considered a tad expensive (just adjust ye olde standard $49.99 for inflation). Although games from that era didn\’t have online multiplayer or DLC/microtransactions, the game the publisher sold to you was actually complete. Nowadays, however, we have DLC, microtransactions, and even Season Passes on top of a $60 price tag. You could end up paying upwards of $80-$100 for one complete video game. The other half of the modern equation, though, are sales, which can run into the teens and single-digit price points. It\’s redefining how much we should be paying up front for a video game.
Are we reaching a plateau where the $50-$60 (plus add-ons) price point is becoming irrelevant? And if so, why do publishers continue to use it? I suspect it might have something to do with the hype of a game just before it launches. We become excited, giddy children for a specific game, cave into the hype, and shell out $60 for it. Then, once the hype diminishes, the publisher decides the time is right to give the game a price cut to tempt fence sitters, thus generating more sales.
So with this in mind, is it possible that Steam-like gaming fire sales might have the adverse effect of cheapening retail video game prices in general? This is certainly something for Nintendo to think about, because they are known for their \”evergreen\” titles – selling certain games at the same price for extended periods of time. You can bet that a year from now the official price of Mario Kart 8 will still be $60, and not hitting the bargain price of $10-$30 like many other big-budget titles of today.
It will be years before you see this kind of deal for the Wii U.
But even classics on the Virtual Console and smaller new games from Nintendo – e.g. Dr. Mario, NES Remix, Mario Maker, etc. – are priced (or will be priced) higher than you might expect. Game Boy Advance games on the Wii U VC are priced at $7 or $8 each, which has created some backlash. Why shell out money at these price points, given the games are over a decade old now? I\’ve read comments from some who believe these games should cost under $5, but there\’s more to these titles than old content. So, what do you get for the money? In regards to GBA VC games, you get the full complete game, off-TV play, restore points, Miiverse integration, a screen smoothing option, and best of all, the original game manual, digitized. And this is all for $7 or $8. In short, you get value. If you ask me, that\’s a better value than spending the same amount for a two-hour movie at the Theater.
Some old Nintendo gems cost much more than a movie ticket, though. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD was sold for $50 at launch. However, the game wasn\’t simply a port of the original game with only HD resolution added. The graphics were given treatment with better textures subbed in here and there, as well as a better lighting system with proper, real-time shadowing. Plus, there was off-TV play added, an enhanced first-person mode, and Miiverse integration. Some bits of gameplay were also fixed and refined along with the storyline (the Swift Sail was added to speed up traversing the seas, while the Triforce fetch quest received some slight tinkering). Basically, it was a significantly reworked Wind Waker – a complete, whole-new game, and not just a simple touch-up job. To some, these changes justified the price for a 10-year old game, while others waited for a sale. Either way, I bought it at launch. I loved the original, and this version had added value.
Still, I also love having extra cash in my bank account. I believe there will come a point where the $50-$60 (plus DLC add-ons) price point will be irrelevant, and publishers will start to be more flexible with their retail pricing plans. Yes, even Nintendo. I think the age of the $60 game may be numbered, and we will instead be entering a time when new game prices will be in the $30-$40 price point.
I only say this because of the type of sales we see on Steam, which have diminished the overall value of video games. No longer do we live in the days where gamers automatically feel it\’s justifiable to shell out $60 for any game that might be hitting bargain-bin pricing in four months. This is not a new thing, mind you, but digital distribution has changed the landscape – fire sales and steep discounts can be offered without having to go through a retail middle man. Plus, indie developers are creating amazing experiences for gamers at reasonable price points of $5-$20 dollars, giving us even less incentive to pay so much (even big publishers are getting in on the low end of the pricing scale, like Ubisoft\’s recent Child of Light). Some indie titles I\’ve played have gameplay that is just as compelling as modern big-budget \”AAA\” titles out there. It\’s a polarizing gap, between ultra-affordability and the cost of a tank of gas, and this value chasm is part of what\’s destroying the industry.
To be fair, not everyone has the strength to resist steam sales( image source: joyreactor).
OK, maybe \”destroying the industry\” is a bit harsh, but consider this: remember what I said earlier about sales? Unless there\’s real brand loyalty at play, people are more likely to buy something at a reduced price. Now imagine if a AAA game was only $30 instead of $60. Gamers would be far more inclined to buy something cheaper up front, while publishers and developers would have less incentive to swing prices into the bargain basement.
Nintendo could easily lead this charge, selling their titles in that $30-$40 dollar range – less than a typical \”AAA\” game, but far from the bargain bin. If Nintendo can sell their hardware at a cheaper price point compared to the competition, I feel they can apply that same logic to their own games as well. So long as the quality of the games is still there, gamers will come – we always do when there\’s good value for the money.
At some point, the price of video games will change across the board. If a game from a top-tier developer becomes a luxury item attainable by only a few, that developer may not be long for this world. Combating the devaluation of videogames is in Nintendo\’s best interests. Providing great value at a great price will entice gamers to stop sitting on the fence, waiting for a game to be sold at a clearance price. If Nintendo can do it with hardware, they can do it with software.
And if they don\’t figure it out? I\’d wager that someone else will.
Written by Alex Balderas
Share with others