Games are cheaper than they used to be. That's a simple fact of economics.
Yet there seems to be something of a debate raging right now about the cost of games, particularly those which stem from the indie scene.
On Steam, or the PlayStation and Xbox stores, there's a definite trend towards shorter, sweeter experiences. More concentrated doses of story and/or gameplay.
Some have argued that a game such as Superhot - currently £16.19 on Steam - is too much to pay, when the main story mode can be finished in around two hours. If you're a super-sizing fatpig like I am, £16.19 roughly equates to two trips to Burger King.
I can't quite wrap my head around this grumbling, given that there's a lot of extra content in Superhot... not to mention that the developers have promised free updates in the months to come. Also, given that it's one of the cleverest, most original, first-person shooters in living memory, it manages the trick of sticking in the memory. What's to complain about there? Why are people so stupid?
Oh. Hang on. Now my brain is telling me that they're not...
Yet there seems to be something of a debate raging right now about the cost of games, particularly those which stem from the indie scene.
On Steam, or the PlayStation and Xbox stores, there's a definite trend towards shorter, sweeter experiences. More concentrated doses of story and/or gameplay.
Some have argued that a game such as Superhot - currently £16.19 on Steam - is too much to pay, when the main story mode can be finished in around two hours. If you're a super-sizing fatpig like I am, £16.19 roughly equates to two trips to Burger King.
I can't quite wrap my head around this grumbling, given that there's a lot of extra content in Superhot... not to mention that the developers have promised free updates in the months to come. Also, given that it's one of the cleverest, most original, first-person shooters in living memory, it manages the trick of sticking in the memory. What's to complain about there? Why are people so stupid?
Oh. Hang on. Now my brain is telling me that they're not...
CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN
Games are cheaper than they used to be. Accounting for inflation, the cost has dropped significantly in the last couple of decades.
Even ignoring inflation, and just looking at the price stickers, big games aren't that much more than they were 20 years ago. I remember when Strider was released for the Mega Drive. It was £40, and I couldn't afford it.
I only managed to get it eventually, by asking for it as a leaving present from my job at Ladbrokes. They also bought me a nasal hair trimmer, a see-through pocket raincoat, and a spy listening device; there's my life in a nutshell right there.
You can pick up the brand new Far Cry Primal now for around £40. On paper, that's not a bad deal: there's a ton of content in Primal - do everything, and it'll last you far longer than it took to play through Strider - and the budget was doubtlessly far higher than Strider's was.
That's not to say that, even in today's money, £40 isn't a lot. Of course it is, when most of us are trying to stretch one pay-packet to the next. However, it feels like the market as a whole has evolved to meet what people are willing to pay: the price of most big games drops sharply in the months after release - Fallout 4, for instance, is just half the price it was when it was released before Christmas. £20 for the almost-new Fallout 4? That's a bargain by anybody's standards.
Yet it seems that most, on the whole, are fine with the price of AAA games. It's the indies who seem to be getting the kicking; those games created by small teams, working on - often - more idiosyncratic, sometimes crowdfunded, projects.
Games are cheaper than they used to be. Accounting for inflation, the cost has dropped significantly in the last couple of decades.
Even ignoring inflation, and just looking at the price stickers, big games aren't that much more than they were 20 years ago. I remember when Strider was released for the Mega Drive. It was £40, and I couldn't afford it.
I only managed to get it eventually, by asking for it as a leaving present from my job at Ladbrokes. They also bought me a nasal hair trimmer, a see-through pocket raincoat, and a spy listening device; there's my life in a nutshell right there.
You can pick up the brand new Far Cry Primal now for around £40. On paper, that's not a bad deal: there's a ton of content in Primal - do everything, and it'll last you far longer than it took to play through Strider - and the budget was doubtlessly far higher than Strider's was.
That's not to say that, even in today's money, £40 isn't a lot. Of course it is, when most of us are trying to stretch one pay-packet to the next. However, it feels like the market as a whole has evolved to meet what people are willing to pay: the price of most big games drops sharply in the months after release - Fallout 4, for instance, is just half the price it was when it was released before Christmas. £20 for the almost-new Fallout 4? That's a bargain by anybody's standards.
Yet it seems that most, on the whole, are fine with the price of AAA games. It's the indies who seem to be getting the kicking; those games created by small teams, working on - often - more idiosyncratic, sometimes crowdfunded, projects.
FAIR PLAY TO YOU
Back in 2002, the Fair Play Campaign - backed by, among others, Digitiser columnist Stuart Campbell - argued that games were too expensive. Somewhat inevitably, the industry fought back furiously.
Absurdly, there were even journos who came out to attack Fair Play - the people who you would've thought would be on the side of the customer. I remember at the time being baffled, until I remembered the cosy relationship I'd witnessed between many games journalists and PR reps.
It has been some years since the spectre of games-costing-too-much has risen its head - in part, I wonder if the industry's excessive response to Fair Play discouraged others from keeping the pressure on - and it seems only now that it's coming back.
I just wonder what's going on.
As well as Superhot, the likes of Firewatch (£14.99), and That Dragon, Cancer (£10.99) have also come in for stick over their price. Yes, both of those can be played through in a few hours... but they'll undoubtedly come down in price over the coming months. You don't have to buy something upon the day of release. It could be likened to the way books come out in hardback before the lower-priced soft back edition. Throw in 3D glasses, and the price is similarly comparable to a cinema trip (extortionate popcorn notwithstanding).
I watched that Ron Howard movie, In The Heart of The Sea last night: I bought it for $14.99 on Apple TV in lieu of there being anything else we fancied watching... and regretted it. Nice whales, man, but it was an instantly forgettable experience. Firewatch and Superhot have the potential to linger and resonate, whereas I can barely remember a thing about Call of Duty: BLOPS III.
The indie scene feels like the only area of gaming where innovation is happening. If you're not willing to support a vital outlet experimentation - or, worse, complain about it, like some prissy malcontent - then what are even you doing playing games? What are you in it for?
I'm hoping that, eventually, the rest of the industry will wake up to what we're getting from the indie scene, and start embracing some of that innovation. We need it; AAA games have begun to stagnate.
Back in 2002, the Fair Play Campaign - backed by, among others, Digitiser columnist Stuart Campbell - argued that games were too expensive. Somewhat inevitably, the industry fought back furiously.
Absurdly, there were even journos who came out to attack Fair Play - the people who you would've thought would be on the side of the customer. I remember at the time being baffled, until I remembered the cosy relationship I'd witnessed between many games journalists and PR reps.
It has been some years since the spectre of games-costing-too-much has risen its head - in part, I wonder if the industry's excessive response to Fair Play discouraged others from keeping the pressure on - and it seems only now that it's coming back.
I just wonder what's going on.
As well as Superhot, the likes of Firewatch (£14.99), and That Dragon, Cancer (£10.99) have also come in for stick over their price. Yes, both of those can be played through in a few hours... but they'll undoubtedly come down in price over the coming months. You don't have to buy something upon the day of release. It could be likened to the way books come out in hardback before the lower-priced soft back edition. Throw in 3D glasses, and the price is similarly comparable to a cinema trip (extortionate popcorn notwithstanding).
I watched that Ron Howard movie, In The Heart of The Sea last night: I bought it for $14.99 on Apple TV in lieu of there being anything else we fancied watching... and regretted it. Nice whales, man, but it was an instantly forgettable experience. Firewatch and Superhot have the potential to linger and resonate, whereas I can barely remember a thing about Call of Duty: BLOPS III.
The indie scene feels like the only area of gaming where innovation is happening. If you're not willing to support a vital outlet experimentation - or, worse, complain about it, like some prissy malcontent - then what are even you doing playing games? What are you in it for?
I'm hoping that, eventually, the rest of the industry will wake up to what we're getting from the indie scene, and start embracing some of that innovation. We need it; AAA games have begun to stagnate.
NOBODY IS WHAT?
Nobody is wrong for thinking games are too expensive: we all value different things. What one person is willing to spend money on is different to the next.
Plus, we all have different levels of disposable income. Mix those together, and no two people are necessarily going to think the same when it comes to spending money on a video game.
For my money, broadly speaking... I don't think games are too expensive anymore. When it comes to indie games - depending on the game - I'd rather pay £15 for something that I was going to love while it lasts, than £5 on something that is a chore from beginning to end.
And the big triple-AAA games are, overall, better at giving you bang for your buck. Destiny is a case in point. It might not be a game I'm particularly fond of, but you can't deny you get your money's worth: far in excess of the equivalent eight hours you'd get from four trips to the cinema. Admittedly, I tend to value a single player experience over online play, but that's because I'm different to you.
Plus, when you consider game budgets, and team sizes, £40 seems relatively reasonable. Much more than it did 15+ years ago. Frankly, when I think back to price of Strider it's astonishing that there wasn't more of an outcry about it back then from the games journos of the day. And they have to gall to whinge about ethics in games journalism in 2016! It was far worse back then. Much as I'd like everything to cost 1p, sadly it doesn't. Money is society's way of showing how much we think a thing is worth.
So... in short... while I want to tell people to shut-up complaining about the price of Superhot and Firewatch, and get a grip... the reality is, if they find the price too high, then the price is too high for them. They don't have to buy it, and won't, whereas plenty of other people will. I might be of the opinion that they'd be missing out, but they might be of the opinion that I'm some bourgeois ponce, stuffing my pouting face with the gaming equivalent of beluga caviar.
Nobody is wrong for thinking games are too expensive: we all value different things. What one person is willing to spend money on is different to the next.
Plus, we all have different levels of disposable income. Mix those together, and no two people are necessarily going to think the same when it comes to spending money on a video game.
For my money, broadly speaking... I don't think games are too expensive anymore. When it comes to indie games - depending on the game - I'd rather pay £15 for something that I was going to love while it lasts, than £5 on something that is a chore from beginning to end.
And the big triple-AAA games are, overall, better at giving you bang for your buck. Destiny is a case in point. It might not be a game I'm particularly fond of, but you can't deny you get your money's worth: far in excess of the equivalent eight hours you'd get from four trips to the cinema. Admittedly, I tend to value a single player experience over online play, but that's because I'm different to you.
Plus, when you consider game budgets, and team sizes, £40 seems relatively reasonable. Much more than it did 15+ years ago. Frankly, when I think back to price of Strider it's astonishing that there wasn't more of an outcry about it back then from the games journos of the day. And they have to gall to whinge about ethics in games journalism in 2016! It was far worse back then. Much as I'd like everything to cost 1p, sadly it doesn't. Money is society's way of showing how much we think a thing is worth.
So... in short... while I want to tell people to shut-up complaining about the price of Superhot and Firewatch, and get a grip... the reality is, if they find the price too high, then the price is too high for them. They don't have to buy it, and won't, whereas plenty of other people will. I might be of the opinion that they'd be missing out, but they might be of the opinion that I'm some bourgeois ponce, stuffing my pouting face with the gaming equivalent of beluga caviar.
RSS Feed
