Topic: Quick Rant- Overview of the "Games are Too expensive" GCN & GBA

[BlkPaladin]

I have read several topics such as this, and just now I have read another one on another site that just made me snap. So I'm reviveing this for prospereity sakes since some people have short memories. And since I didn't find a simular topic the last few days, I'm making my first orginally post in a long time.

I would first like to start out by say to those that like the idea of a fragmented market to stop moaning because the higher price is the direct result of free market trade on a market with numberous suppyiers and (I don't know a good way to this) multiple outlets for the supply. Because you see the oposite of popular, and blind, opinion that free market trade always produces lower costs. On the contray, espeically in the console industry, in most monopolys the products you pay for from them is cheeper than in free market.

The reason for this is in a free market the naturally occuring monopoly normally would want to keep competitors out so there are numerous ways to do so. One of them is cutting the price to the poit were any entrants into the market will not be able to make it feasible to stay in the market. Another is to have high quality and sell things at a normal range.

Let's first use the console market as an example.

When Nintendo use to have the natural occuring virtual monopoly with the NES, games were cheep and high quality, for the time. (The average NES game was $20-to-$30) This was a result of Nintendo not wanting to give any room to competitors. Now with all monopolys they come to an end usally because of them controlling the technology of that market. (Nintendo did that and Sega came in with better techonology, and MCI was created when AT&T didn't want to use satilite technology.) But as a result of Sega entering the market the price of the games rose dramatically. (Some games went new for $100.00, and that wasn't just because of the carts but companies trying to get profits in a fragmented market.) Not only that but when another compeitor entered the market not only did it up hold the higher average cost of the games (though by now they started to equalize as all things do) but the quality went down to help artifically drive down the production costs and the end price.

And now this generation there are still three contenders and prices seem the have stayed at last generation rates. But not all is rosy, because the price of producing those video games are still climbing higher, that because to sell a game in such a market you have to have glitz and techonolgy for those who want eye candy and not really games. That is why you hear developers saying they want to go back to the simpler (in design, not dumbed down) games it costs less for them to make but that is not entirely possible in such a sales enviroment. So as it stands right now most developers will have to face the discission to up final game costs or go out of business.

Next is the Handheld market.

Nintendo still has a natural virtual monopoly on the Handheld market what do you see. Game prices are still low and on carts, and that is were all of the Gameboy's rival are trying to cash in on. The price? Orginally games for the "Wideboy" use to be 10-to-20 US dollars when it first came out, now they are $30-to-$40 and that is easily explained as the increased cost because of inflation and carts are now not normally used outside of the market so production costs went up.

The handheld market games could go up or down right now and it depend on how well the rivals do eventally. Because if they do get a foothold what we seen with the SNES games will happen, the handheld game prices will go up to console prices maybe even higher (Not right away, it takes time for tension to build up.).

So the moral of the story is if you want a fragment market such as we have in the game industry don't go crying about higher game cost because the market is not controllable so the suppliers of the games have to fight for money. It makes me accually worry about what will happen if the PSP or Nokia accually do manage to break into Nitnendo's monopoly. And I have to say that Nintendo's monopoly is an example of a "good" monopoly there are bad monopolys (hmmm I wonder who...) and their are bad effects from even good monopolys (Techonoly, labor treatment, etc.)

There is also good to be said about the fragmented market. More companies so supposedly more ideas come to the table, the entrance cost of the gamers (consoles) prices are lower. (Unfotanetly we may see a back lash from this also.)

So there is most of it. Please feel free to discuss.  

[mouse_clicker]

I completely agree, Paladin. I would add my own thoughts to the subject, of which I have many, mainly concerning how a divided market does not necessarily promote innovation and that innovation can actually thrive better under a monopoly in the games industry, but it's almost 1 am here in Kansas and I'm too tired to come up with anything coherent. You can find my thoughts in this thread from the Other Systems forum, though.

[BlkPaladin]

You know what the scary thing is. We are starting to see that choice being made by developers. (Even though it may just now only be 3do and activision.)

But we can see it coming. Yamaguchi (please don't flame me on my spelling that is a really bland thing to flame some on.) wasn't blind of stupid when he said he seen a collapse of the industry coming. And it will if things don't start to change.

[Cap]

while i agree with most of what you said, it sounded like you were saying that gba games are cheap at the moment. most gba are about 5 dollars cheaper then gc titles where i live, which i think is ridiculous. that is way too high in my opinion, and if they go up in price i'm positive i wont buy anymore. i have a hard time convincing myself to buy them right now when i can get a gc game for close to the same price.

[mouse_clicker]

It's spelled Yamauchi. And I don't think the industry's going to collapse- rather I see it how Denis Dyack does, in that once technology reaches the point where the graphical differences between games and consoles is negligible, the people that are going to succeed are the ones who can actually make good games. If you'll notice now games can sell almost purely on graphical prowess and marketing alone- it doesn't matter whether the game is actually GOOD or not. But once you take away the graphical advantages, people are going to start buying the games that are fun to play, and that's what Nintendo's been gearing itself up for all along.  

[BlkPaladin]

They are cheep when you consider that game carts have to manufactured for the thing and that is most of the cost.

And I'm talking average game price, Nintendo does have to lowest but its still over $15 dollars more than  Gamecube, at least for the titles I look at. And it also depends on where you live and shop.

[GaimeGuy]

The market is too mainstream to collapse now.  

[GaimeGuy]

By the way, I agree with your post, mouse.  and that time is going to come sooner than we all think: probably  within the next decade or two.

[AdvancedGamer]

Hey mouse up for some dead or alive volleyball lol

[KDR_11k]

1. I always thought and I continue to think that console games are overpriced. A GBA game costs as much as a PC game, but is MUCH cheaper to develop. A game for a large console is EUR60, which is 30% more than a PC game, but costs the same/less to develop. There's a major flaw here.

2. The lack of a free market effect here is due to a lack of really free market. This is an oligopoly of major publishers, who have a silent agreement that prices should be EUR60. Any newcomers will think "well, it works!" and sell at the same price. Games, unlike other products, don't compete for prices. Hell, if they think they got a really hyped up title at hand, they sell it for even more! (see C&C2, Enter the Matrix for examples) Capcom sees their games might not be able to compete against other games on the platform, so they priced their Capcom5/4 lower. Same happened to Serious Sam. If they don't expect it to sell well, they price it lower.

3. The bottom line is that no matter if there are one or multiple consoles, there is never free market and therefore prices are unaffected by the number of consoles, as long as people still buy the games.

[AgentSeven]

The average NES game was $30?  That's comlete BS.  I bought tons of them and they were the same price games are now, $50.  Atari games were also $50 back in 1980 and when the system first launched it cost $300, same as Ps2.

Get the facts

[BlkPaladin]

I don't know where you lived but I bought all mine new from Wal-Mart and they were 20-to-30 US Dollars.

And just to make sure I wasn't losing my mind I talk with a friend who started gaming around them and with telling him what I thought he confirmed it. But since this is the internet I will go to the liberary tomorrow and pull up some old catalogs (that is if the local college does that) to see.

And to clarify I'm talking about the average price. There were a few that were in 40-to-50 dollar range but that was rare. (Ultima: Exodus is one that comes to mind it was $40.00)