• Language
  • £
  • Login

Opinion: Is it time for different price points for specific console games

Games are complex and come in all shapes and sizes, so why when it comes to console games specifically do we pay one price for all? Sure there have been some exceptions over the years, but in general when you look at the upcoming PlayStation and Xbox releases most of these game's RRP for around the same price. So why is this?

While I appreciate that a lot of money and effort goes into the majority of these titles, often we are left with what feels like a half finished game, be it a six hour single player experience with no multiplayer or a multiplayer only title, that fails to offer the single player a campaign. Then there's the games that pack in lots of quality content but somehow cost the same as a game that doesn't, somehow it's not quite right.

What's even more bizarre about this situation is that often the games which offer little in the way of content are usually in the bargain bins within weeks, so why not aim for a lower price, which in turn may then result in more sales? Why risk a game flopping at an unrealistic price point, when saying, "here's our new six hour campaign game, give us £25," would result in possibly more exposure and more discs in homes? I really fail to understand the need to charge almost £50 for a game that offers little replay value, so why do it?

There's a reason I've not named any of the titles I'm talking about because you know what they are. You also know the sort of games you'd happily pay full price for. Surely publishers know roughly how many units a game will sell before it hits retail, so why not lower the price to increase projections. Konami recently released Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes at a lower price point and it was pretty successful so I don't see why others don't follow the lead. It'd probably work well for games with short single player campaigns and no multiplayer and would likely also work well for games with limited multiplayer only experiences. Also, if a game is released with only half its content, with more to come via a season pass then why not release the disc at a lower cost?

I can't say I know the answer to these questions and why publishers can't see that a lower price equals more sales and therefore more exposure. Surely better that than being placed in a bargain bin?

So what do you think? Should game prices be more flexible? Should there be lower price points for certain games, with the higher price point reserved for those that offer a lot of replay value and plenty of content?

Comment below.

Edited On 16 Feb, 2015

( 6 )
touc's avatar
touc 2 years ago
I always liked the idea of the disc game being very cheap with the option of purchasing more of the game via DLC.
tolu89's avatar
tolu89 2 years ago
I too have always wondered this, but some companies are already doing it. Another example are konami. Their PES series is always cheaper than ea's fifa. But at the end of the day, nothing will change unless we the consumer stop buying games at the high price. Your football games in general are a typical example of what you're talking about. The game engines are generally the same, and a few tweaked modes!... But realistically we are buying a squad update for the full price of a game. Yet we the consumers do this year after year. I guess we all have too much money
Bindiana's avatar
Bindiana 2 years ago
The ones that get me are the games that offer season passes before the game is even out. The plan obviously was to keep some of the game back for DLC. Games like that should be priced cheaper and then the developers would have to impress you with the game for you to purchase the season pass or extra DLC. In my opinion if the game is complete and no charged DLC is going to be added I think you can charge £40-£45 this would include things like the Witcher where the future DLC is free. So if games are relying on DLC then the could charge £30-£35.
jaijai's avatar
jaijai 2 years ago
Greed sums it the best .These company's often offer basic info and gameplay because they know its mediocre ,but the need to make the money back .Noone offers demos any more when not that long ago most did .If you have faith in your game them let everyone play it before .now it never happens . Take Driveclub now i paid 20 quid for that game and was its biggest critic ,if thay put out an offline free demo im pretty sure the sales would go up because its a great game now ,its reputation is still hurting it badly .
Anonymous user's avatar
Jason 2 years ago
Totally disagree about FIFA its the one game I really play same as the 20 odd people I game with and id pay £100 for it as I get hundreds of hours out of it. It also isnt just squad updates as you clearly dont play it there has been huge strides in recent times. Its not the kind of game you change overnight and make a new game, FIFA like many sports game evolves and anyone interested in these games which is a huge number are happy to 40 quid , id expect someone who plays fifa 5 times a year to say what you said. Singleplayer games should sell for much cheaper as there is no replay I would never buy only rent because their too expensive to won
tolu89's avatar
tolu89 2 years ago
I buy fifa every year, the biggest part of fifa will be ultimate team or clubs. The fundamental principle of ultimate has not changed at all. The same with clubs. The keepers are not worse than ever. Let's take a closer look at ultimate team. It promotes the spending of real money to build your 'ultimate team'.. So on top of the £45 you've paid, you then spend an unlimited amount in ultimate. All for what? So in a years time, they release another title with an updated squad, and guess what...? Your ultimate team has to be started again. In terms of the transition to next gen. One could argue that is worth the full retail price. But if you can tell me that there is a fundamental difference between fifa 14 and fifa 15 on the same console that makes it a new game... Then I think most will agree. How many years have people complained about the same old bugs in sequential fifas that have not been fixed?... Could it be that they are running on the same engine, and in reality not a lot has been done to improve it?... In reality, how much can you improve a game in a year?... If you take in to consideration QA testing and all other concepts?

Please describe the nature of the abuse: