Consoles - I don't get it.

[Redwolf]

OK, so as people know I have "some" PCs but I passionately hate Windoze, and while games like TacOps and TOAW seem to run acceptably on Linux and FreeBSD it's a real annoyance.

Since I enjoy simpler games lately anyway, I was pretty much ready to get a XBOX 360 - until I spotted this (while looking for books on the Midway battle).
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-6902960-0819345?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=midway+&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

So, the PC version is $40 and the console version is $60.

Why in the world would I be so insane to pay more money for the simpler platform? Why would I buy a console if I have PCs anyway just to pay more for the games?

If anything, support cost should be less for the game vendor because of the lack of a hardware mess, right?

 

[Dr. Winston O'Boogie]

It might be to cover the cost of the licensing fees to Microsoft for the Xbox (although I doubt they'd be $20) but more probably it's simply the fact that normally all 360 games debut at $60, and those buying the game probably won't question what is a uniform price. It could also be that console games are sold used more often than computer games, and because of this the extra cost is a way to recoup some of the losses that will occur from 2 consumers buying the same game twice rather than them buying two new games.

I do agree though, console games are starting to cost too much. Although us gamers aren't helping anything by continuing to buy them at such inflated prices.

 

[Dr Zaius]

That's exactly correct. Unlike a computer, where anyone can make a application, market it, and sell it, cosnole manufactures retain absolute rights to every title that runs on the machine.

If you have a game company that wants to produce a game for PS3, Wii, or Xbox, you have to go through a lengthy process of approval and enter into a draconian contract with the console maker. There are no games available at retail that do not bear the seal of approval from them. None. Zip. Nada.

The console license fee is very steep. I couldn't tell you what it is off the top of my head, but I believe it is around $10 or $20 per copy sold. Of course this amount simply gets passed along to the consumer. There is no way around it as the vast majority of console profit comes from this fee. Typically, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo sell the unit itself for a loss. And they will take massive legal action against any site or organization they find attempting to create and distribute unauthorized content.

Which is why I love the PC. You can do whatever you want with it and the games are better (just my 2 cents).

 

[Aries]

I agree, some wargames seem expensive. But I don't actually recall a cheap console game in recent years.

Occasionally a PS2 title has sold such a beetchload, they release it as a Cheaper edition as a way of saying thanks I guess.

But, I expect to pay 40+ bucks for my Panzer Tactics for the Nintendo DS. And I get a case, a puny cartridge, and probably a small manual (that's an assumption). Materials cost wise, I don't think the physical items really count for much, it's a machine making it all enmass eh.

I wonder what Battlefront would have cost if the intial production run was 1 million units instead of a few thousands? I would hope it wouldn't be 60 bucks Canadian.

But man, I plan to harp on this, I'd rather play my Battlefront on my tv while sitting in my chair. And I would rather like to be able to take it for granted, that Panzer Tactics won't be something of an oddity. But, I plan to get a DS just for that one game all the same (well I plan to get a bunch of other games too of course).

My assortment of PC wargames is rapidly approaching "bye bye don't need to be here any more, I have a decent wargame now for every facet of WW2, sell your new wargame to someone else" status.

To me, I want wargaming to crash the no wargames party that consoles are currently enjoying. Dang, I mean, they did Panzer General and Allied General, then they quit on us.

 

[Dr Zaius]

From Wikipedia:

When publishing for game consoles, game publishers take on the burden of a great deal of inventory risk. All significant console manufacturers since Nintendo with its NES (1985) have monopolized the manufacture of every game made for their console, and have required all publishers to pay a royalty for every game so manufactured. This royalty must be paid at the time of manufacturing, as opposed to royalty payments in almost all other industries, where royalties are paid upon actual sales of the product—and, importantly, are not payable for games that did not sell to a consumer. So, if a game publisher orders one million copies of its game, but half of them do not sell, the publisher has already paid the full console manufacturer royalty on one million copies of the game, and has to eat that cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_publisher

Is that draconian or what? But that is the lay of the land.

From talking with various publishers, I think we're pretty close to the end of the $50 game era. Expect to see games jump up to $65-$75 over the next five years or so. Gamers are demanding a lot from modern day games, and as a result it is getting more and more expensive to produce them. Computer code sure isn't getting any easier to write! And people are demanding multiplayer support, better AI, top-notch graphics, etc. All of that costs a lot of money.

 

[Dr Zaius]

To me, I want wargaming to crash the no wargames party that consoles are currently enjoying. Dang, I mean, they did Panzer General and Allied General, then they quit on us.

Forget it, because it isn't going to happen.

The enormous fees of producing today's games has driven the console market into a very "big hit" mentality. If it isn't a potential big seller, it will never get produced for a console. Because console manufacturers monopolize every title that gets played on their systems and demand very steep royalty fees, there is no place in the console community for smaller developers who take chances on less popular genres. You can't blame them, really. It would be stupid to invest millions into a game that is only going to sell a few thousand copies.

If you're waiting for TacOps to come out for the Playstation 3, you're going to be waiting a long time, brother!

Computer gaming is the only place where smaller developers and indie companies can exist. They are completely shut out from the console market, and that is NOT going to change. Sorry.

 

[Dr. Winston O'Boogie]

From Wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_publisher

Is that draconian or what? But that is the lay of the land.

From talking with various publishers, I think we're pretty close to the end of the $50 game era. Expect to see games jump up to $65-$75 over the next five years or so. Gamers are demanding a lot from modern day games, and as a result it is getting more and more expensive to produce them. Computer code sure isn't getting any easier to write! And people are demanding multiplayer support, better AI, top-notch graphics, etc. All of that costs a lot of money.

It seems draconian today, but it was a very important step back in 1985. In the early 80's there was a video game crash, and a large part of that was because of the flood of new companies making consoles and games. There were a lot of cheap startup companies that made a lot of bad games, and they saturated the market so that you had to dig though a lot of awful games to find some of the better ones. Consumers had no way of knowing what they were buying was good, or if it met any sort of standard of quality.

Today it's evolved into protection for the companies that manufacture the consoles though, allowing them to sell the machines at a loss to make up for it later. I'm glad that at least Nintendo has kept with the $50 games, probably because they make a profit on the machine itself.

 

[Aries]

Forget it, because it isn't going to happen.

The enormous fees of producing today's games has driven the console market into a very "big hit" mentality. If it isn't a potential big seller, it will never get produced for a console. Because console manufacturers monopolize every title that gets played on their systems and demand very steep royalty fees, there is no place in the console community for smaller developers who take chances on less popular genres. You can't blame them, really. It would be stupid to invest millions into a game that is only going to sell a few thousand copies.

If you're waiting for TacOps to come out for the Playstation 3, you're going to be waiting a long time, brother!

Computer gaming is the only place where smaller developers and indie companies can exist. They are completely shut out from the console market, and that is NOT going to change. Sorry.

You're depressing Don

 

[Dr Zaius]

You're depressing Don.

Most excellent comeback. :laugh: You're a master of understatement!

 

[mr_clark]

MAybe it's because most console companies make their profits out of the games, not the consoles (the only console on the market that is selling at a profit is the WII). Thus this adds another layer of costs on the games that is missing in PC games, so there goes your additional 15-20 bucks.

 

[Redwolf]

IIt could also be that console games are sold used more often than computer games, and because of this the extra cost is a way to recoup some of the losses that will occur from 2 consumers buying the same game twice rather than them buying two new games.

That's not how it works.

The guy who sold the used game will, statistically, use the cash to buy another new game (combined with more money from a second sale or to cut the "savings required" time in half).

The guy who bought the used game will either not have had enough cash for the new game in first place, or he wants more games and buys two used games from two people who just recovered money for (combined) one new game.

The amount of money that people (as in the individual) spend on games is pretty constant. As you can see, it doesn't really matter whether the economics involve a market for used games or not.