You can argue about utility and cost to make and duration of play/viewing or whatever you want to do, and it's not going to make a difference. They price the games at $50 and $60 because people still buy them. The industry has been growing by leaps and bounds at those prices, so obviously in practice they are good price points. Everyone would like games to be cheaper, but not nearly as many boycott the full priced games.
Also, movies are in the $20 range in part because they're over in 2 hours. People buy a lot of them. By contrast, if a game is under 10 hours, you have a lot of people saying it's too short. You physically can not play through the same number of games in a given time period as you can watch movies. You can watch a long movie 3 times in the same period it takes to play through a single short game once. Most non-enthusiasts don't stack up a "to play" list like we do. They buy a game, play through it, then move on to the next one a week later. If you can't physically play as many games, you won't buy as many games, even at a lower price.
I knew a lot of people in college that had a household PS2 for 3 or 4 people, and only owned a copy or two of Madden, Tiger Woods, one or two of the GTA games, maybe Enter the Matrix, something like Black, and that was it, over the 4 or 5 years they owned the system. They rented anything else that looked interesting, and that wasn't really all that often.
Making the games cheaper is not going to sell more copies to those types of players, who in my experience are the majority, and existing game sales already prove that the more hardcore will pay $50 or $60 even while they complain.
QFT. Even at $60, we're STILL not back up to N64 prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerCreep
