Pricing is a funny old thing. The landscape in which we purchase games nowadays is very different to that of yesteryear. It’s fairly safe to say that impulse buying titles from the high street are an occurrence very few and far between, not solely because of the evolution of online shopping but also a change in our buying habits. Access to such a wide breadth of information with regards to games both in terms of news and reviews as well as available purchasing options has dramatically altered how we, as consumers, approach the market. This is not to say the market has changed with this shift however. Games are still being charged at similar prices to those four-five years ago and the emergence of online delivery has yet to truly hit its stride over boxed content. So what does the market need to develop and move with the times? What can be done to tempt us gamers into stores and online to purchase more content?
“Given hindsight, it’s easy to frown upon purchases given the amount of time I played them and realise that maybe they were a bad buy.”
I rarely thought about pricing before this article. I have enough expendable income, that when it comes to a title I really want, I purchase it, with little concern for how much it actually sets me back. Given hindsight, it’s easy to frown upon purchases given the amount of time I played them and realise that maybe they were a bad buy. Thinking on that subject, I’ve never really measured the correlation between play time and price. Consider a few recent releases, Batman: Arkham City and Skyrim. I realise 2 very different titles in their own right, but both critically acclaimed titles. One can take around 20-30 hours to polish off the main story and any side quests, whereas the other can take 100+ hours with more to boot. Both cost in and around £40, yet in terms of content, one is by far more worthy of its price tag. This is not to say their enjoyment can be felt on the same level, but it’s worth noting the cash ploughed into a title (whether it be boxed, DLC or other) could directly relate to the amount of time expected to get out of it.
With this in mind, it got me thinking. What if titles were priced based on features? Would this sway consumers either way? I’m not talking about just the core audience either (yes, as you’re reading this you would probably fit into this category) but also Joe Bloggs off the street or their parents? When looking at titles on a shelf would Battlefield 3 sans multiplayer attract buyers at £25 compared to its full version priced at the standard £40? Especially in the run up to the holiday season more and more consumers are dipping their hands into their pockets and more than likely are looking for quick ways to save a few quid. Could titles be offered with selected features turned off at a lesser price and then the audience can purchase these via DLC at their own leisure if it so interests them? We always look for those massive AAA titles that offer all the extra content, add-ons and bits and pieces, but maybe to increase outreach and sales, publishers could offer a lite version of the game. Obviously this wouldn’t work for all titles, far from it, but those with completely separate online, single and multiplayer components could easily be offered at varying pricing levels to the customer. For someone sitting on the fence on whether or not to buy the next big shooter, maybe this could push them into a purchase if they only had to pay £20 for the multiplayer only and then maybe buy the story at a later date.
No longer is the brick and mortar of the high street our main source for acquiring out games, we can order them through so many outlets. It’s a saturated market with so much competition, that the only way to win the war is through price. The high street is finding it hard and we’ve recently seen some of the underhanded tactics of hiking RRP to a level that is just unfeasible to sell when you can find the same online, for a fraction of the cost. That’s not to say the online battlefield is finding it easy. With so many retailers vowing for your attention, we’ve all been bartered with when it comes to pre-order offers, exclusive content and the odd percentage off voucher. There is something that can be done on both sides of the field when it comes down to it.
I don’t think I’ve ever entered a shop where the staff are passionate about the games they sell”
The high street retailers need to take advantage of the assets at hand, they are face-to-face with the customer every day. I don’t think I’ve ever entered a shop where the staff are passionate about the games they sell, where they proudly show off the latest releases and give you a chance to play them. The ability to communicate with an audience at this level is hard to convey over a screen and it’s here where the merchants can justify their higher price point. Couple this with the ability to house community events, that aren’t just ‘virtual’ and I’d say you’re onto a winner. We’ve already seen the success of competitive gaming events through the likes of MLG and the iSeries, it’s an easy option that the retailers could take. On the flip side of the coin, the variation in price between some online sellers is hiked to a point where the only sure-fire way to pull custom is to undercut your competitors. Yes, price is major factor, but what I’d like to see from my retailer is guarantees, customer service and loyalty. One bad experience on any of these fronts usually has me boycotting, I’ve done this recently with a massive online supplier and I won’t be going back.
Is online the future of delivery? I for one love the look and feel of boxed content, I enjoy getting those extra useless trinkets and booklets, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. But for many, through lack of space and other reasons, boxed games are a pointless venture. It is a field in which all markets have been growing but has yet to truly grab the bull by the horns and attack it head on. What if Modern Warfare was available at midnight priced £35 via Xbox Live Marketplace or Playstation Store? How many people would ditch the midnight launch in favour of the saved £5, I mean who needs a case anyway, and all from the warmth of a comfortable bedroom. It’s an avenue that hasn’t really been looked upon as of yet, but could mean big bucks for those distributors willing to trial cutting out the middle man.
In the changing facade of gaming, who knows what is on the horizon. In an environment of uncertainty, it is becoming harder and harder for those supplying us content to differentiate themselves from every other retailer. The war on pricing has waged for many years and I am sure it will continue to, but maybe it times for some to step up and take action and help us, the consumer, get more from hard-earned cash.
Comments: [12]
My housemate and I were having this exact discussion just a few days ago. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the not too distant future, almost all games were “free-to-play”, or the disc being really cheap, like WoW, and then you ‘unlock’ bits with a code online. The difficulty is you’re locking out those without the Internet.
I suspect there will be a change that comes along soon, what it will be though, I’m not too sure.
I agree, that change is imminent, we’ve already seen OnLive go fully streaming, but it will take one of the big 3 to truly change before we see it across the board.
Certainly an interesting article. The ever changing climate of the industry really does present challenges for publishers, retailers and consumers. I find the point about pricing according to quantity quite interesting as a concept, but there is a key flaw.
Let’s say that Starcraft II was packaged this way at launch, where the multiplayer cost say £15 and the single player cost £20, making the total of £35 it was sold at when the game was released. There is no way of regulating how long a game would take to complete for an average player, so while it could take someone 15-20 hours to complete the single player mode, it might take someone else 30+ hours. With multiplayer, quality and incentive of the multiplayer mode also needs to be addressed, so while some kid in South Korea would be playing it for years, others will only play for a couple of months.
In my personal experience with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, I played the single player campaign for around six hours and multiplayer for a couple of months before deciding that it wasn’t proof tested properly and decided to sell it. £45 was the asking price and while I got most of it back after trading it in, I still personally felt ripped off because I just didn’t personally enjoy it as much as others else did.
“When looking at titles on a shelf would Battlefield 3 sans multiplayer attract buyers at £25 compared to its full version priced at the standard £40?”
I don’t think so. The multiplayer on it’s own though, maybe.
The issue with splitting games like this for me though is the trophy list – I strive to get the platinum on a few games that i enjoy & i am not sure if i would be put off by the fact that i could never complete the trophy list. Sounds a bit shallow, but i probably would.
Ah well then you would buy both halves… people that aren’t too bothered by trophies or achievements could buy the halves if they wanted to.
Yeah, admittedly if there were three products available (as in a separate single player, a separate multiplayer & a combined package), if I am honest with myself I would more than likely still go for the whole package as I wouldn’t want to do myself out of the chance to have the full experience (or go for the platinum if it seems feasible).
That said though, if reviews of a game (& the thoughts of trusted acquaintances) were pretty much slating either the singleplayer or the multiplayer experience & praising the other, I might be tempted to not waste my time with the part that was lacklustre & just go for the part that would actually be worth my time & money. At the end of the day, what’s the point in having the full package if you aren’t going to bother with one part or if it’s going to be a chore?
I visit GameStation and ComputerExchange quite a lot and found them to be similarly enthusiastic about games. It’s one of the main reasons why I choose GameStation over GAME, simply because the staff seem to care about the products they sell more.
In my experience across a whole host of shops I feel that GAME has staff that have been more often trained to be enthusiastic about their wares, while GameStation are gamers selling games to other gamers. Every time I’ve gone into my local one I’ve had genuine conversations about games with the staff. I enjoy that, it makes the purchase feel more personal.
I don’t agree with their slight price hike – some games are being priced at £42.99 now – but I understand why it’s being done. I like the personal touch, and if I’m honest I actually prefer paying the retail price to get that and the game in hand there and then (love the excited walks home too) over saving a couple of quid online. That’s saying something for me too, because I’m a frugal bastard.
A very thought provoking article, but if there is an answer to the current problems, I don’t think price per content is necessarily it. Considering that after a few months most games drop in price anyway, I don’t think there is any long term benefit to selling a game with online only (or single player only). Eventually the price of the full game will drop, and once that happens I don’t think that the “lite” versions will sell any more, leaving a few disgruntled players who bought the “lite” version on release, wishing they had waited.
If the game has the option to purchase the extra content via the PSN (or similar), then would the price of this extra content also drop? From what I’ve seen of full PS3 games sold on the PSN, the answer to this is a resounding no, again leaving me with the feeling that waiting for the full game is a better option.
Basically, unless you’re playing a extremely popular online game where the date of purchase is integral to the quality of the game, then you’re probably better off waiting for the full product 6 months down the line at half the price.
You have a good point on current downloadable pricing, I think this week saw Black Ops on PSN go for £42.99, which is beyond ridiculous.
My main view was that offering customers options was the way forward, in nearly all sectors of business, we see choices when it comes to purchases, colours, add-ons and the like, so why not with games. Why does Special, Limited and Ultra Limited Editions need to be norm, why can’t we offer scaled back versions for those that want it.
Also, I’m quite happy the debate this has sparked, even if I talk a lot of rubbish throughout, it’s nice to see some discussion on the subject.
You are right, Black Ops pricing on PSN is ridiculous, but it was worse than you thought – It’s actually £47.99!!
I could probably understand that pricing if it was MW3, as it’s brand new & people will pay those prices, but to pay nearly £50 for a game that is over a year old, just to have it on your HDD seems a bit like nonsense (&/or laziness) to me!
Especially as it can be picked up on disc for as little as £15 pre-owned (which isn’t really an issue due to no online pass!)!
Funny you should mention people playing through parts of the game that seem a chore. I know a fair few gamers who have done just that purely for achievements.
I have to admit that I have been guilty of that very thing in the past, but these days I have little patience for grinding, or doing tasks that are nothing but a chore – I play games for enjoyment, not to feel like I am in some way working from home!
As Murtaugh said in Lethal Weapon, “I’m too old for this shit”.