Downloadable titles and pricing structure
August 7th, 2008 Posted in GamesPricing of video games is a fairly contentious issue, particularly for us down under. In a country where $100 is the RRP for many video games, Xbox Live Arcade, Playstation Network, and WiiWare/Virtual Console titles seem like a pretty good idea. At an average of $10-$15 a game it’s worth it, even if you only play it a few times. Comparably, XBLA has the best games (Pac Man: Championship Edition, Geometry Wars, and Uno were all GREAT), but I think there’s at least one area in which Microsoft (at least) can improve. Price.
I think this is an area where Microsoft can learn a little from Nintendo, and possibly even Sony, but to a much lesser degree. I’m not sure if it really works in its current form. Wait, let me rephrase, because the sales would disagree with me — I think it’s misleading. With a three-tiered pricing structure, I think there are some really great XBLA titles that could be priced higher, and some really crappy ones that have been priced too high. That is, I think 1200 points is a reasonable price to pay for a quality video game, and 400 points is a really tempting price for more casual or short-lived games.
The main problem with Microsoft’s system? There’s no differentiation between the price points. An awesome game like Geometry Wars is released at 800 points, while an equally awesome game (Braid) comes out at 1200. Why? I don’t have a problem with the price — in reality I think I would have purchased either of those titles at an even higher price (although, to be honest, I still haven’t bought GW2). $20 (approx) is a bargain in my books. Then there’s a game like Space Giraffe — a simple title, very arcadey, and set at the more-than-reasonable price of 400 points… and nobody downloaded it. I really don’t understand that. It was a worthy title, especially for that price, but I think there was a lot of negativity surrounding it, and I think the price made many punters think it was a bit of a bargain-price B-grade title. Too bad. But what can be done to address this problem?
Well, for one, there should be set guidelines — rules describing how and why games are priced at a certain point, and these guidelines should be understood both by gamers as well as the developers. Take a look at Nintendo, for example — they have a set pricing structure for the Virtual Console and it works (although WiiWare pricing is also somewhat unclear at this point). On the other hand, XBLA is totally haphazard, and in the case of Braid, this means that a lot of consumers are probably questioning the purchase of one game when another is much cheaper.
And fair enough, if that’s how you feel… But it’s still a good price. Sony is in a similar position with the PSN, but at least they price their games in real terms, and casual arcade titles, like flOw and Pain, are generally cheaper than the more hardcore titles, such as Super Stardust HD. Still, new-fangled ideas (PixelJunk Eden, for example) are priced at a point that may be considered a little too high by some (i.e., me)… I suppose putting a price on these titles just isn’t as easy as it seems.
You know what though? I understand that it’s not easy to price games. I think perhaps we all do. These games are all selling pretty well across the consoles, and I will continue to buy the games I want, depending on my evaluation of their worth. But just because they are selling doesn’t mean things shouldn’t change. A comment from my good friend Jan on my Braid post made me realise this. A lot of people aren’t going to purchase Braid because they don’t think it’s appropriately priced, and that’s a shame. And that’s why I think that something needs to be done. Then again, it’s possible that some people are going to purchase it and feel that they were ripped off — you can’t please everyone.
You can never justify a price — there will always be people that think it’s too much. Hell, most people these days think it’s too much if it costs anything. But pricing shouldn’t seem so random. It probably isn’t, but there really doesn’t appear to be much method to the madness.
You know what I think? Go two-tiered — 500 and 1000 points a title. Low for smaller, niche titles, high for more hardcore titles. Get rid of the middleground, and make it obvious. Consumers are stupid — we just want to see the price and buy it if we can justify it. At the moment, Microsoft is competing with itself too much. Then again, from a business perspective, if it works…
No comments yet.