Ubisoft warns against 'horrifically high' game prices

[wraggster]

Ubisoft has called on its fellow publishers to keep a close check on their development costs - so that game prices remain fair to consumers.

UK boss Rob Cooper said there was "no point spending more on products if... what the public pays for our wares becomes horrifically high".

Somebody shake the man's hand.

"Where once fuzzy pixels danced around on the screen, now we expect everything from the visuals and sound effects to the dialogue of our characters - along with the emotions they can portray - to be more finely tuned," he told MCV. "All of these touches increase the studio costs exponentially so we will all be looking at ways to trim them when we can.

"But there is no point spending more on our products if the profit margins evaporate to a trickle or the prices that the public have to pay for our wares become horrifically high."

Cooper added: "Smart publishers will also ensure they have found ways to delicately balance the risk of creating bold new IPs against established franchises - it is something Ubisoft has so far managed pretty well."

Wow: A publisher boss publicly saying he wants to look out for his consumers' wallets.

Makes a nice change, right readers?

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=232832?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-General-RSS

[symbal]

Finally a developer with some common sense.

[PoorKingz]

So would you rather a game with killer graphics at a high price tag or a game with mediocre graphics at a lower price? I suppose developers will have to find a balance.

[Shrygue]

I'd like to see some 2D games being made today. As long as its fun and doesn't cost a major packet, it's fine. Screw paying £45+ for games, I'd just wait and get them used at a lower price.

[symbal]

Most people born after 1990 just completely ignore a game if it doesn't look good so what choice do developers have? They are the key market but still trying to charge £55 for a piece of software is completely over the top, at least developers have the WII for old style properly entertaining games.

[Veskgar]

killer graphics? I played games back when graphics were totally optional!

what I dont like is seing a 70$ with killer graphics, 5 star soundtrack, and jack squat zero fun

many current gen games reminds me of the rash of god awful fmv games of the early 90's, looks great, almost has a story but just as much fun as clicking on a excel spreadsheet

That is the absolute perfect quote here. This is why I find myself playing classic games on emulators, PSP, Wii Virtual Console, etc. more than I play current games.

ALthough I remember Super Nintendo games being quite expensive. Zelda - A Link to the Past was $59.99 I believe when it first came out. Maybe more. Some Super Nintendo games were even $69.99 in North America.


I'd like to see some 2D games being made today. As long as its fun and doesn't cost a major packet, it's fine. Screw paying £45+ for games, I'd just wait and get them used at a lower price.

Exactly! Case in point being that I just bought MegaMan 9 on the Playstation Store. Games that pay homage to the classic and retro games that started it all are certainly worthy of respect... and a $9.99 price...

[Justise]

Games have proven to be too expensive.
They spend lots of money to find good voice actors, and when they don't, the game's quality drops dew to horrible voice acting.
You can immediately tell that 99% of Japanese games barely spend money (if any at all) to add a proper English dubbing...

[VampDude]

Most games created now use recycled engines and concepts (soccer titles / FPS'), which makes some games seem like they aren't worth paying the extra for... But if a game was built from everything new (including the game engine), I would be inclined to buy a game at the full asking price. One reason why I tend to build my collections with pre-owned titles, unless there is additional content to be downloaded FREE of charge with in-box (one use) codes... Unlike Burnout Paradise, which feels like an unfinished game on so many levels before seeing that it's not unfinished, EA decided to make the rest of the game £80-90 on-top of the original £29.99 price tag it originally had.

As symbal said, there is always the Wii... But somehow the Wii doesn't fee like it's enough as a console, the Wii with PS3 graphics and Little Big Planet would have been awesome though.

[symbal]

Well the Ps3 might get some WII games ported over if Sony doesn't find another way to piss off the developers when Sony releases this motion controller dildo thing.

[gamesquest1]

I personally seem to remember it was ubisoft that started the price hiking back on the original xbox coz they were offering the only real option of online fps, i recall being shocked coz all games used to be £39.99 then ubisot came out with splintercell pandora tomorrow an it was £49.99 an within a few weeks all the games started creeping up in price.

Then they got pissed about people buying second hand games and whinged about that it isnt fair on them, now its a sudden 'oooh this is so mean on buyers' basically coz most people sticking to second hand games now if they starting at £50, i mean think about it who wants a piece of software for a console that cost half the price of the console itself, i am quite happy that 99% of wii games dont go above £40 even ones they know will sell big like new super mario bros wii.

Personally i find it crazy they hike prices and once they have been hiked critisise other developers for copying

[symbal]

I'd just like to hear Infinity Ward complain prices not high enough after charging more than anyone else at £55 and breaking every sales record with MW2, a normal business would have the option to drop price for next version, but no i'm betting next november they try to push £60

[PoorKingz]

So how much will PS4 games cost? $80 per game? The more advanced the graphics and game engines become, the more it cost to make them. Eventually, the game market is going to crash because the development cost will be too high.

Of course there may be ways to avoid this. Perhaps game engines that are so advanced, that it can be reused for most games, rather then developers having to program their own.

[gamesquest1]

im pretty sure ubisoft do this with there own games, but why not brach out a bit, get some relevent advertising in games to lower production cost.....i know this will then create a swarm of over advertising but why not for example just do simple stuff that arnt bombarding gamers with full screen ads which they cant skip like having coca cola adverts on bus stops, which developers can update through xbox live or ps3 online service so they can maximise revenue im sure advertises would love to get a bit of the millions of gamers attention and what better way to do it than having it not shoved down there neck but placed into a game that in turn makes the game look more real and enables game developers to secure money towards development before even developing

[kaferenza]

They honestly think $60 US for a game is reasonable? Maybe for a game such as Fallout 3 where you can sink a good 100+ hours into. With your average game though, no way in hell. I know a lot of money goes into things like marketing, which for the industry strikes me as almost pointless (with exception of the Wii due to the demographic), but actual development costs just can't be THAT expensive can they? A large portion of games simply license the engine such as HAVOK. Just port/license the Crysis engine for a while while working on a better one, that should save some cash. I have to agree with most everyone on here though. I'll take good ol fashion games where the focus was on things like gameplay and storyline and not on being able to see things like the sweat running down a Soldier's butt-crack.