Originally Posted by DrBrogbo
I hope you're being sarcastic. You DON'T remember when book production was that way? How much do you think it cost publishers to push out the latest Grisham novel, or Stephen King novel? Back when the only way to get it was a physical book store, each of the thousands of which needed to have a hundred or so copies on hand.
There are maybe 5 franchises on that level in the video game world. There are dozens that are 8-digit cost video games yearly
You have continually quoted that Pong was $50 back in the day. Actually it was $100, but it was a console! Not only that, but it's widely regarded as the first console. Are you really going to cite that as a valid price comparison?
Pong was unprecedented. It was made in small quantities by factories that hadn't done video game systems before, and sold to a small audience. The central processing chip in the Pong system was also the most technologically advanced chip that had ever been sold to home markets. It had to be. Not true for today's games.
Was talking about Atari 2600 Pong, it was $50. Atari 2600 games were almost all $50.
Fast forward almost 40 years to today, and you refuse to admit that manufacturing efficiency improvements,
exponentially larger customer base (economies of scale),
True, but not nearly that
much larger when you consider inflation.
Compare the salaries while you're at it.
drastically increased knowledge of programming (compare any 1-man indie developed game to the teams that worked on Atari games, complexity-wise),
And don't try to argue they're too high, it's very much a skilled workforce that can get paid just as much elsewhere.
ridiculously cheaper media (CDs, DVDs, digital distribution), cheaper console production costs (comparatively) etc etc,
mean the price should be lower at all?
See bolded and then add in advertising costs. Ignoring those two you'd have a case, but not all costs have gone down.
You are deluding yourself if you think this is the way the market should go. Enacting this no-used-games thing will shrink Sony's customer base. Raising prices will shrink Sony's customer base. Doing both will be catastrophic for the company.
Not nearly as much as you think it will.
The sales impact from price increases is exponential. A 10% increase in price will mean a larger than 10% decline in sales. The inverse is true too. When Steam put the original Left 4 Dead for sale at 50% off, they saw a 3000% increase in sales.
True, but that's why the market price descends with time. Stopping used game sales gives full control of this to the publishers and they can react to decreased sales with lowered prices more effectively. Men far more seasoned in economics than either of us are pulling the strings here.
Also remember that a HUGE portion of Valve's profits are not
from their own games. They're not a typical developer because of Steam, and unless you want the Steam/Origin/UPlay/Blizzard model to come to every publisher (lessening the worth of each individually), don't try to hold their practices to the rest of the industry.
It sucks that major corporations' only response to low profits seems to be to raise prices. I will never pay $70 for a video game. I have never paid $60 for a game. I have never even paid $50 for a game. Granted I may not be Sony's target market (despite the fact that I own every single one of their consoles and probably 100 games for them), but shouldn't Sony be trying to draw in extra customers, rather than pushing away current ones?
A hard truth of consumer products is that not all customers are equal. Look at SOE's recent comments on Planetside 2: "And the way we see it is that the 90% of players who don’t pay are making the game fun for the 10% that do." Yes, they go on to say they're "equal", but they're "equal" because the ftp players act as content for the 10%. There are better examples, but I just went with the one I knew would be easiest to find.