…So I said to him, “you think I’m big and ugly, you should take a look in the mirror, mouth-breather,” and I stormed out of that EB like a bulimic from a buffet. It’s a good thing he said that when he did, too, because if he’d looked at me like that one more time, I would’ve … oh, it’s you again. We really have to quit meeting like this, you interrupting me and all. It’s getting to the point a controller can’t sit around and tell a good story.
I suppose you want to hear what I have to say about these rumors that next-gen games are going to cost $70. It’s bullplop, that’s what I have to say. I don’t care if your mama doesn’t want you hearing that sort of language, somebody’s gotta say it, and I’m not one to mix words, no matter how much DailyGame wants me to tone it down.
Look, what we’ve got here is a classic case of the “he said, she saids,” and nothing reeks like a grade-school gym more than those. Except maybe the stench from a gaggle of videogame accountants. Sega says EA is going to charge $70 for its most-popular next-gen videogames. Meanwhile, they’ll charge only $60. Gee, regular saints, those guys at Sega. We should all buy them a beer, ’cause you just know they aren’t going to be able to buy their own with those bargain-bin $60 games.
You want to know the problem? Oh don’t worry, I’ll tell you. It’s ego. Big, nasty, sweaty, double-sided ego. For starters, you’ve got publishers saying “Look at me, look at me! I’m on a console, this is so much better than PC. I deserve to have games that cost more.” Bullplop. If you play on a PC, you already know it’s got more muscle under the hood than a console, not to mention developers who have infinitely more variables to account for. Whether those games live up to their potential is another subject, but if any game-development process warrants an increase in price, it’s PC development.
But when was the last time you saw a PC game, other than Half-Life 2 or Doom 3, more than $50′ Hell, if there’s a trend in PC game prices, it’s actually a decrease. You want to know why? Competition, boys, competition. You think that mouth-breather in EB has a chance with the hottie working the Verizon kiosk outside his store? Hell no. He may be nice, but the only thing that outnumbers his competition is the number of zits on his forehead. I’m not being mean; I’m stating fact. Competition gives that little lady a chance to peruse the market, and the more choices she has, the better her decision.
Look whose supposedly saying they’ll have $70 games. Activision? No. LucasArts? No. Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony? No. It’s EA, the company that’s already wrapped up the exclusive rights to the NFL and is vying for other sports as well. You want to play a game in the next seven years with NFL players’ Guess you’ll be buying an EA game. You want to buy that EA game’ Guess you’ll be paying whatever the little sticker says you will. They’ve got you by the short and curlies, and don’t think for a second they’re afraid to give them a $70 tug. Oh, don’t worry about me; one of my favorite football games of all time didn’t even involve humans. Mutant League Football is where it’s at, for me. You, on the other hand…you might want to start saving your lawn-mowing money.
But do you want to know my biggest problem with this ego thing’ I didn’t think so. I’m telling you anyway: artificial inflation. The Interactive Digital Software Association will tell you in a New York second how the gaming industry financially outperforms the motion-picture industry. They’ve got their nose in the air about being bigger than films. Well let’s break out the abacus for a minute and do the math to see how they actually get there.
Going to the movies costs $9 per person. Nine bucks for two hours of entertainment. A ten-hour game, then, shouldn’t cost more than $45. But 10-hour games are considered short now, you say’ OK, but even Super Mario Bros. lasted more than 10 hours, and that was just a $25 title. So now you say game development costs more than it did back then, and that it might even cost more than making a movie’ Tell that to Waterworld, Titanic, Riddick, The Lord of the Rings. Yeah, but Hollywood makes up the shortfall when we buy the $20 DVD, right’ Sure, they make some money there. Then again, console publishers are starting to charge for downloadable game content, so they’re making it up on the back end as well.
What it really boils down to is value. Most of the games we’ve played in the past eight months aren’t worth $30, so why consider charging twice that amount, and maybe more’ It’s the gaggle of accountants, plain and simple. They think they’ve got gamers right where they want them: addicted, loyal and miles away from a single logical thought.
But if you’ve been plugged into games as long as I have, you know EA’s slogan like the back of your trigger: “It’s in the game.” Duh. Where else is it going to be’ But while EA and others run around talking about next-generation power, potential, graphics and gameplay, they better remember that although “it” may be in the game, “it” is also just a game. We can live without this stuff, Mr. Publisher. Our passion for games built this industry. Don’t think for a second that your passion for profits gives you carte blanche to bite the hands that feed you.
— Duke Controller
