I'll Buy That for a Dollar!: Determining the Value of Games

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately on the pricing of games.  One of the ongoing criticisms of Nintendo and its Switch is how ports of old games are being sold for 60 dollars as if they're brand new games.  People just don't like the thought of old games being sold for that much.  After all, we see new games come out for 60 dollars, then as the months pass by, those prices drop whether it's through retail or publisher.  So, if a game has been out for so long that its value depreciates, why then do we see the same game being rereleased on a different system for the same starting price?

The answer is value. Value is a product's perceived worth.  If a publisher feels there's enough interest in said product and enough people will pay that price, then the value is established.  This is why we're seeing old games being rereleased on the Switch.  Publishers feel there's enough interest in them that people will pay new prices all over again.  With the rampant success of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Nintendo has proved they can make what's old new again, and people can't depart with their cash fast enough.  This is largely in part due to the immensely underperforming Wii U.  With a little over 10 million units sold world wide during its life span, not that many Wii U games had a shot at selling well.  So, it's no surprise that publishers wanted to take a second chance with their games for the far better selling Switch platform.

The recent Nintendo Direct has unveiled a few more ports, such as Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, Hyrule Warriors and The World Ends With You.  Every one of these older games are going to be 60 dollars.  For people who already bought those games on the Wii U, having to pay full price again on the Switch stings but for people who never played them before, I honestly feel that 60 dollars is an honest price.  Take Skyrim for example.  Everyone and their mother's mother has played this game in some form or another... except me and maybe a few other people.  For such an old game being resold for full price, it's no wonder the internet balked at it.  Me, though, it was a fresh new game that I'm still playing since I got it in November.  The 60 dollar price tag has granted a ton of mileage for me.

The World Ends With You, however, is a real tough pill to swallow.  Not only is this near eleven year old game full price at 60, it was only 40 when it originally released on the Nintendo DS.  What justifies the extra 20 dollars?  Is it only 60 because it has to follow the status quo with other Switch releases?  Well, there have been many Switch games that were ports of older games that came in well below the 60 dollar mark.  The Binding of Isaac: Afterbirth + is one such example.  What makes this even worse is that you buy the game on your phone for only 18 dollars!  So how in the "World" does Square find enough value in the game to think they can get off trying to charge 60 dollars for it on the Switch?  I don't know...

As I said before, if there's enough interest in the game that people will pay 60 for it, then that's the value.  If it doesn't sell at 60, the price will come down.  But man... I just DON'T see this one selling at 60.  Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze?  Most likely.  Hyrule Warriors?  Maybe.  The World Ends With You?  Probably not.  But you know what's probably going to happen?  Square being Square is going to start complaining about the game's poor sales blaming it on a lack of interest for third-party titles.  No, there's interest there.  You just need to price it better.

Honestly, all these third party publishers need to price their games better.  Even though I just said that I am getting so much bang for the buck from Skyrim, that may not be the case for all people.  It won't be the case for people who buy the other currently available ports such as Doom (although it's really not that old) and L.A. Noire.  I bought them for the novelty, but there's something that I need to confess to.  I haven't purchased a physical Switch title for full price yet.  Not a single one of them.  (Sadly, I have to with the digital games, because you don't really have a choice.)

I'm an Amazon Prime member and a Best Buy Gamer's Club Unlocked member as well.  This means that provided I jump on a new release quickly (or in Amazon's case, pre-order only), I can score 20% off.  That means I get a 60 dollar game for 48 dollars.  I also use my Amazon Rewards Visa card which gets me three times the points when I use it on Amazon, not to mention the Rewards certificates I earn from Best Buy.  I actually haven't paid full price for not just Switch games, but games in general for a few years because of these programs.  Hell, I just ordered The Evil Within 2 for PS4 a couple days ago for free because I caught Amazon's Deal of the Day when they were selling it for 20 and I had 25 dollars in points.  How's THAT for value!

The problem with all this, though, is that these savings programs aren't available for everyone.  Some live in regions where they just don't exist.  Some don't buy games enough to warrant annual memberships.  Some don't have good enough credit to even have credit cards to order from Amazon or Best Buy. This means some people are just stuck having to pay 60 dollars for a new game, and that's just U.S.!  People in other countries like Australia might even have to pay 100 for the same game!  Gaming is really expensive, and I get that.  When you have a new system and ports of older games come out for said system, you really don't want to see games you want to play still reflect the prices they had when they released 10 years ago...

But there's one thing that I think we take for granted when it comes to the price of gaming.  Inflation.  It's almost nonexistent when it comes to the gaming industry.  I remember NES games used to cost about 50 dollars... Back in 1985!  That was 33 freaking years ago!  I bet a few of you reading this blog weren't even born back then!  SNES games were 60 dollars I believe. I remember the N64 games were eighty dollars.  EIGHTY dollars for one game!  This was back when I didn't even have a job! Let's also not forget the fact that Sony tried to sell a 600 system. However, there are other factors that complicate this.  Yes, game pricing hasn't really changed all that much, but just about everything else has gone up.  Gas, rent, utilities, food.  So, while gaming in theory should be cheaper, the cost of living going up has negated that fact. 

Also, there's a lot more to play today than there ever was and this year proved to be a rather busy one thanks to the Switch, the PS4's amazing exclusives and the Xbox One X (although if you only care about exclusives and not power, then the X1X is a non-factor).  Our wants far outweigh our needs so games seem pricier than they actually are because there's so many of them that we want.  We wish they were cheaper so we could buy more of them. But that doesn't make value any easier to calculate. 

We have to look at what the games have inside them and who the games are for.  Let's just use a modern day shooter like Call of Duty for example.  For gamers who play multiplayer each and every day, 60 dollars for one game is a steal.  They definitely get quality time with it, but thanks to the industry ternd of sacrificing single player content as a trade off, single player gamers have a very hard time justifying buying a new Call of Duty for full price, especially since another Call of Duty with an equaly disappointing campaign is just around the corner. 

Concerning single player games, how long should one be for 60 dollars?  Do you just assign a minimum standard of 20 hours or do you factor in the quality of the experience?  Is a 20 hour mediocre campaign worth less to you than a five hour extremely memorable campaign?   Does it also matter to you that the game's been out for five years and is just being remastered?  If you haven't played the original, then should it matter at all to you if it's the same price as it was five years ago?

I'm afraid there's really no objective way to argue the pricing of games.  There's just too many factors to take into account, and everyone has their own definition of value and worth. Remember how many times you would see on a message board that the Switch was overpriced? Didn't stop people from making it the fastest selling console in US history now, did it?  It's because those people who bought the Switch found more value in it than those that thought it was overpriced.  So I guess when it comes to deciding a game's worth, it's not really about how much the companies think they can get away with but instead how much you'll let them take you for.