Support NeoGAF

[UbiSoftologist]

Michael Pachter of Wedbush Morgan Securities thinks that Take-Two is foolish not to raise the price on GTA:SA:

Pachter, on the other hand, thinks the video game industry is foolish not to raise prices. "I think that video game pricing is controlled by a small group of not very intelligent people. I'm serious; I think these guys are leaving money on the table, and look I will give you as a classic example Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas—Take-Two is leaving a boatload of money on the table because the Rockstar guys are afraid of being disloyal to their fans. That's a stupid reason not to command what the market will bear. Take-Two totally blew it."

Source: http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=8055&section=feature&email=

 

[Deku Tree]

Respect for Take-Two +1. We don't need more price increases.

 

[Alcibiades]

yes I would

and people would complain

and still lineup around the block

and people would be mad

but still buy it and the next game in the series...

heck, I'd go to $69.99 price point even, at least until Christmas, then drop the price to $49.99 like in Feb....

 

[deadhorse32]

Take-Two is leaving a boatload of money on the table because the Rockstar guys are afraid of being disloyal to their fans.

The same fans who bought the others GTA games and made Take Two RICH.

 

[AeroGod]

They probably could have gotten away with $59.99. Hell I still would have bought it. But its cool that they didnt. +1 respect indeed!

 

[NotMSRP]

I have a difficult time convincing myself to buy games @ $39.99. JP-style LE junk is the only way to force me to pay more.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

If I was Take-Two, Hell yes I'd do it.

I know everybody and their dead grandmother is going to buy this game, why the hell not make a little bit extra dough for it? Same principle applies to Halo 2 and Madden.

 

[Alcibiades]

just look at how EA was able to sell a bunch of "CE" Madden's for $10 in pure margin. That was really smart.

If I were EA, I would have made the CE available to all system, and launch it 2-4 weeks ahead of the "regular" Madden. Would have sold buttloads, and complaining gamers would wait for the regular release to save $10.

 

[UbiSoftologist]

just look at how EA was able to sell a bunch of "CE" Madden's for $10 in pure margin. That was really smart.

Take-Two should release a collector's edition for GTA:SA...most GTA fans would be crazy about it.

 

[Teddman]

Well, Bungie/Microsoft found a way to get an extra $5 out of me for Halo 2, but at least they're offering a little extra in the Collector's Edition.

I wouldn't pay above $50 for a new game otherwise. Rarely do I buy games full mark-up anyway.

 

[Lakitu]

Michael Pachter should be shot.

 

[Ranger X]

This Patcher is exactly the kind of dumbass i hate.
It's soooooo "capitalism considering NOTHING ELSE" style. If ever is life or confort is threathened by money or something related to money, he'll be the first to complain.

Of course they would make more money increasing GTASA price but what's the use? This game is going to encounter it's projected profit SOOOO easily.
Mo money, always mo money.

 

[Baron Aloha]

If I were Take-Two I'd charge $69.99 for the first 3 months and then drop it to $49.99 after that. Gamers wouldn't like it, but as someone said they would line up anyway.

 

[Mrbob]

Raise the prices and lets see the market implode. Maybe I'll stick to PC games then as the prices for PC titles plummet after a couple weeks. Console title drops are getting better but in comparison to th PC market it is still slow.

 

[Alcibiades]

Raise the prices and lets see the market implode.

a select few games wouldn't cause any market implosion...

If everyone started doing it, then there would be a problem and lowered sales...

I don't think you could get away with charging more for Snake Eater, Echoes, or The Urbz this November.

But you could with Halo 2, San Andreas, and GT4...

 

[UbiSoftologist]

a select few games wouldn't cause any market implosion...

If everyone started doing it, then there would be a problem and lowered sales...

I don't think you could get away with charging more for Snake Eater, Echoes, or The Urbz this November.

But you could with Halo 2, San Andreas, and GT4...

Yep, from a business standpoint, price hikes would work for ''must-own'' AAA titles like Halo 2 and GTA:SA. After all, demand for these titles is usually inelastic.

 

[MarkRyan]

Same principle applies to Halo 2 and Madden.

But the makers of Halo and Madden actually spend money to playtest their games.

 

[DarienA]

But the makers of Halo and Madden actually spend money to playtest their games.

Low blow.... and it certainly doesn't explain how Madden's fatigue bug made it through play testing.

 

[bishoptl]

:lol

 

[sonycowboy]

Take-2 specifically responded to a question in the last conference call regarding premium pricing and said they thought long and hard about it. In the end, they said they "couldn't make it work", which could mean any number of things.

I'm sure they if they had done it, they would have done a premium edition as well as a regularly priced one. Given how much stuff is in the game, I think they probably just didn't schedule time to dedicate to "extras" that they might be able to use for a premium edition.

 

[snapty00]

Absolutely. Let's even say that they'd sell one MILLION fewer copies by raising the price to $60 (which wouldn't be the case, anyway). They'd still come out better:

$480,000,000 revenue = 8 million copies at $60
$450,000,000 revenue = 9 million copies at $50

And this doesn't even take account of the fact that it could sell the first 4 million or so copies at $60 (by people who were going to buy it regardless of price), and then lower the price to $50 once sales had leveled off a bit. That way, they'd squeeze $10 extra out of the first few million people and still not have to worry about losing sales to people who wouldn't pay over $50 for it.

And by raising the price, it may even help sales in some sectors, since it'd give some people the impression that the game is special somehow. So even for people who couldn't afford it at $60, they'd be sure to pick it up at $50, because $50 would appear to be a bargain. "Wow, $50 for a special $60 game!"

To be perfectly honest, I'd try to squeeze out $70 out of people at least to New Years. This is a game of higher-than-Super Mario 64 proportions, so it's absolutely ridiculous that they're charging $50 for it. I paid $70 for Super Mario 64, and that was 1.) for a game that was has sold fewer copies than Vice City, and 2.) back when inflation was lower, meaning that $70 was a slightly bigger blow to my wallet back in 1996.

 

[The Faceless Master]

$79.99 isn't unreasonable for a game of this level of popularity..

i'm sure the first few shipments would sell out...

 

[mj1108]

Given the popularity of the series, they could sell it for $59.99 and nobody would bat an eye. Or if they were afraid of backlash, do like EA did with Madden and sell a "Collectors Edition" for $59.99 and the standard for $49.99. People would eat up the $59.99 one like crazy.

 

[Link316]

Michael Pachter of Wedbush Morgan Securities thinks that Take-Two is foolish not to raise the price on GTA:SA:

meh, methinks he should've watched The Apprentice last night

 

[levious]

funny you mention the Apprentice, this article immediately made me think of that Donald Trump commercial for Pizza Hut's Big New Yorker Pizza. "9.99??? They gotta be losing money on this!"

 

[Chi-Town]

I paid $70 for Super Mario 64, and that was 1.) for a game that was has sold fewer copies than Vice City, and 2.) back when inflation was lower, meaning that $70 was a slightly bigger blow to my wallet back in 1996.

Where were you shopping? Super Mario 64 was a $50 game.

 

[DarienA]

Where were you shopping? Super Mario 64 was a $50 game.

Fingerhut probably.

 

[snapty00]

Where were you shopping? Super Mario 64 was a $50 game.

Maybe you were a late adopter or something? I didn't see Super Mario 64 anywhere for less than $60 until like 1998.

 

[FinFan]

All you have to do is have a $50.00 reg. game and a $60.00 collectors addition.

Real fans will more than likely buy the collectors addition and hardcore fans will buy both!

Mo Money! Mo Money! Mo Money!

 

[Chi-Town]

Maybe you were a late adopter or something? I didn't see Super Mario 64 anywhere for less than $60 until like 1998.

Nope, bought an N64 on launch day with Pilotwings 64 and Super Mario 64.

 

[sonycowboy]

All you have to do is have a $50.00 reg. game and a $60.00 collectors addition.

Real fans will more than likely buy the collectors addition and hardcore fans will buy both!

Mo Money! Mo Money! Mo Money!

I cringe at the thought that there may be some corporate folks skulking about and going back to their bosses and say, "Guess what? They really want those special editions that we can charge more money for! And the eyes light up, that dastardly grin comes across their face, and they start rubbing their hands together.

Madden, Halo, Mortal Kombat, Doom (priced @ $55) are showing that the hardcore are just as much sheep as the casual gamer. Just in their own way.

 

[WasabiKing]

Real fans will more than likely buy the collectors addition and hardcore fans will buy both!

Why would you do that in the case of Madden? CE just has bonus stuff on the same DVD and a shiny box around the case. What's the purpose of blowing $50 on the regular game? You can call them hardcore, I will call them idiots.

As for releasing a Madden over all platforms, why bother. If your largest fan base is more receptive to spending more on the premium package, you push it on them, cause it does cost more in man hours, time, packaging, etc... If your game did not sell as well on one platform, why would you push a premium package there? How would you balance the sales between regular and CE editions? You'd take a bigger hit in profit trying to satisfy all.

Topic at hand: usually around this time, as we're slowly seeing the drop from the apex in the product life cycle for this generation's consoles, the drop in game prices start to appear. SCEA did it for all their games across all genres over a year ago, and no one has really reacted. It tells me many things, but the most pressing is this: games are costing developers and publishers way too much in this dog eat dog environment to cut prices in order to make profit, if not break even.

 

[Mooreberg]

$79.99 isn't unreasonable for a game

Yes it is. We're not on cartridges any more for console games. $49.99 for new releases, $39.99 for first party games, and cheap games by the dozens is the way to go.

 

[DMczaf]

Why would you do that in the case of Madden? CE just has bonus stuff on the same DVD and a shiny box around the case. What's the purpose of blowing $50 on the regular game? You can call them hardcore, I will call them idiots.

Dont tell CK that... :lol

 

[open_mouth_]

I would charge $39.99 just to piss off dickwads like Pachter

 

[Gek54]

Remembers paying $88 at ToysRus for Street Fighter II Turbo for the SNES and not even flinching at the price. $49 is high for me now.

 

[explodet]

Hey, as long as I can still get GTA:SA by trading in three crappy games, they can charge whatever they want for it.

*hugs his preorder slip*

 

[SyNapSe]

I think $59.99 is a reasonable price for these "elite" games coming out. Particularly in the case of Madden, GTA, and Halo 2.. These are games that fans will most likely put TONS of hours into. None of those 3 games is exactly a 10 hour playthrough and your finished.

Something tells me Take-Two may not have gone to $59.99 due to the current console timeframe. There are just so many budget titles out for the consoles now.. games even releasing at $40.

I'd be surprised if some of these titles didn't launch a bit higher in their first sequel of next gen. I think the collector editions are the ticket. Throw another DVD in their with some bonus features for $5-$10.

 

[Kon Tiki]

Sure I would sell it for that price, but I would also make it a PS3 launch title.

 

[Teddman]

Another thing that publishers have to consider in this day & age is piracy and rental markets.

I think the amount of piracy would rise along with game prices. People who'd buy GTA: San Andreas without a second thought at $49 might consider other alternatives if it were $59, $69, $79... Instead they might rent it or download/burn an illegal copy.

Especially if this started a trend and all of the marquee blockbuster games began charging $59 or $69 as a standard? Suddenly a mod chip might seem worth it to a whole new audience.

 

[jecclr2003]

When you raise a price like that you are bound to alienate many buyers. You only have so much money to go aroud.

And with the way the market is, within six months GTA will be a $20 title anway or languishing in the discount bins due to over stauration. They ordered huge for this, and the saturation will continue during he holidays. Many will probably just wait. Especially considering all the cheap and just as fun games out there.

The market has shifted. EA is backing down their prices due to Segas ESPN titles that are selling pretty well at $20 and in some case deliver a just as good, if not better product. You have other companies releaseing titles at the $20 price point and selling pretty well. Your average buyer is a bit more educated than they used to be, and at $50 a piece thats a nice chunk out of your wallet. There's alot of other options for alot cheaper that are just as good.

You want to make more money? Drop the price for the first week or so... see it sell through the roof. THEN raise it up after said week. Your hardcores will buy first week, no questions asked, you appease your loayls. Raise it back up to $49 during the holidays and get all the massive sales during the holidays.

But you cant expect to realistic get more money buy raising the price of a title. Especially with so many other things for your entertainment dollar to go towards. Face the fact guys, WE ARE NOT THE MAJORITY. The majority is your 18-35 year old male who mainly picks up the yearly sports game, doesn't read the internet boards, and might pick up the huge title of the year or two. Not avid gamers by definition.

 

[Scottlarock]

Respect for Take-Two +1. We don't need more price increases.

ditto

 

[sonycowboy]

I think $59.99 is a reasonable price for these "elite" games coming out. Particularly in the case of Madden, GTA, and Halo 2.. These are games that fans will most likely put TONS of hours into. None of those 3 games is exactly a 10 hour playthrough and your finished.

They also sell over 10 times more than any other titles. And when you've passed the dev costs, every dollar is pure profit.

Basically, say for a small title, 200k is the breakeven point and it sells 250k. Small profit.

Now, for GTA, let's say it takes 1.5 million units to be profitable. When it sells 10 million, they have just cleaned up big time.

 

[Alcibiades]

Yes it is. We're not on cartridges any more for console games. $49.99 for new releases, $39.99 for first party games, and cheap games by the dozens is the way to go.

tell that to the millions buying 2 versions of Halo 2.

How many people would have bought 2 copies of San Andreas if there was a "collector's"/"limited" edition out there? I'd say quite a few hardcores would have (hundreds of thousands at least).

I had never thought about it before, but this game would definitely have been the time to make the move to a higher price point.

Heck, I think Microsoft could have easily gotten away with a $69.99 "CE" Halo 2 (like how Robotech did early this generation).

There are only 2-3 games a year that could get away with this though, and this year I'd say San Andreas and Halo 2 are about it.

Even with Madden and GT4, I'd say risking the price raise might not be worth it in the long run, as it might turn off casuals (who this year get a $20 Sega Sports football and as far as racing games are concerned, you have Burnout 3 and NFS Underground: 2, a sequel to a game that dominated the holidays last year).

 

[LukeSmith]

tell that to the millions buying 2 versions of Halo 2.

OMG halo 2 presells millions upon millions.
Facts, plz.
This isn't FOX news, don't mix fact and editorial, you'll only confuse some of the kids.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Where were you shopping? Super Mario 64 was a $50 game.

Depends on where you were. The MSRP on SM64 was about 50 dollars but, people were selling it for whatever price they could get away with. I know we were selling it for damn near 75 bucks at the time and then dropped it a bit after christmas.

 

[sonycowboy]

tell that to the millions buying 2 versions of Halo 2.

I stopped reading right there.

 

[snapty00]

They also sell over 10 times more than any other titles. And when you've passed the dev costs, every dollar is pure profit.

Basically, say for a small title, 200k is the breakeven point and it sells 250k. Small profit.

Now, for GTA, let's say it takes 1.5 million units to be profitable. When it sells 10 million, they have just cleaned up big time.

But you could also argue that the gap in quality is big enough to justify selling some of those 10 million at $60 rather than $50. If they sold the first four million copies at $60, that'd be an extra $40,000,000 in *profit*.

 

[sonycowboy]

But you could also argue that the gap in quality is big enough to justify selling some of those 10 million at $60 rather than $50. If they sold the first four million copies at $60, that'd be an extra $40,000,000 in *profit*.

Not even close. You do know that the retailer gets a cut right? They don't pay $38-$40 for both the $50 and the $60 version.

 

[snapty00]

The MSRP on Super Mario 64 was $69.95. Some stores in the U.S. sold it at $59.95. But I don't know of any place that sold it for $49.95.

Not even close. You do know that the retailer gets a cut right? They don't pay $38-$40 for both the $50 and the $60 version.

I'm not so sure about that. I would imagine the retailer's cut would be the same regardless of $50 versus $60. I would think that would only change for prices below $50.

Even if the retailer took half of that $10 extra dollars, that'd still leave the publisher with $20 million in extra profit (yes, profit, not revenue).