Support NeoGAF

[bill0527]

I threw this out there over at the IGN boards because I got sick of people saying to quit complaining about rising game prices and get a new hobby.

I'll start with the original poster who did a movie comparison. He is correct that when you break it down into an entertainment hours per dollar comparison, a game is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment you can get assuming it is a good game that you will spend more than 10 hours on. I think that its too big of an assumption to make. There have been a lot more games this generation that I've spent less than 10 hours playing, than games I have spent over 20 or 30 hours playing. In most cases, I don't get a very good hour per entertainment dollar number when I look at some of the amount of time I've put in for most games.

The biggest problem that we really have as hardcore gamers is choice. I go to a movie theater and there are maybe 10-15 movies playing. I go to a game store and there are literally hundreds of games sitting on the shelves all competing for my $50.00. If I go to a movie theater and the movie sucks, I'm only out maybe 15 bucks and 2 hours of my life. If I buy a $50 game and it sucks, then I'm out $50 and the 5-10 hours of my life that it took me to figure out the game sucks or that its something I quickly lose interest in. My time and money lost is far greater on a game that sucks, rather than on a movie that sucks. In my opinion, there are very few actual games out there worth $50.00.

As for the comparisons to game prices rising over the years and the old 'well games need to keep up with inflation' mantra I keep seeing thrown around, congratulations to those of you that believe this, because you've swallowed the hook that the EA, Activision, and Take-Two, want you to believe.

I'm going to explain this up front and then give you the reasons for the explanation later. The fact is, there is no good justification for a game price increase of $11-$12 per game for Xbox 360 games. ( I say 11-12 per game because this is the actual cost increase when you figure the increased sales tax to go along with it.

Lets do a quick review of game pricing. Some of you may remember these prices - some of you may not. I lived and gamed in each one of these eras so I know what they cost. Lets review a few of the major systems and the game costs over the years:

Atari 2600 cartridges - $9.99-$14.99. The price on certain carts rose to $19.99 at the end of the 2600 life cycle.

NES cartridges - $19.99-$29.99 to start, later in the life cycle some games were $34.99-$39.99.

SNES and Sega Genesis cartridges - $29.99-$59.99 and a few exceptions saw games as much as $69.99. I remember paying $69.99 for Street Fighter II on the SNES. That was one of the few games in all of gaming history that I can honestly say was worth ever penny and then some. I also remember paying $59.99 for the original Phantasy Star on Sega Genesis.

Why did the costs go up so much between the NES and Genesis/SNES eras? The reason why is because cartridge size was bigger, memory size on the carts was bigger, which in turn led to higher manufacturing costs. Another little known fact is that during this era, Nintendo and Sega started charging outrageous licensing fees to their 3rd parties in order for them to make games on their respective systems. The licensing fees were anywhere from $10-$15 per cartridge. All of this increased cost was passed along to the consumer. Also keep in mind that there wasn't as much competition for your gaming dollar during this era as what we see now.

Enter the Sony Playstation era. Game prices actually fell to $39.99-$49.99 price range. Why? Because manufacturing costs were cheaper for the CD media and Sony didn't charge their 3rd parties outrageous licensing fees. This is the main reason why Sony dominated. Virtually all of Nintendo's 3rd party support disappeared and jumped ship to Sony because the cost to make a Playstation game was a lot cheaper than making an N64 cartridge.

Today, game prices are still in that $39.99-$49.99 range and this doesn't make a whole lot of sense based on the past trends of video game pricing. The big publishers today would have us believe that game prices must go up next generation because the costs of developing games is a lot more expensive than what it used to be. I agree with them to some extent, but I wonder why game prices didn't go up this generation compared to last generation? Surely the cost of developing a PS2 or Xbox game is a lot more expensive than the cost of developing a Playstation One game, yet we saw no price increase this generation and this folks, leads us to the real reason for a price hike to $59.99 next generation.

The reason why our game prices are going up is strictly to increase shareholder value and increase the stock price. The real reason is so that they can increase revenue in order to buy more exclusive licenses in order to fill up the shelves with a bunch of licensed shovelware CRAP that most of us hardcore gamers point and laugh at when we are in EB Games or Wal-Mart. Everyone is in a race to adopt the EA model. Sure, everyone talks a big game about innovation and wanting to give gamers different experiences, yet in reality, this isn't the case. I look at the Xbox 360 launch lineup and I see sequel after sequel after sequel after sequel. I'm not trying to imply that these sequels aren't quality games, I'm just simply pointing out that the talk of innovating is a load of crap. Anybody that's paid attention to this business for more than 5 minutes can figure out what sells to the masses and its usually some big licensed shovelware crap or a sequel to a game that was a hit.

The real reason for the game price increase is so that EA, Activision, Take-Two and the other bigs, can fill their coffers to increase shareholder value and have enough cash to continue buying up exclusive licenses that most of us don't want and to also continue the policy of buying up any quality 3rd party dev house they can get their hands on. The reason for the Microsoft published games price increase is so that they can try to get back even a small percentage of the unholy amount they wasted in acquiring Rare.

Its my opinion that the hardcore gamer is going to be further pushed out of the market as more companies adopt the EA model of doing business. We're going to wake up one day, look at our game collections, realize all the money we're spending to continue this hobby and come to the determination that the stuff these companies are putting out, just isn't really all that much fun compared to the cost we're paying for it.

Most people won't even read this far in the post, so I'll just stop now, but there are a lot of other factors at work in the game price increase, none of which have anything to with actual game development costs going up.

Of course, you can throw my logic dispalyed here out the window concerning PS3 game prices. I would expect those prices to be higher due to the fact that Blu-Ray media is gonna be 'spensve. Xbox 360 can't use this excuse.

 

[Barnimal]

i think its more the fact that the games now hit $10 less then the original price point within a month anyway at places likw frys and best buy and even cheaper within 4-6 months. they need to just keep a $35-$40 pricepoint over 6-8 months then drop after that to $30, after a year of X amount of copies sold go greatest hits 19.99. 59.99 is rediculious.

 

[sangreal]

The reason why our game prices are going up is strictly to increase shareholder value and increase the stock price.

What is your point? It is the nature of capitalisim. If you don't like it don't buy it and the prices will come down. Raising prices doesn't automatically generate more revenue like you imply. With an increase in price comes a decrease in demand. Companies will settle on the price point that brings them the most profit, whether its a higher price point or a lower one.

Are companies supposed to need some moral highground to raise prices?

Also, this seemed like a stupid comment:

The reason for the Microsoft published games price increase is so that they can try to get back even a small percentage of the unholy amount they wasted in acquiring Rare.

 

[bill0527]

What is your point? It is the nature of capitalisim.

The point is, game prices are not going up due to higher development costs.

Are companies supposed to need some moral highground to raise prices?

Not at all. I realize that my post may seem some kind of anti-capitalistic crusade, but I can assure thats not the case. The whole point is that these companies are raising game prices in order to spew out more crap. This should upset you as a gamer.

Also, this seemed like a stupid comment:

You do realize that Rare is gonna have to sell about 7-10 million games this generation to make up for the $300 million spent on them?

 

[Cheerilee]

Enter the Sony Playstation era. Game prices actually fell to $39.99-$49.99 price range. Why? Because manufacturing costs were cheaper for the CD media and Sony didn't charge their 3rd parties outrageous licensing fees.

I was under the impression that the "outrageous licencing fees" actually went UP significantly when Sony (and Sega with CDs) got involved, because the major drop from cart-vs-CD prices gave them room to do it, and no third parties complained about the increased fees because they were making out like bandits in comparison to what they were used to. Plus the increased fees also paid for the hardware losses.

And then of course, Sony started throwing some of the money around, randomly buying exclusivity, and putting up the "greatest hits" system.

 

[Cheerilee]

You do realize that Rare is gonna have to sell about 7-10 million games this generation to make up for the $300 million spent on them?

How much money could Microsoft earn if they sold Rare?

 

[sangreal]

You do realize that Rare is gonna have to sell about 7-10 million games this generation to make up for the $300 million spent on them?

While I disagree on this point, it is easier to point out that Microsoft's position has been against raising normal (not LE/CE/etc) game prices.

 

[bill0527]

While I disagree on this point, it is easier to point out that Microsoft's position has been against raising normal (not LE/CE/etc) game prices.

I really hope I'm wrong, but all the pre-order tags and every bit of info seen so far show a $59.99 price point for every Xbox 360 launch game, including the ones from Rare.

The 7-10 million games sold is just an estimate based on the fact that at a $59.99 price point x 7 million games = $420 million. I'm also taking into account the present value lost of a $300 million investment that could have been spent on something that would give a greater or faster return.

 

[ChrisReid]

I really hope I'm wrong, but all the pre-order tags and every bit of info seen so far show a $59.99 price point for every Xbox 360 launch game, including the ones from Rare.

The 7-10 million games sold is just an estimate based on the fact that at a $59.99 price point x 7 million games = $420 million. I'm also taking into account the present value lost of a $300 million investment that could have been spent on something that would give a greater or faster return.

Don't forget that all 7 million copies won't sell for full retail price.. not that the publisher/Microsoft gets the full retail price to begin with.

I don't mind $59.99 games. Fantastic current gen games upscaled to 720p are worth $10 right there. Prices seem to have gone down this generation compared to when I used to have to come up with $59.99 for cartridges in the N64 days. Games certainly drop in price faster. I do recall some $65-75 titles like Mario 3 and Super Street Fighter II Turbo for the SNES more than a decade ago.

Game prices right now seem like gas prices in 1998. Adjusted for inflation, this is the cheapest they've ever been and will ever be. An MSRP jump next generation doesn't really seem too unreasonable.

 

[Phoenix]

The point is, game prices are not going up due to higher development costs.

They aren't? Are not game development teams getting larger, salaries increasing, and time to market increasing?

 

[bill0527]

They aren't? Are not game development teams getting larger, salaries increasing, and time to market increasing?

Didn't devlopment teams get larger, salaries go up, and marketing increase between the PSOne and PS2/Xbox eras? Yet there was no price increase.

 

[Phoenix]

Didn't devlopment teams get larger, salaries go up, and marketing increase between the PSOne and PS2/Xbox eras? Yet there was no price increase.

Hmmm.... I recall PSOne titles being cheaper than XBox/PS2 titles by at least $5 for 'premier' first party titles. Increasing prices are to be expected - inflation and cost of living increases of your staff over time including the time it takes to make content will simply make your games cost more to develop. That's just a fact of business.

EDIT: And your argument would be stronger if you stuck to premier titles as opposed to a "range of costs" because the folks at the AAA side are more an indication of time to develop and costs than someone licensing and engine, changing some artwork and putting out a title at the price that the market will bear.

 

[MattKeil]

I paid $99.99 for Phantasy Star IV when it was released. Anyone who complains about a $60 price point is too young to remember when games really were expensive. As long as games continue to become more refined in presentation and more impressive in design, I have no problem paying a premium in exchange.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Didn't devlopment teams get larger, salaries go up, and marketing increase between the PSOne and PS2/Xbox eras? Yet there was no price increase.

I sorta disagree on this. It's not the huge scale that might be, but during the PSOne days, we hit the $39.99 mark way faster and that price point became pretty much the majority with a lot of games often being had at $34.99 easily because of that price point. Now, while we do have several $39.99 titles, it took longer in the life span of the PS2 for it to happen and even though it has happened, there is still a significant amount of $49.99 titles and if I'm not mistaken there are at least as many if not more $49.99 titles released on average. So while we have the two price points of $39.99 and $49.99 in both generations, I think it's pretty clear where the weight has shifted on the two price points between generations. We may not have had a price increase as far as going to $59.99, but we've certainly have had a price shift.

 

[Link316]

They aren't? Are not game development teams getting larger, salaries increasing, and time to market increasing?

think the point is their profit margins are also going to go up, that's the real reason publishers are trying to raise game prices

 

[Mr Nash]

I totally agree with you that raising game prices is bad, Bill. It's like the game publishers got together and said, "Hey! Let's make our games even more prohibitively expensive than they already are, that will surely recoup development costs next generation!" If prices go up, I suspect sales will go down as non-hardcore gamers say, "Fuck it, I'm just going to buy something else instead" or just burn their games instead.

I wish game companies would grow some balls, drastically drop the price of their games, and make profit on volume. Get people to pick up tons of games as impulse buys. Unfortunately, unless you're shitting gold bars on a regular basis, $50-$60 products are by no means an impulse buy.

 

[Tarazet]

If prices go up to $59.99, the competition is going to get fiercer, because consumer spending on video games isn't increasing that fast. Fewer units will be sold, and it will almost certainly come at the expense of the little guys like Atlus and Majesco..

 

[bill0527]

think the point is their profit margins are also going to go up, that's the real reason publishers are trying to raise game prices

Thanks for bringing up another very, very good point.

Nobody takes into account the fact that these companies sell A LOT more games than what they did 10-15 years ago.

So while your development costs are going up, it should be in-line with your revenue based on the fact you're selling a lot more than what you did in the previous generation.

Thanks for those of you actually reading my entire thread and trying to refute my points. Some of the responses are people that aren't reading it and trying to refute anything, they're just rehashing the same things I hear on other message boards.

 

[Phoenix]

think the point is their profit margins are also going to go up, that's the real reason publishers are trying to raise game prices

Its not an either or - its both. There are a variety of reasons for raising the price of a product which had nothing to do with 'corporate greed' and I'm just pointing out a few of them. If a product costs you more to create - you raise your prices.

If a product takes you longer to create - you absolutely raise your prices because of the increased exposure risk of failing products.

If you are a large publisher with a large catalog - you raise prices to soften the exposure of failed titles in your catalog. If your costs go up (licenses) - you raise prices.

If inflation increases - you raise prices. If the yen/dollar gets stronger or weaker - you raise prices depending on the country where you are.

If your cost of sitting on the shelf goes up - you raise prices.

If energy costs go up (inflation key) you raise prices.

If you just have a good product that suggests that its worth more than other stuff on the market, you raise prices.

And for the best one:

If you plan to aggressively price protect your product - you raise prices.

 

[Mrbob]

I sorta disagree on this. It's not the huge scale that might be, but during the PSOne days, we hit the $39.99 mark way faster and that price point became pretty much the majority with a lot of games often being had at $34.99 easily because of that price point. Now, while we do have several $39.99 titles, it took longer in the life span of the PS2 for it to happen and even though it has happened, there is still a significant amount of $49.99 titles and if I'm not mistaken there are at least as many if not more $49.99 titles released on average. So while we have the two price points of $39.99 and $49.99 in both generations, I think it's pretty clear where the weight has shifted on the two price points between generations. We may not have had a price increase as far as going to $59.99, but we've certainly have had a price shift.

Yeah, I agree. 5 years into the PSone era I remember almost every game was $39.99! Hell I remember paying $39.99 for FF9 and that was on release! Interestingly, FF9 probably end up costing more to make than most X360 launch titles with all that CGI. Of course FF9 had the benefit of Square knowing the game would sell 5 million + copies worldwide.

 

[Cheerilee]

BTW, here's a bit of a companion piece to the original post, just because I was bored. If anyone wants to correct any of it, feel free.


In the Atari 2600 era, there were no royalties. The Atari 2600 was as "open" as a PC, and anyone who knew how to make videogames could make Atari games. So, there were only two forces determining the price of a game. The material cost, and the publishing.

In the NES era, Nintendo introduced the concept of royalties. They locked the system and charged money for the "privilege" of jumping on their bandwagon. Everyone else did the same with their own systems.

From the Atari 2600 to the N64, the material cost of carts kept steadily increasing.

With the PCE CD and the Sega CD, there was a massive drop in material costs, as CDs were cheaper than carts, and the price (and extremely large size) was basically fixed. Companies like NEC and Sega slightly reduced the cost savings by increasing the royalties somewhat.

EA's Trip Hawkins said that CDs were awesome and that they were going to change the world, if only hardware makers stopped being so damn greedy. Everyone else said they would change the world when Nintendo arrived on the scene. Trip put his money where his mouth was and made the 3DO, which like the Atari 2600, wasn't locked up. But it bombed.

Nintendo said "CDs suck. Carts are where it's at." Then they lost their position as Sony became the new Nintendo.

Manufacturing costs took and upward "hiccup" as DVDs replaced CDs. And will likely do the same with HD DVD or Blu-Ray (only affecting the PS3, for now).

And now it seems with this generation that publishers have stepped up, saying that we need a new price hike, all for them.

 

[----]

I can't see myself paying $60 for games. It's too much money. I'm going to have to wait until all games are reduced in price before I ever buy them.

Can't see myself ever buying $50 PSP games either. Even if I really want the game I am just going to have to wait until it is reduced to a more reasonable price.

I'm not sure if $60 is the breaking point, but there is a point where piracy becomes justifiable to most people because of unreasonable pricing. I think the music industry definitely pushed themselves over that line and I think the video game industry is moving in the same direction. I think this is a terrible move for the game industry.

 

[Mrbob]

I can't see myself paying $60 for games. It's too much money. I'm going to have to wait until all games are reduced in price before I ever buy them.

Can't see myself buying $50 PSP games either. Even if I really want the game I am just going to have to wait until it is reduced to a more reasonable price.

Yeah, I have a tough time buying 50 dollar PSP titles too and will have a tough time justifying 60 on quasi next gen product hitting this fall. In fact, I haven't paid over $39.99 for any PSP title and don't plan on doing so any time soon. I want Liberty City Stories but will wait for it to be on sale for $39.99 or less. There will be some true next gen Xbox 360 games, but many of them seem to be hi res xbox games that are being charged a premium for.

Does someone have a sales chart of PSP games? I'd like to see how 50 dollar PSP games are selling in comparison to 40 dollar games. If I remember right, the only 50 dollar PSP game that is selling well is Need for Speed.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Atari 2600 cartridges - $9.99-$14.99. The price on certain carts rose to $19.99 at the end of the 2600 life cycle.

This is flat out wrong. Pac-Man was at least $40 if not $50, and I blew a Christmastime windfall $30-40 on Night Driver.

 

[radioheadrule83]

... not going to contribute to the direction the discussion is going in, I'm just going to chime in with my feelings.

• Nearly 150 million video game consoles out there. If the PS2 suddenly became a TV set top box, Sony would suddenly rival many of the biggest cable/satellite companies in many countries. That's how freakin' many of them are out there.
• In instances where we get games that achieve a consensus of quality and critical acclaim quickly, those games still only sell to a fraction of their userbase. Even the likes of GTA.
• Few games reach the levels of FF/GTA/etc, or the kind of insane levels that Mario 64 or Ocarina of Time reached.

Here's my take on that.

£30-£40 is too much for MANY games. It's a standard. I'm sure there's an equivilent price in your part of the world too. It very rarely wavers unless there's a big deal going on, or the game was always intended as budget. Prices should be established on a per-game basis IMO. There is just no way that I should be paying the same amount of money for Bust A Move 2000 that I would pay for Halo: Combat Evolved. Totally different gaming experiences, that cost totally different amounts of money.

How in freaking HELL are people supposed to afford to support this industry's publishers with those kind of prices? Let's take Gamecube -- it's got treble the amount of third party titles that N64 had. A good few hundred games that are going to be consumed by a userbase of <20 million. Each member of which will have varying tastes and backgrounds. The (games ÷ interested userbase) equation is starker on Xbox, and much further more on PS2. If you go and visit some development communities you can read about the stress some of these companies and employees are under. This is after their publishers have already taken precautions to reduce risks... it's never enough.

This market is so hit driven. People buy games based on recommendation and word of mouth. If someone wants to make something new, they've gotta expect spontaneous sales on good faith that their game will be discovered and people will like it enough to shell out £30-40. Thats at least twice the cost of a DVD. Thrice the price of some DVD movies. And these things are often sitting along side them. There's been many a time when I would have loved to just pick something up and try it for the hell of it but I hesitate.... and I'm a guy with more consoles and games than the average consumer likely has. Something isn't right there.

Games need to be cheaper, not more expensive! Higher costs or not! A balance must be found.

Some ballsy manufacturer should set up an optional loyalty referral system or an optional MSRP/RRP restriction system.

For game referral - a publisher submits a game (at a cost to themselves of course) to the manufacturer (or maybe even an independant affiliate). That manufacturer's review team then playtests the game as any other Q&A group would and reviews the kind of quality therein. Cheap and nasty games might expect cheap and nasty sales: therefore its best for all concerned if the manufacturer takes less of a cut and the publisher in turn agrees to a cheaper and more pleasant price tag on shelves... anything to make it more attractive basically. Games that cost a lot to make but offer the manufacturer the promise of good business could have discounted royalties too -- either for the same aim of making the game cheaper, or simply for thanking their third party partner. Games that fill voids in a consoles library, for example - games in a genre that went previously unaccommodated -- they could also see discounts. It would lead to a healthy market, with varying prices and encourage better console libraries.

An optional MSRP/RRP restriction and reward system would basically involve a manufacturer offering a tiered system of royalty fees. If a publisher wants to pay less, they have to sell for less. Manufacturers should also find a way to reward publishers that bring them good software sales. And of course, they should entice publishers with cheaper royalties too, which I'm sure they already do.

What about licensing? Publishers are too busy buying shit licenses to make games out of to realise that they could make a quick buck by letting someone somewhere make T shirts, coffee mugs, action figures, and other useless shit that sells at accessible prices AND helps market their own IP. The most profitable kind of IP I might add!

I'm sure the answer isn't that simple, but is anyone even TRYING to think of a solution? Fuck no. The creators of Finding Nemo the game are happy to financially rape some poor kids' parents.

the Fair Play Campaign was a just one. I won't buy any game dearer than they already are next gen.

 

[Warm Machine]

Dreamcast games were the price anomoly. They hit at 49.99 canadian with an expensive game at 59.99. When PS2 arrived games were 79.99 to 89.99. Before that almost everything on Saturn and PS1 was 69.99.

The team size and salaries both saw an 15-20% increase between PS1 to the first 1/2 of the PS2's life span.

 

[Unison]

The talk from companies about how they want to create new gamers & expand the market totally flies in the face of a $60 MSRP for hit games. I don't see how the market will expand if the things people actually want to play cost even more...

 

[Chittagong]

The conditions will be something as follows:

- Dev budget 10 - 20 M USD per game
- Game sells for 60 USD
- Assume store+distributor gets 23 USD, Platform 7 USD and Publisher 30 USD
- Marketing will be "in the tens of millions of dollars", let's say 10-20 M USD per big game
- This means cost (R&D + Mark) to cover of 20 - 40 M USD per game
- With 30 USD per game to the publisher (overly optimistic, I know), this means that the game has to sell 6 M and 14 M copies to break even

This means:

- Less games released
- Each game needs to do a higher volume
- Installed base and tie ratio will be critical
- Even more hit-oriented business
- Lower risk tolerance

Which is actually not unlike movie business. Imagine in 20 years Konami bringing out only a "big summer game" and a "big christmas game", while small arthouse developers focus on simpler executions.

 

[Mrbob]

The talk from companies about how they want to create new gamers & expand the market totally flies in the face of a $60 MSRP for hit games. I don't see how the market will expand if the things people actually want to play cost even more...

It won't. That's why I think Peter Moore is full of shit when he talks about expanding the games industry yet his company's upcoming console is going to lead the charge in raising game prices. It is a contradiction.

I would actually be in favor of paying a little more upfront for the console if it meant keeping software prices the same. I'd pay $399 for Xbox 360 or PS3 if software prices stayed at $49.99.

 

[bill0527]

It won't. That's why I think Peter Moore is full of shit when he talks about expanding the games industry yet his company's upcoming console is going to lead the charge in raising game prices. It is a contradiction.

I would actually be in favor of paying a little more upfront for the console if it meant keeping software prices the same. I'd pay $399 for Xbox 360 or PS3 if software prices stayed at $49.99.

I'd pay a little more if game prices kept the same.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that the market will be shrinking from my end because I won't be buying near as many games next generation at $59.99. A game has to be really special for me to even buy it THIS generation for $49.99.

With a $59.99 price, I won't be making any impulse buys, I will be buying a lot LESS games on day 1 of release because I will be waiting for user impressions, and a full round of reviews from all the gaming websites, and the total number of games I buy will decrease. Call me crazy, but I don't think I'm the only that will be doing this. So somebody tell me exactly how the market is going to grow like this. Your game is going to have to be, not AAA quality, but AAAA quality for me to lay down $63. U.S. for it.

Sure, we can always wait for the price drops, and to pick up used at a cheaper price, but even the used price is going to be at least $49.99-$54.99 initially and it will take a very long time for EB and the other specialty stores to build a decent pipeline of used games.

I've got a PSP and only 4 games for it - HSG, Lumines, Namco Museum Import, and Wipeout Pure. I've been waiting to pick up some more games when the prices drop, but it looks like its not going to happen anytime soon and the PSP has been out 6 months already. I can't believe that some of these $49.99 PSP games haven't even budged 5 bucks down in price considering NFS is the only that has really sold well at that price point. I've got 2 local EB stores and the used PSP section is pretty bare. This leads me to think that those of us who want to wait for Xbox 360 price drops and wait to pick up used....are gonna be waiting a very long time.