Monday, December 05, 2005

Response to Gamespot editorial.

Am I in the minority of gamers when I say that a $50 to $100 price cut on hardware is a significant amount worth waiting for? The only reason why this may seem like a small amount is because xbox 360 games cost $60 which is a 20% increase over the normally $50 price tag of new current generation games (it's 50% if you count the $40 dollar new games). Of course Ekberg is correct that $50 won't cover a $60 game.

But, do we need to buy this overpriced games? I'm not going to spend my money so that games can increase in price even more every year. In fact I think $50 cuts in too much already. You might argue that if I'm not able to spend this kind of money, then I should rethink about my hobby. Well, that's exactly the type of thinking that will destroy the gaming industry. Making gaming accessible starts with the economics, that is, how much games and hardware cost. If prices rise, only those who are willing to devote a large percentage of their earnings to gaming can participate. The fans less blessed financially will have to be more strict in choosing which games to buy more. This will decrease the ammount of innovative games (read: games that the are fresh, but the average "kid" would pass over to kill hookers) made because, not everyone will pay for katamari or shadow of the collosus, if madden or grand theft auto comes along.

As a gamer with a tight budget, the bottom line adds up. Even if you think saving $50 is nothing, those savings can possibly allow many more gamers to purchase out-of-the-box titles that make the gaming experience worth it all.

1 comment:

Su Ti Ben said...

Games are too expensive so we always gotta try to save as much as we can. Of course, those that can afford to buy many games won't care. Me on the other hand will wait till price goes down reasonably unless its a game that I really want to play at the moment. Then I might overlook my wallet