By Joel Smart (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: January 11, 2012
Basic logic dictates that the cheaper games are priced the better it is for those who love to game – after all, that would allow gamers to buy a larger variety of games with their money. However, last week Jools Watsham, creative director for game development company Renegade Kid, wrote a column for Gamasutra that took an opposing stance. For Watsham, the $1 price tag found on many iPhone games appeals to those who are looking simply to waste time, rather than those who want a game that will entertain, challenge and inspire them.
Although Watsham doesn’t necessarily say this is bad for the industry, what he does say is that unless his studio decides to make games that cost a lot less to make, they’ll need to charge more to recoup the costs. Additionally, if he wants to sell for a platform like the Nintendo 3DS or the PlayStation Vita, the market just isn’t there to sell enough copies to recoup costs with a lower price point.
The risk, of course, is that with the increasing prevalence of cheap time wasters, the majority of gamers might become less interested in shelling out for the bigger games. “Perhaps $40 for a 3DS game is outrageous,” he said, “but what surprises me is when people scoff at the cost of $5 and $10 Nintendo eShop games. Really? Now even $5 or $10 is too much for a game?” He’s got a point. For a gaming market that seems to get busier and busier over the years, it isn’t inconceivable that many might opt to forgo more costly games – fulfilling their urges with cheap and free-to-play games on Facebook and their phones. If this phenomenon becomes too prevalent, publishers may opt to invest primarily in dumbed-down casual games that can be sold for cheap – severely reducing the number of quality games on the market. Maybe that’s an overly pessimistic concern, but chances are that it is already occurring to a lesser degree.
Yet, it isn’t entirely true that all cheap games can simply be labeled time wasters. Some of the most artistic, inspiring games I’ve played have come without a price tag at all. Take Every Day The Same Dream or Jason Rohrer’s Passage for example. Both of these games offer a simple, but thought-provoking experience made with a negligible production budget. In the same vein, a hefty price tag doesn’t necessarily indicate a richer gaming experience either – an occurrence I’m sure we’ve all fallen prey to at one time or another.
Although I reject this part of Watsham’s argument, he makes an important point – we need to be willing to support the development studios that make the games that we care about. Games with limited markets have no option but to charge more, and for those who support the handheld gaming market, this should not be a point to gripe over. According to Watsham, developers often need to be able to not only break even, but raise enough funds to at least partly fund their next venture.
I suspect that in the end, the impact of the iPhone’s cheaper, more accessible gaming will actually be a more diverse gaming market. It will do much more to expand the types of gaming experiences available, rather than diminishing them. People who would never consider buying a game might take a risk with a cheap one and unintentionally find themselves hooked – and thus more likely to pay more for a newer, better version later on. So, while it could go either way, it’s worth keeping in mind the delicate balance that causes a game to wind up with the price tag it carries. The future of the games you love could depend on it.
