I think the title is misleading. It implies $60 is too much for the game. But I took the opposite from the interview.
> "The saying in the industry right now is, 'If you want to sell a game for $60, to the player it has to feel like $200.'"
> "Bulletstorm was a $60 game for $60. And these days $60 for a game sounds basically crazy, when there are literally hundreds of high quality games out there for a much smaller price - even on console. In 2014, $60 for a game is a little insane."
I believe that, economically speaking (and I now almost nothing about this), customers pay the value they percieve the product has. Chmielarz is actually saying that some games have a bigger value that the price they are sold. That they priced the game right but some other games of equal value were sold cheaper.
Or, in other words, people are paying less for games than they should.
I could rant for hours about this, but I'll refrain from it. I just wanted to add this clarification.
You're right, of course. The reason for this is that digital entertainment is long-lived, cheap to produce and practically free to distribute, even moreso than film and literature. As the demand has increased, the supply has exploded, and the market has responded by emphasizing infungible goods, perishable goods and rent-seeking (franchises can be argued as all three).
As supply exceeds demand, prices tend towards manufacturing costs rather than utility provided. Suppliers therefore have to either increase demand or reduce supply (big publishers), or segment the market (small publishers) to maximize profit.
> "The saying in the industry right now is, 'If you want to sell a game for $60, to the player it has to feel like $200.'"
> "Bulletstorm was a $60 game for $60. And these days $60 for a game sounds basically crazy, when there are literally hundreds of high quality games out there for a much smaller price - even on console. In 2014, $60 for a game is a little insane."
I believe that, economically speaking (and I now almost nothing about this), customers pay the value they percieve the product has. Chmielarz is actually saying that some games have a bigger value that the price they are sold. That they priced the game right but some other games of equal value were sold cheaper.
Or, in other words, people are paying less for games than they should.
I could rant for hours about this, but I'll refrain from it. I just wanted to add this clarification.