If you look at how much work goes into a video game and the fact that they only sell for about $50 or less I think that's amazingly cheap compared to software packages like 3DS Max, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and countless other applications.

Why do companies charge so much for applications that require no more effort than a decent video game?

Because programs like 3DS Max, Photoshop, and many other professional applications are far, far more effort than a decent video game. There is far more to them than just the application. There is production of training materials, support, and what not. Then there are also far higher expectations on software reliability. How many companies would use something like 3DS Max or Photoshop if they were known to commonly crash to desktop, or corrupt data?

Businesses pay more for reliable software so that they can conduct their business reliably.

Simple breakdown. Assuming both the game and the application have the same cost to build (which is probably way off), the game will typically have a much larger audience than the software product will. If the game is projected to sell 1,000,000 copies, and the software is projected to sell 100,000 copies, the software will have to be approximately 10 times more expensive to make the same return as the game.

This is a very simplistic view. While we generally have good numbers on how much games cost, and how many copies they sell, there is a lot less information on how much Photoshop cost to build / upgrade and how many copies it sells.

1) I'd claim that many of those programs require a lot more effort than a video game. They tend to have fewer bugs-per-feature. They tend to do very complex things (Max/Maya do way more complex graphical things than the games they are used to make).

2) You can usually purchase those programs complete with support license, support web site, tutorials, samples, on-site training, on-site setup, etc. Maya and Photoshop both support plugins, but with all the extras you can purchase the API tools to make your own plugins. You can get on-call support for making those plugins. etc.

3) Video games are for consumers who need to feel they are worth the money. The problem is how relative that is. People have a hard time judging the value of something way in the future. Right now, if Microsoft charged 730$ for Windows 7, you'd think they were crazy. For many people that would be crazy. But, if you are working in Maya 8hrs a day for 2 years to make a video game, you need windows and Maya. Windows could cost 730$ and Maya 3650$, and that is only 12$ a day. You're purchasing quality and reliability for a 2 year development cycle. That's probably worth more than 12$ a day per employee to make sure they can efficiently produce your product.

Quote: Original post by SteveDeFacto
If you look at how much work goes into a video game and the fact that they only sell for about $50 or less I think that's amazingly cheap compared to software packages like 3DS Max, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and countless other applications.

Many would disagree and consider the $50 price point to be on the border of luxury item for the value provided. It's subjective.

And almost all except a few premium titles fall in price after first 3 weeks, sometimes straight to bargain bin.

And there is no real correlation between "quality" and price. Some highly acclaimed titles went straight to bargain bin, while some other generally negatively received retain full price for year(s).

And then there's global perspective. Many people who work with Photoshop for a living earn well south of $500 a month. $50 to them is a week's rent.

As with everything else in economy - price is what market will bear.

Quote: Why do companies charge so much for applications that require no more effort than a decent video game?

Smaller market on one side. Much more demanding customers on other side. Plus, this software is an investment, similar to real estate. It comes with support, representation, legal assurances. The workforce comes with provided certifications and training, standardization keeps usage costs down, feature sets are matched to use.

A typical game is played... 15 hours. A typical Photoshop install will see 1200 hours of use per year per person over a period of 3 years or more.

It's games that are absurdly expensive compared to this.

I generally buy discounted titles on Steam: Deus Ex + Invisible War a few days ago, Torchlight and Mahinarium yesterday, Left 4 Dead 2 today, etc. Total so far: €10-12 tops.

I would say €50 for a game is a lot - consider the number of copes sold and also consider longevity. Then again, I'm not a game developer.

Yet, then again - I can recall the latest Halo braking $300M on the first day (I'm assuming that was together with presales), so the situation is not as dire as it may seem. All you have to do is make a game people would want to buy.

Quote: Because programs like 3DS Max, Photoshop, and many other professional applications are far, far more effort than a decent video game.

perhaps but ill point out, most of those apps are just upgraded eg the changes from photoshop CS4-> CS5 are minor, certainly a lot less work than writing a game from scratch

Quote:
How many companies would use something like 3DS Max or Photoshop if they were known to commonly crash to desktop, or corrupt data?

Businesses pay more for reliable software so that they can conduct their business reliably.

I take it youve never used early versions of 3dmax (last century), it was less stable than win95!
Ah the joy of the curses of the 3dmodelers ringing through the office
still costs $1000s of though :)

I completely disagree with statement about applications requiring more work than video games. Video game engines require about as much work as a very simple application but the thousands of hours of artwork required for most video games push it far beyond the amount of work required to make a program like Photoshop or even Windows.

I am obviously right about this since video game companies are rarely ever on the top of the software market as far a profit goes. I mean look at Microsoft in comparison to say Bungie or Bioware... ( I would have put Blizzard but they are getting monthly income from WoW which is a not a good comparison, Valve is making most of it's profit from Steam, and Epic Games is making their profit from selling the Unreal engine to everyone else. )

Quote: Original post by SteveDeFacto
I completely disagree with statement about applications requiring more work than video games. Video game engines require about as much work as a very simple application but the thousands of hours of artwork required for most video games push it far beyond the amount of work required to make a program like Photoshop or even Windows.

I am obviously right about this since video game companies are rarely ever on the top of the software market as far a profit goes. I mean look at Microsoft in comparison to say Bungie or Bioware... ( I would have put Blizzard but they are getting monthly income from WoW which is a not a good comparison, Valve is making most of it's profit from Steam, and Epic Games is making their profit from selling the Unreal engine to everyone else. )

Hahahahahahaha.....hahaha. I really hope this post was a joke. Wait until you actually get a job before making any kinds of statements like this. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Windows alone has hundreds of years of man hours and millions of lines of code. Sorry, but more effort has went into Windows 95 then any current video game.

Quote: Original post by jtagge75
Hahahahahahaha.....hahaha. / Sorry, but more effort has went into Windows 95 then any current video game.

I'm filling Godwin's Law before it's too late.














Hitler.