I was disappointed to read about what Mike Capps of Epic Games said the other week. He made the claim that the ninety-nine cent mobile gaming market on iOS devices is “killing us”, the “us” specifically referring to the conventional $60 game. He questioned how you sell a $60 game that’s really worth it and that there’s never been this much uncertainty in the gaming industry.

I’ve seen people in comments almost instinctively fling mud at Capps: He’s a greedy executive, he’s a money vacuum, he’s no better than Gordon Gekko. Calm down, everyone; let’s not take this out on Capps personally. He’s a smart, perceptive person and his tenure as the CEO of Epic Games has seen a lot of fantastic games as well as the Unreal engine.

What disappoints me is that Capps’ statement seems to contradict Epic’s commitment to quality, especially on top of his comments on used games. Based on some of their more recent releases Epic seems to understand what a lot of publishers either can’t or won’t admit: Some games are worth sixty dollars and others aren’t.

As quick as I am to criticize people who refer to 8-bit and 16-bit gaming as the “glory days” of video games, there are things we can learn from it. It’s why I started this blog in the first place. One of the things we can learn is the value of a lack of an MSRP, or a suggested retail price. It’s difficult to scrap together a consensus on the price points of different games during those eras, but the consensus I’ve been able to gather is that games ranged from $30 for something like Aladdin to $75 for a superstar like Chrono Trigger.

I’ve heard conflicting sources on when the suggested retail price came into effect, but one thing the 8 and 16-bit eras did have over today is that it was up to the publishers to make their game worth their price point. Chrono Trigger was $75 because of years of hard work by a superbly talented team, and I honestly would have bought it at that price in hindsight. If you wanted to make a game $60, you’d have to tell us why it’s $60.

In commenting, Jim rightly says that a uniform $60 price point is very silly because not all games are worth $60. I’m not sure of the solution be it a $40 middle tier a more broad pricing range, but the unfortunate truth is that Mass Effect 2 isn’t worth the same price as Alpha Protocol. Red Dead Redemption wasn’t worth the same price asHaze. All a “suggested retail price” is doing is giving publishers an excuse to uniformly charge for what essentially amounts to an upper-tier game even if it’s a licensed media cash-in. If Alpha Protocol isn’t worth $60, then video game adaptations of Kung Fu Panda or Wall-E aren’t either.

I hate to say this, publishers, but we don’t “owe” you anything, at least straight out the door. Especially when people like David Jaffe are saying that the consumer has no place in the used game sales debate. Telling us that we should buy your games at $60 because you need to make money or the used games market is “tough” for youisn’t an excuse. This is capitalism. Customer and brand loyalty are things that need to be earned and maintained, and it’s especially arrogant to assume customer loyalty. Not to turn this into a referendum on used sales, but it seems like every time a cheaper alternative to $60 games comes along like used games or mobile apps, publishers get temperamental, since Reggie Fils-Aime has complained about mobile games too.

This is why Capps’ comment disappoint me. Epic of all companies should be aware that it’s up to the publisher to tell us why your game costs what it does. They’ve had a great commitment to quality and they have a good history of rewarding people who purchase their game brand new. Gears of War 2 at $60 netted you little unlockables like gold guns or an extra multiplayer map. The reason I went out of my way to buy Bulletstorm brand new is because it offered a lot of extra multiplayer bonus content and access to the Gears of War 3 beta. That was absolutely worth $60 to me.

If anything, the rise of indie development, cheap games on Xbox Live, PlayStation Network and WiiWare, iOS gaming, and Facebook games are godsends. By undercutting the model of $50-$60 games, publishers now can’t uniformly say that games are charged in the $50-$60 range because “that’s what games cost”. I disagree with the suggestion that mobile games are killing Epic Games or anyone else, but if that’s what publishers think, they’re going to need to either:

A) Charge less money for games
B) Go out of their way to make their games worth sixty bucks

After all, who says capitalism doesn’t foster competition?

Final note: Yeah, I know this happened a while ago, but some computer troubles prevented a timelier posting. Blame my laptop’s fan.