Support NeoGAF

[dragonyeuw]

Companies would rather make gatcha GAAS games instead. With a few exceptions.

Not realizing that only a relative few of those games are going to make it just by virtue of their nature. Everyone has visions of being the next Fortnite when those tend to be lightning in a bottle moments.

 

[GametimeUK]

If the argument is games cost more to make then that also means the games with lower budgets should cost less than $80. I understand the business side of it, but the logic won't be applied consistently.

 

[Plague Doctor]

Well when games take 5+ years with a staff the size of a small standing army to make and then needs a day one 20 gig patch to fix all the bugs, who's supposed to cover that?

All you consumers think about is yourself and it shows. I am disgusted by all of you. Where's the brand loyalty? I personally paypal my publisher and hardware maker of choice every other week.

 

[DeVeAn]

Learn some self control and stop buying games at $80. Wait for discounts. I did this, and stop caring about buying games at launch for a long time.

Video game is not a necessity in life.

While you are not wrong, the way you say it is as though you surpassed everyone on a gaming enthusiast forum because you found that video games aren't a necessity in life. Congrats!

 

[MSduderino]

An implied, unsaid part of this is that "video games have reached peak popularity." We're not trying to get new people to try games at this time. Afterall, expanding the market can make up for the games costing more to make. Publishers have figured out either you like and buy games or you don't and the hottest new game isn't likely to change that. So, they are squeezing what they can out of their gamer consumer base. You can say "have self control and stop buying day 1" but we all know most people here are going to get $100 GTA6 at launch. Games being frontloaded in sales capitalize on release window FOMO and will continue to do so.

 

[NahaNago]

'Only' affecting the hardcore as if that's not a significant section of the market to risk alienating? Forcing out of the hobby is perhaps am overstatement, but it absolutely wil force alot more people, casuals and hardcore alike, to either wait for deals or go to alternatives( or even pirate if the option is there to them). Those same casuals who may have bought the odd game in addition to their annual COD/Madden may now cut those odd purchases out of the budget because now that extra money will go to the aforementioned getting more expensive. There's too many games IMHO for the market to support and alot of otherwise good smaller scale games are going to end up collateral damage. By the tenor of your comments I imagine you'll say that's always been the case, the survival of the fittest, but it's going to get worse and it's not good for the overall health of the industry.

It's not just 'oh its another $10', it's that $70 became $80 pretty quickly so when does it get to $90 and $100? Do you think there is a point where people will be priced out or do you believe they'll just continue to suck it up into perpetuity? Yes, you'll have your whales for which money isn't an issue, but these games are produced at budgets that require they sell a certain volume. If a certain number of people nope out or wait for deals, that inevitably means they'll just make it up by raising the price. Or the companies will have to adjust their offerings because there's no more blood to extract from the stone.

I actually think the hardcore is not that many people. There are only a few games that the casuals buy every year and a price increase of 10 isn't going to stop them. We had 18 thousands games released on steam last year so yes, it is survival of the fittest and some great games will get overlooked. I mean just think about the fact that companies were all waiting for the release date of gta6 before announcing when they would release their game. They probably also don't release their game on the same day as cod.

Folks will suck it up when the games hit 100 as well. I do agree that there is a point where people will get priced out. Then again, I also see video games as somewhat of a luxury. I get that a 10 increase sucks. I just know that folks are still going to buy games at that price and when they increase again they are going to buy it at that price as well. Yes, some folks may not be able to afford it but some folks were already not able to afford it when it was at 60.

It is all a balancing act for the gaming companies to see how much they can charge for video games. We've already shown that hundreds of thousands if not millions are willing to pay extra to play early, for bonuses at launch, and future dlc before the game even is available so why wouldn't they charge you more for the just regular game if you are already willing to spend extra for those minor upgrades. They could easily just use the excuse that the game has more content than ever.

I swear, I rarely use the word "folks" when talking.

 

[dragonyeuw]

I actually think the hardcore is not that many people. There are only a few games that the casuals buy every year and a price increase of 10 isn't going to stop them. We had 18 thousands games released on steam last year so yes, it is survival of the fittest and some great games will get overlooked. I mean just think about the fact that companies were all waiting for the release date of gta6 before announcing when they would release their game. They probably also don't release their game on the same day as cod.

Folks will suck it up when the games hit 100 as well. I do agree that there is a point where people will get priced out. Then again, I also see video games as somewhat of a luxury. I get that a 10 increase sucks. I just know that folks are still going to buy games at that price and when they increase again they are going to buy it at that price as well. Yes, some folks may not be able to afford it but some folks were already not able to afford it when it was at 60.

Solid points but disagree to the extent people will suck up the $100. You'll always have your buy it at any price crowd, but that demographic thins out the higher you go and I'd wager that goes for both the 'only buy COD/FIFA/Madden' crowd as well as the 'buy several games a month' hardcore.

The greater conversation here is the balance point, to use your term, where the industry can feasibly rein in budgets, and charge prices that are more inclusive instead of increasingly exclusive while maintaining their margins. Anyone interested in the long term health of the industry from a consumer POV, not white knighting companies operating in the interests of infinite growth ( not saying you are, to be clear) shouldn't be championing for anything but the long term sustainability of the industry and that is not prices going up at a rate that the mass market inevitably cannot meet. I don't see an industry that requires the collateral damage of laying off creatives in the thousands as something to maintain. It may mean games need to scale down a bit, normalize longer hardware cycles( with things as they are now I would argue we really don't need new consoles before 2028, but those who need to be on the cutting edge will disagree no matter the cost or viability), and/or tools continue to improve so that we can return to the days when publishers could pump out a trilogy of great games over a gen instead of a single entry, smaller games aren't swallowed whole by AAA and the GAAS model, and a company wasn't at risk to shut down or downsize if a single project failed to meet projections. We're losing the plot a bit here.

Many regions outside the US don't even have the same buying power and as we are seeing now, in order to balance out the US market these companies will pass those costs to other regions( like tariffs). Even when you had people unable to afford the $60 tag, that price existed during the 7th and 8th gen when we were neither in a period of major cost of living inflation ( we did have the 2008 crash, I would be remiss to ignore that), economies of scale brought hardware prices down to mass consumer/casual levels of affordability, and games were discounted to 'no brainer' levels within fairly short time frames. I remember just last gen getting alot of PS4 games off PSN for $10 within 2 years of release. We're in uncharted waters where consoles 4-5 years old are actually increasing in price due to 'global economics', and software generally doesn't drop in price to the same degree. That will become a bigger issue when games baseline at $80( and I imagine $90 will be here before 2030, I'll be surprised if GTA6 is any less), because their 'sale' prices will be like $50-60 and those aren't exactly 'shut up and take my money!'. And as an aside, as we go deeper and deeper into the digital era this means people flipping their old physical games for new ones becomes less and less a thing. It all adds up overall to less affordability for the average consumer.

 

[NahaNago]

Solid points but disagree to the extent people will suck up the $100. You'll always have your buy it at any price crowd, but that demographic thins out the higher you go and I'd wager that goes for both the 'only buy COD/FIFA/Madden' crowd as well as the 'buy several games a month' hardcore.

The greater conversation here is the balance point, to use your term, where the industry can feasibly rein in budgets, and charge prices that are more inclusive instead of increasingly exclusive while maintaining their margins. Anyone interested in the long term health of the industry from a consumer POV, not white knighting companies operating in the interests of infinite growth ( not saying you are, to be clear) shouldn't be championing for anything but the long term sustainability of the industry and that is not prices going up at a rate that the mass market inevitably cannot meet. I don't see an industry that requires the collateral damage of laying off creatives in the thousands as something to maintain. It may mean games need to scale down a bit, normalize longer hardware cycles( with things as they are now I would argue we really don't need new consoles before 2028, but those who need to be on the cutting edge will disagree no matter the cost or viability), and/or tools continue to improve so that we can return to the days when publishers could pump out a trilogy of great games over a gen instead of a single entry, smaller games aren't swallowed whole by AAA and the GAAS model, and a company wasn't at risk to shut down or downsize if a single project failed to meet projections. We're losing the plot a bit here.

Many regions outside the US don't even have the same buying power and as we are seeing now, in order to balance out the US market these companies will pass those costs to other regions( like tariffs). Even when you had people unable to afford the $60 tag, that price existed during the 7th and 8th gen when we were neither in a period of major cost of living inflation ( we did have the 2008 crash, I would be remiss to ignore that), economies of scale brought hardware prices down to mass consumer/casual levels of affordability, and games were discounted to 'no brainer' levels within fairly short time frames. I remember just last gen getting alot of PS4 games off PSN for $10 within 2 years of release. We're in uncharted waters where consoles 4-5 years old are actually increasing in price due to 'global economics', and software generally doesn't drop in price to the same degree. That will become a bigger issue when games baseline at $80( and I imagine $90 will be here before 2030, I'll be surprised if GTA6 is any less), because their 'sale' prices will be like $50-60 and those aren't exactly 'shut up and take my money!'. And as an aside, as we go deeper and deeper into the digital era this means people flipping their old physical games for new ones becomes less and less a thing. It all adds up overall to less affordability for the average consumer.

I totally agree that they need to rein in budgets so that they can charge prices that are more inclusive. I'd rather they pumped out games faster so that we could have those trilogies and see the progress of the skills in making the games better as each game is released. The thing is longer and open world games became what was in last gen and that pretty much greatly increased the budgets and how long they develop. From what I googled from a couple of AAA games going from the ps3 to the ps4 gen the games take nearly twice as long to completely beat. The issue now becomes will folks pay $60 for games that are the same length as was released during the ps3 generation. I'm going to say most likely no but maybe at $50 they would especially with AAA starting at 70 to 80 these days.

I don't see games dropping to $10 in 2 years anymore. The increase in hardware did shock me and has me pondering if I'll just go ahead and buy a ps5pro now, just in case Sony raises the price. I would have thought a price increase on consoles would have happened next year for xbox or playstation. I generally don't flip games and used ps5 game prices are ridiculous even after the game has been released for several years.

 

[dragonyeuw]

The thing is longer and open world games became what was in last gen and that pretty much greatly increased the budgets and how long they develop. From what I googled from a couple of AAA games going from the ps3 to the ps4 gen the games take nearly twice as long to completely beat. The issue now becomes will folks pay $60 for games that are the same length as was released during the ps3 generation. I'm going to say most likely no but maybe at $50 they would especially with AAA starting at 70 to 80 these days.

I don't see games dropping to $10 in 2 years anymore. The increase in hardware did shock me and has me pondering if I'll just go ahead and buy a ps5pro now, just in case Sony raises the price. I would have thought a price increase on consoles would have happened next year for xbox or playstation. I generally don't flip games and used ps5 game prices are ridiculous even after the game has been released for several years.

Unfortunately it seems like the wider market justified the price of a game based on its quantity which in many cases doesn't equate to its quality. Personally I find a tightly paced, engaging storyline over 15-20 hours with enjoyable gameplay to be superior to the '80 hours of gameplay' when few games actually carry the gameplay mechanics and the story for that long before you just want it to end( like watching a movie where you start eyeing up the time an hour in). Certain genres like RPGs may lend themselves to hundreds of hours but the explosion of open world I would argue, has outlived itself if it means ever-escalating budgets, prices, and job losses to maintain. Whenever I see a game promoting 50+ hours, that is NOT a selling point but I'm speaking for myself, of course.

Both sides, gamers and publishers, need to get real about what is sustainable. FWIW some of my favorite gaming experiences in recent years have been games like A Plague Tale, Robocop Rogue City and Terminator Resistance. All of these games were $50-60 and for my money didn't provide inferior experiences to a so called mega budget 200m AAA blockbuster. The current game de jour is Expedition 33, a AA release priced at $50 which sold a few million copies in like 2-3 days and getting alot of GOTY type buzz. At some point the AAA model of success become boom or bust and its led to homogenization and not taking risks. Every AAA now needs to be a grand slam, instead of having smaller games hitting for doubles, if you get the baseball vernacular. It's a shortsighted approach to immense profits that's going to collapse on itself because it relies on the primary source of those profits( you and I) being both able AND willing to fund the industry into perpetuity no matter the damage to our finances.

We are definitely past the days of $10/2 years games. I couldn't figure out why games got so cheap so fast last gen, then I realized it was a deliberate strategy to develop a captive digital audience. Its not like games were cheap to produce during the 8th gen, but they were willing to dangle the carrot so you stayed hooked on the line. This gen, you'll note that the launch software for PS5 still has $70 MSRP( yes there are deals every so often). Last gen Sony was dropping the MSRP for games to $20 within a few years of their launch. I bought God of War for $9.99 off PSN in 2019, a year after release; that would be unheard of today. This time around, they've got you hook, line and sinker in their ecosystem and the lack of similar deals for catalog releases this gen isn't by accident.

 

[JustaStupidBoulder]

I don't care how much a game cost to make.
I don't care about corporate earnings or margins.
As a consumer, I care about on value, is the game good for the price point and how does it stack up to other games I could buy. If the game is worth $80, I will buy it and so will others even if begrudgingly, but less than who would have bought it at $70. Gaming is an extremely competitive market and the barrier to entry for new competitors is practically non-existent. Indies are closing the gap in quality, polish, and even scope, offering compelling experiences at much lower prices. Maybe, I'll just play more of those.