-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Baldur's Gate 3 publishing director says "almost all games should cost more at a base level" because they cost so much to make
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
If people didn't spend 50 gadzillion dollars and 87 years on a single game maybe you wouldn't need to attach so much DLC and raise prices to get it shipped out the door.
Games do not need to cost 100 million dollars to be good products.
Games do not need to cost 100 million dollars to be good products.
Last edited:
Complistic
Member
Games just need to be priced more accurately to the experiences they offer.
Baldur's Gate 3 publishing director Michael Douse has reopened the topic of video game prices being very modest for what those games offer,
Source
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
What shameful clowns. These are the idiots you all keep championing. Urging GTA6 to raise prices so they can do it too. More brazen than EA and Bobby Kotick right now. No one else has said this.
"$70 is too cheap."
"Almost all games should cost more."
- Larian
One mega hit game and they instantly stab you in the back. Watch out for these guys. Ubisoft literally hasnt said this yet. Let that sink in. They are using their reputation and good will to fuck you and move the acceptable price. Real mask off moment.
"$70 is too cheap."
"Almost all games should cost more."
- Larian
One mega hit game and they instantly stab you in the back. Watch out for these guys. Ubisoft literally hasnt said this yet. Let that sink in. They are using their reputation and good will to fuck you and move the acceptable price. Real mask off moment.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
Been saying this shit for years.
What the gaming community demands, comes at a real cost. Its a industry that changes so much each gen and keeping the same price was a massive mistake. The price must reflect the demands. I'd argue you are seeing the push for GaaS and you saw the push for DLC, MTX etc because that price stayed the same.
The company will make that difference else where and maybe......maybe the price should have just increased several generations ago and kept increasing each gen to match inflation, demand for new tech etc. This is one of the few industries that didn't do this, that should have done it long ago.
What the gaming community demands, comes at a real cost. Its a industry that changes so much each gen and keeping the same price was a massive mistake. The price must reflect the demands. I'd argue you are seeing the push for GaaS and you saw the push for DLC, MTX etc because that price stayed the same.
The company will make that difference else where and maybe......maybe the price should have just increased several generations ago and kept increasing each gen to match inflation, demand for new tech etc. This is one of the few industries that didn't do this, that should have done it long ago.
It's amazing to look back at the PS360 generation and see how many more games were released and how fast they were being made (not even including everything that was being made for PSP and DS). And that was the "HD games are hard and CELL is too complicated!" generation. ND still released an entire Uncharted trilogy and TLOU (including separate MP modes). They released only 2 titles for PS4 and so far 0 on PS5. Developers across the board have become far less productive despite having much more powerful, easy to develop for consoles and much larger teams.
The Cockatrice
Gold Member
Only a retard would say that. Just because Larian is in your good eyes now doesnt mean you have to agree with them you dummies. They make millions and billions off consumers. and developers have the highest payed jobs in most countries BUT especially in Europe. So not only have they became lazier and dev times have tripled while the quality of games have not increased significantly they have the audacity to want to charge more. Fuck off and anyone agreeing is a complete idiot.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Good luck. I think for games there's an argument for variable pricing since they offer such massively different experiences, but the general public thinks of them the same as they do buying movie tickets. There's a price associated, and it doesn't matter if you spent $200 million making an MCU film or $10 million making a horror movie, the tickets cost the same. (because they are both movies, offering simmilar entertainment value)
But there's something to be said for delivering the same value as a $100 million game for a lot less money. Plenty of games are a lot cheaper to make and have just as engaging worlds and stories, and even length/content.
But there's something to be said for delivering the same value as a $100 million game for a lot less money. Plenty of games are a lot cheaper to make and have just as engaging worlds and stories, and even length/content.
Last edited:
Killer8
Member
I'd rather have a cheaper base price and just let the whales have their inflated ultimate editions. Who really gives a shit if it's predatory if it's just rich people buying those editions anyway?
The outrage over DLC is a similar story. If selling a diamond encrusted thong for $5 to a few thousand thirsty people makes enough money for the publisher to keep that base price $10 cheaper, then it's a no brainer. Bring on the thongs.
I'm starting to think all of the whine about microtransactions has actually gotten us out of the frying pan and into the fire. If you don't have 'predatory' shit like that then the lost revenue is just extracted from the consumer elsewhere. Only it becomes a mandatory inclusion in the RRP everyone has to pay instead of an optional extra for most people.
It's also a bit rich coming from a studio who recently admitted they cut a huge amount of content. Sounds more like they are wanting to pass on the costs of their own protracted development cycle.
The outrage over DLC is a similar story. If selling a diamond encrusted thong for $5 to a few thousand thirsty people makes enough money for the publisher to keep that base price $10 cheaper, then it's a no brainer. Bring on the thongs.
I'm starting to think all of the whine about microtransactions has actually gotten us out of the frying pan and into the fire. If you don't have 'predatory' shit like that then the lost revenue is just extracted from the consumer elsewhere. Only it becomes a mandatory inclusion in the RRP everyone has to pay instead of an optional extra for most people.
It's also a bit rich coming from a studio who recently admitted they cut a huge amount of content. Sounds more like they are wanting to pass on the costs of their own protracted development cycle.
Last edited:
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
You should really revisit those games. 8 hours, 300 assets for an entire game and way, way less content in general, let alone mechanical complexity.
BG3 or, say, FF7 Rebirth are insanely detailed and varied games. But even something like fairly linear TLoU 2 takes way more time than Uncharted from HD era. And people got used to baseline fidelity like this and will not accept anything less for the same money.
It’s chicken and the egg problem and it is what it is without some cheap populism from either side.
Hugare
Member
Charge an extra $10 and people will expect more from your game.
Think Ubisoft could get away with charging $70 with games such as Star Wars Outlaws?
GTA VI can get away with this 'cause it has billions of production value behind, will probably be gigantic and its freaking GTA. Dont compare yourself or others to GTA, dude.
Think Ubisoft could get away with charging $70 with games such as Star Wars Outlaws?
GTA VI can get away with this 'cause it has billions of production value behind, will probably be gigantic and its freaking GTA. Dont compare yourself or others to GTA, dude.
T4keD0wN
Member
Actions speak louder than words, Ubisoft has been charging 120eur/usd+ for full version of their games for years. In some cases way above that because they lock stuff behing microtransactions. At least they dont say shit like this publicly though.
That being said if he wanted games to be priced according to "quality, breadth & depth" and game like BG3 was 70 instead of 60 then most AAA games would have to be well below 30usd rather than above the standard 60.
Ive always found how publishers are ambitious when it comes to pricing their games fascinating, like customers can buy Red Dead 2 for 15-60 bucks and they somehow charge the same (sometimes more now) amount of money for often far inferior products, lucky for them people dont stop at buying just 1 game, it wouldnt work in many other industries.
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
Then why are publishers continuing to post record profits? Oh, because every major game is laden with additional monetisation efforts that take the already expensive AUD$125.00 base cost of a game and raises it up even higher. Meaning most major games cost a lot more than the base AUD$125.00 already. So much so that the fact that titles like BG3 and Elden Ring didn't have those is an obvious contributor in their enormous success.
If games were more expensive at a base level, do you think publishers would now stop cramming in microtransactions, DLC, or "season passes"? Of course not. So, if the games cost more at a base level, all that would happen is that fewer players would buy them at full price. We know this because Sony already noted that raising the price of its games decreased their overall sales, and raising the cost of their subscription services decreased the number of subscribers... but they made more money, they just made it off of fewer people, so they were still happy with the result.
Spending USD$160m on games like The Calisto Protocol, USD$100m+ on games like Concord, USD$150m+ on Star Wars Outlaws, or even USD$150m+ on games like TLOUII is simply not a sustainable model. You miss once, and everyone goes bankrupt. Developers and publishers are not entitled to that kind of wanton spending, so it is not up to the consumers to foot the bill. You keep pushing the prices higher while delivering mid games, and you'll legitimately crash the industry.
If games were more expensive at a base level, do you think publishers would now stop cramming in microtransactions, DLC, or "season passes"? Of course not. So, if the games cost more at a base level, all that would happen is that fewer players would buy them at full price. We know this because Sony already noted that raising the price of its games decreased their overall sales, and raising the cost of their subscription services decreased the number of subscribers... but they made more money, they just made it off of fewer people, so they were still happy with the result.
Spending USD$160m on games like The Calisto Protocol, USD$100m+ on games like Concord, USD$150m+ on Star Wars Outlaws, or even USD$150m+ on games like TLOUII is simply not a sustainable model. You miss once, and everyone goes bankrupt. Developers and publishers are not entitled to that kind of wanton spending, so it is not up to the consumers to foot the bill. You keep pushing the prices higher while delivering mid games, and you'll legitimately crash the industry.
Angry_Megalodon
Member
I won't pay a single more cent as long as studios have non-essential expenses.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
Actions do speak louder. Bought 3 games today launching at around $20.
Shadow of the Ninja
Valfaris 2
Gori
How do you know they won't accept less visual fidelity? The best selling and most played games today do not have bleeding edge visuals. Elden Ring, Fortnite, Destiny, everything Nintendo makes, mobile games, etc. But they all look good enough and people flock to them because they are fun and engaging, which is the only thing that matters.
Were those games only 8 hours? Maybe they were, but in that case they didn't need to be any longer. I don't remember completing UC2 or UC3 and thinking "man, that was it?!". I do remember getting bored and stopping UC4 midway through because of how little was actually happening between the seemingly endless walkie-talkie and "platforming" segments. Like the game's only point was to force players to admire its graphics.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
They are charging that much and will be selling many millions of copies at that price.
Mortisfacio
Member
I could support higher priced games at scale if there were expanded refund policies. At say $100 a pop, I'd stop buying most single player games, for example. Even games I enjoyed, like God of War, I wouldn't pay $100 for.
Sleepwalker
Member
I'm not paying $100 for a single player game that is one and done. Sorry.
You figure out the economics if you want my money.
You figure out the economics if you want my money.
bitbydeath
Member
$100AU
And MP should always be free.
Hugare
Member
lol, thought they were selling it at $60
Dunno how much of the sales will be due to the Star Wars name, but yeah, probably some
Magic Carpet
Member
Tim Sweeney just needs to take em to court and reduce all those store fees.
30% of the problem solved.
30% of the problem solved.
AngelMuffin
Member
I don’t think Nintendo has ever come close to spending $100M on a single game. I’d be surprised if they even spent $50M on Tears of the Kingdom.
Having said that, They don’t pay their people nearly as much as Western developers.
Last edited:
Jigsaah
Gold Member
What if...
Curated reviewers set the price of games based on quality. Elected officials, so to speak, by the gaming community.
Hmmm nah that wouldn't work. It would be a double edged sword and vulnerable to corruption. But you can't raise the base price of every game, especially with the state a great many of them are released in.
Gotta fix the quality issue first.
Curated reviewers set the price of games based on quality. Elected officials, so to speak, by the gaming community.
Hmmm nah that wouldn't work. It would be a double edged sword and vulnerable to corruption. But you can't raise the base price of every game, especially with the state a great many of them are released in.
Gotta fix the quality issue first.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Big AAA games already release with three editions ranging from $70 to $120. How much more do you want it to be before it backfires, and people stop buying new games?
People are only going to spend so much before looking elsewhere for less expensive entertainment.
People are only going to spend so much before looking elsewhere for less expensive entertainment.
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Good luck with that greed mate.
Don't know about consoles, but on PC getting a cheap key even on release is super easy, don't see myself paying 70€ or more as this jester is suggesting.
Or you could always wait for a sale. Honestly, between the prices and the state some games get released in, buying games day 1 seems like a deal that keeps getting worse all the time.
Don't know about consoles, but on PC getting a cheap key even on release is super easy, don't see myself paying 70€ or more as this jester is suggesting.
Or you could always wait for a sale. Honestly, between the prices and the state some games get released in, buying games day 1 seems like a deal that keeps getting worse all the time.
phant0m
Member
I don’t disagree, just keeping up with inflation they should be $80 or $90.
But on the other hand, so many games are launching broken, missing content, and otherwise need 6mo+ of patching to be in a “good” state.
Also the fact that performance is basically still the same as last gen (4K/30, 1080p/60) for most games isn’t acceptable for being “so expensive”
But on the other hand, so many games are launching broken, missing content, and otherwise need 6mo+ of patching to be in a “good” state.
Also the fact that performance is basically still the same as last gen (4K/30, 1080p/60) for most games isn’t acceptable for being “so expensive”
SyedDanishAnwar
Member
The gaming industry is still alive mainly because games are affordable to the masses, and not just to some rich kids on the block.
If the price of base AAA games rises to $80-$90+, I believe the gaming industry will become a dead duck.
If the price of base AAA games rises to $80-$90+, I believe the gaming industry will become a dead duck.
Pegasus Actual
Gold Member
The stated logic of the title that games should cost more because they cost a lot to me make doesn't actually make sense as there are tons of other factors that go into it. But wow does CheapskateGAF come out in droves anytime someone ponders raising prices.
Holy shit you've cracked the code! Take your business plan of... I don't know, 50 million dollar budget... charge like 40 or 50 bucks, and that's like so much pure profit! Not an investor in the world wouldn't want to fund it!
Plague Doctor
Member
Damn Larian, you just went full Ubisoft with this quote.
You never go full Ubisoft. You can go quarter Ubisoft or as far as half Ubisoft if your shit is good enough, but never full.
You never go full Ubisoft. You can go quarter Ubisoft or as far as half Ubisoft if your shit is good enough, but never full.
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Why say it when they're already doing it. Star Wars Outlaws is $70. The early FOMO access version is $130.
cash_longfellow
Member
I’m all for paying more for games…….that are good. Like, I’m not going to pay $129.99 for a pair of Shaqs just because they cost more to make. Give me more solid games and I’m fine with a small boost in price. Also, I use the term “small boost” literally. (Also, spend less on bullshit and DEI)…I’m fine with it. If you are spending a ridiculous amount as a dev for “equality” and “better hiring practices”, then want to charge me more for your game…well…
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
Ubisoft is an interesting case. They are all about royally destroying whales. I get every game I want from them for $15 in less than 2 years. They're scummy for sure but its a mix of gouging and deep sales with them. And they have a sub.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Today's reminder
Game prices have not even remotely kept up with inflation over the past 30 years. They SHOULD cost more just with inflation, without even considering what game budgets are in 2024 compared to what they were in 1995 etc.
Game prices have not even remotely kept up with inflation over the past 30 years. They SHOULD cost more just with inflation, without even considering what game budgets are in 2024 compared to what they were in 1995 etc.
BlitzerRadic
Member
This is stupid. Most games are sold at fixed price points. If they could sell games that cost less than 100M to make than they would be doing that.
Guilty_AI
Member
its more or less already being done
Similar threads
- Poll