Support NeoGAF

[noobdoomguy8658]

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.

Wouldn't have changed a thing, because the "as a service" model has been very prevalent outside gaming as well.

The gaming industry has not been mainstream and investment-friendly for many years, but now that's not the case anymore, we're seeing exactly the same trends as we do in other industries. As long as the public company makes the lines go up for the shareholders, we're going to see various predatory practices multiply and prosper where they can.

What we're talking about here is the AAA segment. The indies still do offer amazing games at amazing prices, often making good profit for their devs, although I have to admit that not every capable indie developer strikes the financial success for one reason or another.

I, for one, have been playing a lot of the older games recently and noticed just how much quicker it used to be develop what was then considered the big titles, such as the Stalker series - the first game took many years and iterations, but once they settled, they released three games in three years; they were not perfectly polished, admittedly, but they still managed to look great, offer amazing stories, interesting gameplay, and somehow didn't suffer from as many bugs as modern releases that allegedly took many more years to make and costed more as well.

The fact that the games have been seeing more effort and resources into things like graphics, animations, and other tech demo stuff, does not necessarily mean that we as customers have to accept it at face value and cash out just because they spent the time and money. Forspoken comes to mind as well as Starfield - I, as a player, just can't see the effort put there behind all the bugs, boredom and outdated design.

On a related note, not every player is going to experience the game to its full extent, and even the developers and publishers have time and time again claimed to be making games where everyone can find something for themselves - then how come I'm expected to pay for the entirety of the content even if I don't care for a large chunk of it and will never choose to experience it?

I say let the executives take the cut, not us pay more.

 

[Von Hugh]

I am not paying $100 for a game that is not physical.

 

[King Dazzar]

If publishers selling via PlayStation store want to charge more for digital. How about they provide and honour UK's law of consumer rights around "satisfactory quality". At present you spend your money and that's it - no customer service or support at all. Considering how broken and unfinished many games release as, with no refunds. Fuck paying more as its already a gamble as is. Support your customers, give them confidence.

 

[dDoc]

An easy way to find out would be to just go for it.
Offer GTA6 for $100 and see what happens.

I have played all the 3D GTAs to date, and never ever finished one of them.

It might just be I am not into these games. In my eyes, they are not great experiences. There are way better games out there.

I will definitely not be paying 100 for a GTA game.

 

[Rockondevil]

If they're going to increase game prices with physical games disappearing the they better start to:

- Offer refunds (like Steam does)
- Offer demos for every game
- Figure out how we can sell our digital games second-hand

If these things were the norm I'd accept games with a price increase.

 

[Loope]

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.

True. Some might be done with that in mind, but not all need that. For example, and keep in mind i didn't play the game yet, i don't understand the point of spending a lot of money doing cutscenes and all dialogue acted etc. It worked pretty well in BG2 and even in Divinity:Original Sin 2. I really don't get the need for dialogue cutscenes on a game like this.

 

[Braag]

Will all these games have the development cost of GTA, along with its production value and scope? People will expect that from your game if you're gonna price it same as GTA6.

 

[Esppiral]

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

The only company that saves big money by not dubbing their game to different languages unlike other big AAA games sounds a bit hypocritical...

 

[Roberts]

I don't really have much to say on the subject but I know for sure that a price increase in no way changes my stance on how much I am willing to pay for a game - for a few years I just don't spend more than 50 euros on a game and if it takes year(s) to drop to that price, I can wait. No FOMO here.

 

[Ozriel]

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 fact that you believe it’s because developers are ‘lazier’ and ‘less productive’ and not that it’s because AAA games now require a ton of more work to make…

Strange.

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.

They’re going to be spending more on average in the Switch 2 era than they spent in the Switch era.

 

[GymWolf]

Is this the same bg3 dev that said sw outlaws is the best AAA game he has played in the past years by any chance??

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Easily for him to say...when you make a game as good as indepth with the quality of BG3.. Seriously BG3 was worth $100 and its not even my Game of the year or anything, but thats a fucking quality game.

If the publisher of lets say Concord said this..

So, you'd be fine with €100 standard price for gamed across the industry, incl PC?

OT:

Makes sense. It's either that, or something like Sony's Gaas-strategy.

People can say "just dont make games that expensive", but at the same time they're complaining that current-gen games in general aren't "next-gen" enough.
Standards increase over time and development cost does as well because of it.

 

[Martin701]

Nintendo will sell most new games for 60 but the difference in development cost are vast.
As long as puzzle games and epic rpgs are priced the same, customers wont have any indication if Games are worth the money.

Massive Games which will likely provide hundrets of hours of gameplay content should be appropriately priced. Few Games which are Massive in scope will sell as well as BG3.

 

[LazyParrot]

Whatever, I'm patient. Whether an AAA game launches at $100 or $60, chances are it'll be on sale for $20 eventually, and I'll have plenty of indie/retro/AA/F2P games to keep me busy in the meantime.

 

[BacklashWave534]

Relocate the companies to some place with reasonable taxes to start. Why so many companies are located in the world's most expensive toilet (San Fran) makes no sense. This guy seems completely disconnected from reality. People are struggling to get by these days so instead of looking at ways the industry can reduce costs, operate leaner, etc. lets ask our already struggling customers to pay more. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Easily for him to say...when you make a game as good as indepth with the quality of BG3.. Seriously BG3 was worth $100 and its not even my Game of the year or anything, but thats a fucking quality game.

If the publisher of lets say Concord said this..

So all the thrash games that nobody plays are priced low, whereas all the quality ones that people want to play are priced high? How is the gamer a winner here?

 

[Cyberpunkd]

world's most expensive toilet (San Fran)

More like a drug den.

 

[Majukun]

or, you can make them without overwhelming production values and focus on making a good original game

 

[Hudo]

I am willing to pay more for a game if:

1) It is actually functioning well and not buggy as fuck upon release
2) No "Season Passes" or microtransactions
3) It's actually fun and not just "look at these pretty graphics that cost us $200 million to make"

 

[MISTER INVEIGLER]

An easy way to find out would be to just go for it.
Offer GTA6 for $100 and see what happens.

I think it would sell a lot, but I also don't think it'll do close to GTA5 numbers or profit.

 

[M0G]

The argument has merit, at least coming from somebody that puts out excellent content you can dive into. However, a lot of the industry doesn't. I'd be fine with paying £100 for something that lacks the substance of BG3, if I am the owner of the released product, the product has been through rigorous QA and reviews aren't withheld so consumers can't make informed buying decisions. Personally if games jumped to that kind of price it'd be preferable if mtx went away and DLC returned to the form of reasonably sized expansions. There's unrealistic expectations on both sides.

 

[Schmendrick]

If I get a complete polished product, meaning no MTX, good QA, no FOMO shit like season passes etc. then I´d absolutely be ok with higher base prices.
But that is not gonna happen because we`ve all seen the figures. And if that cash-grab stuff stays then I´m, not gonna accept higher base prices.

 

[BacklashWave534]

More like a drug den.

Valid point!

 

[StereoVsn]

How about keeping salaries up with inflation as well? I make 3x more than 10 years a go and I was able to save more of my % back then.

And it’s not “just” inflation, but what increased the most. Housing, cars, insurance (health, house, car), utilities, food, gas, clothing and other stuff that people need every day.

Overall cost of living significantly increased since 1995 and people just have less disposable income. And at the same time there is a lot more vying for their entertainment $.

In 1995 you don’t have nearly as many games being published, TV shows, YouTube, game streaming, TikTok, books (self publishing is huge now), and so on.

So yeah, while it seems the 1995 price is higher, as far as what people typically bought, I am not sure if it has the impact as $70 on a lot of people now days from budget AND amount of choice.

 

[Guilty_AI]

An easy way to find out would be to just go for it.
Offer GTA6 for $100 and see what happens.

For GTA6, but would they pay $100 for Dustborn?

 

[nkarafo]

Your game might cost too much to make. GTA 6 might cost too much to make. But "almost all games"?

GTFO with this bullshit.

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.

But no dev ever says that. They never say "games should increase their price due to inflation". They always go on about how "they are harder to make" or "they cost more to make".

Also, in 1995 there were physical releases and even ROM cartridges that increased the production costs significantly.

 

[Clear]

Your game might cost too much to make. GTA 6 might cost too much to make. But "almost all games"?

Yes. Almost all games is factually accurate.

And here's the thing, even if you discount inflation and team sizes, both of which heavily impact dev costs, then just base your valuation/costing based on HOW LONG it takes to make modern games.

Even quality indies are at 3-4 years (or longer) a lot of the time these days.

 

[geary]

Maybe don’t make 100hrs RPG but a 50hrs one? Just a thought

Now days, people are less inclined to pay 60-70$ for less than 40 hours game. They want quantity to justify their spending, and developers are giving them that with artificial content.

 

[dorkimoe]

So all the thrash games that nobody plays are priced low, whereas all the quality ones that people want to play are priced high? How is the gamer a winner here?

Since when did publishers care if the gamers win? Thats not how businesses work. I also didn’t say they should do it, I said it’s easy for him to say when they published a great game

 

[Guilty_AI]

Now days, people are less inclined to pay 60-70$ for less than 40 hours game. They want quantity to justify their spending, and developers are giving them that with artificial content.

One thing i don't understand more devs do is increase the amount of vertical content. Make a game that's short but highly replayable. In the case of an RPG, something you can finish in 5-10 hours but can have vastly different playthroughs.

 

[Bond007]

Charge more and i will buy less.
No win situation for them. I already think the games are overpriced in most cases. For me personally- im just not sticking around long enough with most games to extract every ounce of useless fluff they stick in to make it seem like a "value"

But go look at GTA6 and they could charge $150 and its most likely worth it. They are on another level- atleast to me. Cant really say that about anyone else except some of Sony's first party products- and def not over $100.

***Im not looking to pay that sort of money. I am simply stating that its a fine balance and if your telling me quality of games will increase with price, but that LOL will never happen.
We will get the same shit we see today at a higher cost and higher tiered "Ultimate editions" with continued microtransactions.

 

[Fbh]

I don't get the whining we have seen from some devs/publishers.
If the product you are making isn't profitable at the price point you are selling it then you have 2 options: You either increase the price or you alter the product so it becomes cheaper to produce and it can be profitable at the established price point.

 

[AngelMuffin]

The fact that you believe it’s because developers are ‘lazier’ and ‘less productive’ and not that it’s because AAA games now require a ton of more work to make…

Strange.




They’re going to be spending more on average in the Switch 2 era than they spent in the Switch era.

I’m sure they will but they’re profit margins will still be astronomical.

 

[NickFire]

Pubs should tread carefully in these economic times. Wouldn't take too much drop off before the repercussions got severe. Those huge headcounts at devs still need to get paid even if sales drop off.

 

[Ebrietas]

The fact that you believe it’s because developers are ‘lazier’ and ‘less productive’ and not that it’s because AAA games now require a ton of more work to make…

Strange.




They’re going to be spending more on average in the Switch 2 era than they spent in the Switch era.

The fact that you can't seem to read is even more strange. Nowhere did I say they were "lazy". I said studios across the board are less productive. As in they are factually producing fewer games than they used to. This is entirely down to the scope of games becoming far too bloated and too much focus on bleeding edge graphics at a time when graphical quality is already more than good enough. If the priorities were different the average dev time would be even shorter than it used to be due to all the tech advancements, instead of 4 years or more like it is now.

 

[nerdnumber81]

Depends on the game. I would have gladly payed 100$ for Baldur's Gate 3. On the other hand I would not pay even 30$ for something like Hellblade 2

 

[Knightime_X]

Raise price by $10.
Lose 2+ million in opening sales.
The higher the price, the harder I'm going to judge the game.

And I already judge $60 games, harshly.

 

[winjer]

Increase game prices, increase bonus for CEO, board and shareholders, then fire thousands of workers.
This is what the industry ahs been doing recently.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

I would somewhat agree with that... but only if every f****** game was finished and extra polished at base level too, and not in the "very bad joke" state, I mean: "release, grabe money and patch later", especially for every single physical release.

Just take inspiration from Nintendo, if they can do it, anyone can.

Meanwhile, take this, it's dansgerous to go alone !

 

[gatti-man]

Pricing should reflect value. The only issue I see with this is when the customer buys a shit game for $60 there is risk when people buy games. You may not like it. It may have bugs or be incomplete. Quality games should be able to price themselves higher I agree but that’s the exception not the rule

 

[mayham2199]

I agree with him. I'd be more ok with it if I had some sort of refund system. Which almost all platforms do except for PS.

 

[E-Cat]

Games should cost whatever yields the maximum profit for the publisher. Law of price elasticity, bitch.

 

[Danny22]

I 100 PERCENT agree and this is the true unpopular opinion developers don't have the guts to say. Ofcourse consumers don't like the idea. The average customer loved gamepass for decreasing prices by popularizing the renting model. But, I ask the average NeoGaf member, was that healthy for the industry long-term?

There's a lot of complaining about extra editions, unneccessary microtransactions but if your audience isn't increasing and the price remains the same, you're not increasing your revenue. That works opposite of the usual sequels are bigger and more expensive' mentality, its anti growth (long term employees aren't sticking around for lesser pay for their next game) and it doesn't even remain in check with inflation! As a result, most single-player game sequels go open worldish, safe, big and sell a maximum of 20-25 million, same as the yearly call of duty did in the ps360 generation, before topping up. Think god of war, witcher 3, even zelda and dark souls (elden ring). Ubisoft's whole template is this at this point. How do core gamers not see these patterns?


And if it wasn't for Sony, we wouldn't even get the 10 dollar increase at the start of the generation! Simply because no publisher wants to take that risk of increase the baseline cost. Why risk audience backlash, reduced overall sales and a potential flop for a small increase to the revenue? It's much better to have a more 'premium' edition and increase its price by 10 dollar to keep it optional. But all that does is encourage more editions, or more microtransactions i.e optional purchases that are designed to reduce the overall quality so that you pay more to 'upgrade' to the better version. Yes, I'm talking about single-player, one-and-done, games here, not live service.

Though it should be clarified, base prices have mostly increased everywhere except the United States. That's the country where the largest portion of the revenue usually is and where the base price has not increased. The EU, UK, Canada and other developed countries have all had major increases but the US hasn't. Meanwhile, if it wasn't for steam popularizing localized pricing for developing countries, we would still have a much more limited markets in Africa, India, China. Notice that PC is much more popular in all these countries?

 

[Three]

If publishers selling via PlayStation store want to charge more for digital. How about they provide and honour UK's law of consumer rights around "satisfactory quality". At present you spend your money and that's it - no customer service or support at all. Considering how broken and unfinished many games release as, with no refunds. Fuck paying more as its already a gamble as is. Support your customers, give them confidence.

It's difficult to find satisfactory quality without experiencing the whole thing. Steam provides 2 hour refunds, PSN usually provides 2 hour full game trials without any transaction. I'm not sure what UK law could be introduced to help here but I will say the stores are usually helpful in getting a refund when a game is broken as long as you send them the reasons and proof. I've done this with COD: Cold War on release.

 

[Fake]

Good luck with that shit attitude.

Nintendo have proved time to time you don't need that amount of money to make good games.


And is actually pretty simple:

I buy a game because is good, not because cost loads of money. I don't give a shit about the cost of those things, I'm a client and nothing more. You guys need to take that in mind before wasting 8 years and making trash games like Concord.

 

[Three]

Games should cost whatever yields the maximum profit for the publisher. Law of price elasticity, bitch.

I agree. There is a weird unwritten rule though that all games should cost the same much like cinema tickets. People don't really pay attention to cost of production or quality like they do say a piece of furniture or something like that. Although even there there is likely some ignorance at play too, just not to the same extent.

 

[adamsapple]

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.

It should.

But

 

[Kamina]

 

[King Dazzar]

It's difficult to find satisfactory quality without experiencing the whole thing. Steam provides 2 hour refunds, PSN usually provides 2 hour full game trials without any transaction. I'm not sure what UK law could be introduced to help here but I will say the stores are usually helpful in getting a refund when a game is broken as long as you send them the reasons and proof. I've done this with COD: Cold War on release.

My laymans interpretation of satisfactory quality is in relation to buggy/broken games from the off and the 2015 legislation. The law is already there. And PS are being naughty buggers about it. To be clear my issue with PS is with its digital store, no other stores. Here in the UK I got asked to jump through multiple hoops and then after a week of doing that. My case was transferred to a specialist team. And since then all my comms are being ignored. Sorry, but this isnt a debate for me. My personal dealings with PS customer service has been appalling.

Steam is great, but tbf I never tried communicating with them - I never had to.

PSN 2hr trials sound great until you think about the fact that you have to be paying a top tier sub to get them.

 

[ProtoByte]

I'll blame the prices on the people who set the prices because they're the ones who ... set the prices?

So the Australian government. Because the tariffs have a direct impact on the price. You expect them to sell Australians games at a discount at launch? Lmao, what a stupid statement.

Exactly: only established players can ever succeed big, which is why Helldivers 2 on PC flopped, Black Myth: Wukong was DOA, and -- oh. It's almost as if making a good game doesn't require $160m dollars, "13 years of unrelenting critical acclaim" or a $200 price tag. Good games require vision and talent. And there's a self-evident lack of that in the AAA.

Again, stupid argument.
Helldivers 2 is a sequel funded and marketed by Sony. Established player if there ever was one. Wukong benefits from being the first non-embarassing Chinese SP game, most of the sales coming from China as a result of nationalism and novelty. It's an entirely new market of 1.5 billion potential customers opening up to half of gaming that wasn't there before. Extraordinary circumstances. Not something most publishers making most games cannot benefit from. It's too early to say if even Chinese devs will be able to ride the wave, let alone western ones.