Generic
Member
"You have no idea what this game is going to contain."
We know, it's the usual Mario Kart but with open world levels. Open world have been a thing for decades. There are f2p games with open world levels. This isn't worth $80.
Can anyone tell me why flexible pricing is good in every industry except videogames?
- Thread starter Men_in_Boxes
- Start date
We know, it's the usual Mario Kart but with open world levels. Open world have been a thing for decades. There are f2p games with open world levels. This isn't worth $80.
Tams
Member
How many hours are you going to get out of a game? You've chosen one of the worst you could to back up your argument.
As for the cost of production, TV shows are often much cheaper. Films are another insane world, where a fair number don't make a profit and are made up for by blockbuster hits. And then there are the tax dodges and money laundering.
Last edited:
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
So you think the next Zelda should be more then $90 or do they fall in the same category.
What about the next Mario game?
I don't have to speak on behalf of anyone, a fucking kart game is not the equivalent to Zelda or a mainline Mario game.
If Sony came out and said Kratos Kart Racing was a triple AAA game that cost 300m to make and I should pay $90 for it I would kindly reply with
If you're happy paying that for it, more for you.
But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't even live in the same realm as any game that would be worth that much.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Just a reminder: There are people who value arcade racing games more than platformers or action puzzle RPGs. You might not value Mario Kart as much as Mario or Zelda but others can and do.
So in that sense, your preferences don't annoint what is or is not a "luxury game"...only the market can decide that.
Last edited:
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Variable pricing is good when companies are using it to be competitive. But these companies rarely do that.
Because for the most part companies view variable prices only in one direction, most companies will view $80 as the new standard for AAA games. And only a select few games can get away with a price hike. Even so, a price hike may filter out part of the audience that would have bought the game had it been cheaper. If you hike the price by 15% but lose 30% of the customers was it worth it? More expensive games will also deter parts of the consumer base from engaging in whatever microtransactions are included in the game. Why am I paying $100+ and then getting nickel and dimed?
If you thought Star Wars Outlaws or AC: Shadows or Dragon Age the Veilguard sold poorly, imagine how abysmal it would have been had they been $80 or even $90. And Ubisoft/EA are the exact type of company that would think they could get away with it when they're the furthest from it.
You are definitely going to see studio closures and game failures if $80 is the new standard price.
Because for the most part companies view variable prices only in one direction, most companies will view $80 as the new standard for AAA games. And only a select few games can get away with a price hike. Even so, a price hike may filter out part of the audience that would have bought the game had it been cheaper. If you hike the price by 15% but lose 30% of the customers was it worth it? More expensive games will also deter parts of the consumer base from engaging in whatever microtransactions are included in the game. Why am I paying $100+ and then getting nickel and dimed?
If you thought Star Wars Outlaws or AC: Shadows or Dragon Age the Veilguard sold poorly, imagine how abysmal it would have been had they been $80 or even $90. And Ubisoft/EA are the exact type of company that would think they could get away with it when they're the furthest from it.
You are definitely going to see studio closures and game failures if $80 is the new standard price.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
It's more like a 300k price cap.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
there's no such thing as a "luxury" game.
MacReady13
Member
EDIT- Not interested in getting into a to and fro argument. You think it isn't worth the price, so that's cool. I think it'll be worth it's price so I'm buying it.So you think the next Zelda should be more then $90 or do they fall in the same category.
What about the next Mario game?
I don't have to speak on behalf of anyone, a fucking kart game is not the equivalent to Zelda or a mainline Mario game.
If Sony came out and said Kratos Kart Racing was a triple AAA game that cost 300m to make and I should pay $90 for it I would kindly reply with
If you're happy paying that for it, more for you.
But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't even live in the same realm as any game that would be worth that much.
Last edited:
Generic
Member
I got thousands of hours of fun in Fortnite (f2p) while spending very few money on it. All the new seasons and new modes are free. All the player-made maps are free. Yes the cosmetics are overpriced but they don't give gameplay benefits.
How many hours are you going to get out of a game? You've chosen one of the worst you could to back up your argument.
As for the cost of production, TV shows are often much cheaper. Films are another insane world, where a fair number don't make a profit and are made up for by blockbuster hits. And then there are the tax dodges and money laundering.
Nintendo willl charge $80 for Mario Kart and then for $10 for every new track.
PeteBull
Member
There are some limited collector edition versions with some added figurine, soundtrack or other stuff, but here we talking about basic edition selling for 80$, and u can tell game didnt have budget to justify that price inscrease either xD
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
That's bs. Why do you think they're called AAA games?
Any game that sells 65 million at full price is S-tier as far as the market is concerned.
PeteBull
Member
By luxury he means only being bought by the very few, u got liquid cooled 5090 thats 4,5k+ usd, that u can call luxury, aka not mainstream audience target product.
Last edited:
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
because they're based off of AAA/Blockbuster movies and not luxury sports cars.
You cannot, and will not ever be able to compare Mario Kart World, Assassin's Creed Shadows, Elden Ring, or any game of similar/greater budget and scope to a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, or a Bugatti. They're not the same thing. They're coveted, exclusive cars you can't even walk into a dealership and buy. The games are literally mass market products, no different from a high budget movie.
Last edited:
Why are we comparing Videogames to physical goods instead of the more logical thing and compare it to other media?
Do movies have variable pricing? Does music?
And like you said some musicians wouldnt do music that good if instruments hadn't gotten better, and yet they will sell you their album for the same price as a newcomer band will sell you their album with shitty equipment.
And also it just wouldnt work. A company that makes bikes might never sell you a 300$ bike for cheap because it costs them money to manufacture it. They might not make that much money from it to begin with. Games break even and then they can literally sell it for a dollar and make a profit because having someone download the game doesnt cost them a dollar. So what would happen if a 300$ game existed is it would break even, sales would eventually stagnate and then they would start puttin it on sale often at 250$ because why would you leave that money on the table that is practically entirely profit. Then that would stagnate and they'd sell it for 200, then 250 and eventually there would be 90% sales and people would buy it for 30$. And if it didnt break even initially it would just speed up the process, they'd start selling it cheaper to try and break even. We even see this with games now that cost 60$, sell poorly and they're on sale for half the price after 6 months.
Do movies have variable pricing? Does music?
And like you said some musicians wouldnt do music that good if instruments hadn't gotten better, and yet they will sell you their album for the same price as a newcomer band will sell you their album with shitty equipment.
And also it just wouldnt work. A company that makes bikes might never sell you a 300$ bike for cheap because it costs them money to manufacture it. They might not make that much money from it to begin with. Games break even and then they can literally sell it for a dollar and make a profit because having someone download the game doesnt cost them a dollar. So what would happen if a 300$ game existed is it would break even, sales would eventually stagnate and then they would start puttin it on sale often at 250$ because why would you leave that money on the table that is practically entirely profit. Then that would stagnate and they'd sell it for 200, then 250 and eventually there would be 90% sales and people would buy it for 30$. And if it didnt break even initially it would just speed up the process, they'd start selling it cheaper to try and break even. We even see this with games now that cost 60$, sell poorly and they're on sale for half the price after 6 months.
Last edited:
LRKD
Member
You have literally 0 evidence for that statement, for all we know at a budget price of $30 they could sell triple the units and make more money then they are now without cutting a single corner. I can't tell you how many Nintendo games I DIDN'T buy over the past 10 years because I just didn't think $60 was worth it. If they were $30, I'd end up buying games I wasn't even all that interested in.
Or hell maybe they do have to 'budget' their games, and instead of only one 3D Mario game a generation, they reuse some of the basic game assets, and we get multiple. A good example of this is when Fox Movies went to the Futurama team, and asked for a movie, and they negotiated 4 movies instead, because by making 4 movies, it became far cheaper price per movie. It could be a very real strategy for Nintendo to account for a hypothetical having to sell lower priced games. Instead of one 3D Mario game the whole console generation, just simply make 4. When your core engine, graphics, and gameplay are all done, why wouldn't you reuse it to cut massive costs on your initial production?
There is 0 evidence games would be worse by being 'cheaper', or fixed priced. And we have even had the very rare case of flexible pricing in the past. Ratchet and Clank on the PS4 launched at a $40 price point, nobody is stopping larger developers from releasing games UNDER the market price, they simply choose not to, because fuck the customer, why should my $30 game not launch at a full $60?
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
No I agree, I personally think games should be a fixed price regardless.
If they less cool
I just don't think out of all the games in Nintendo's library, Mario Kart being the the one to justify the price bump
Even with all the new stuff I still expect it to be £70 at max.
I just don't think it's worth £80
£50 maybe.
And it'll come with your Switch 2 like it will for millions.
Why would you not buy the bundle unless you don't like the game.
Even if you wasn't really interested in it but don't mind the game you'll get the Bundle because it's foolish not to.
That's the way Nintendo works.
Look I ain't dissing the game, It's probably the most fun you'll have at launch and it'll create some great memories.
But I just don't agree with this being worthy of the price hike.
I got my daughter a Switch and I think even the games I that was too expensive as the PS5 versions was always cheaper and if you think she's having a Switch 2 with 80 pound games....
Not happening.
Last edited:
Tams
Member
I didn't realise we had a bunch of Communists on this forum. 
Not every game can be Fortnite and it and games like it have increased IAPs and loot boxes, which are far more open to abuse (and are abused - even by Fortnite/Epic who use FOMO massively).
Not every game can be Fortnite and it and games like it have increased IAPs and loot boxes, which are far more open to abuse (and are abused - even by Fortnite/Epic who use FOMO massively).
InterMusketeer
Member
Mario Kart World and Donkey Kong Bananza look like good games, but I also don't see what makes them so special to justify a (much) higher price point. What's been shown falls within expectations for a new title in those series. Most consumers seem to agree on this.
What I mean to say is that it's very hard to justify why those games are more expensive. Is it because the content is better or because there's more of it? Consumers can only judge that accurately after playing the game extensively. It's completely different from buying a luxury car where its features are clear and can be compared to cheaper vehicles.
Also, most games get discounts pretty quickly. Higher pricing will probably push a lot of people to wait for sales, and if they're waiting anyway, might as well take a bit longer until prices drop even lower.
What I mean to say is that it's very hard to justify why those games are more expensive. Is it because the content is better or because there's more of it? Consumers can only judge that accurately after playing the game extensively. It's completely different from buying a luxury car where its features are clear and can be compared to cheaper vehicles.
Also, most games get discounts pretty quickly. Higher pricing will probably push a lot of people to wait for sales, and if they're waiting anyway, might as well take a bit longer until prices drop even lower.
BbMajor7th
Member
Sales drive revenue; don't be obtuse.
It's two Concords worth of games over thirteen years - you're leaving out crucial context because you're losing the argument. The industry doesn't care about Star Citizen. You can tell because, more than a decade later, no major publisher has looked to ape their funding model. Shenmue 3 is arguably the closest, and we all know how that turned out (even pegged to a beloved legacy IP).
Neither did Corcord, now you mention it, and it was an unmitigated disaster. Marvel Rivals did, and it was a roaring success. What are we learning from comparing all these apples and oranges?
Smartphones are considered expensive necessities, much like cars. In the car industry, the most popular car makers are not Lamborghini or Ferrari, they are companies that make affordable mid-range models like Ford or Volkswagen. Apple occupies the same space as the latter - there is no crazy Italian creator of super-luxury smartphones that are bought as status symbols rather than for practical functionality. Watches are an even closer analogy: there is no smartphone equivalent of Rolex or Petique Phillipe.
That's not your argument at all - that's inflation. You're arguing for flexible pricing in the software market, which would mean creating the video game equivalent of a Ferrari or a Trek - high-end, expensive, premium products that appeal directly to a smaller market of monied hardcore enthusiasts. You're arguing this would drive innovation in the gaming space, but this has been disproven at every point in this debate, and you refuse to accept it. Necessity is the mother of invention, not unbridaled luxury and bottomless resources. You see this in every single industry: limitations drive innovation. The more money you throw at a thing, the greater the temptation to brute force solutions. Fewer resources naturally drive novel solutions because there is no other option - you have to work smarter, because you can't work harder. I shouldn't have to explain something so eminently true, but here we are.
Innovation is driven by need, not by bottomless resources. If anything, it goes the other way: the greater the investment, the more conservative and risk averse the approach - we see this everywhere right now, right across the industry, with long-running IPs turning out marginally bigger prettier versions of themselves every few years, with the same mechanics, characters and ideas they've been recycling for a decade.
Last edited:
dragonyeuw
Member
Ironically, some of my favorite games in recent years has been stuff like Steam World Dig 2, Hollow Knight, TMNT Shredders Revenge, and Vampire Survivors. Or AA stuff like Robocop Rogue City, a Plague tale and Terminator Resistance. The industry hasn't justified to me personally that any game needs to be creeping up towards $100, but have at it. I always buy at pricepoints I'm comfortable with and if they never get there, then I don't buy it.
Similar threads
- Poll