Ex-PlayStation boss reveals the jump from PS4 to PS5 doubled the price of development for very little improvement, causing AAA studios to pull back

So, what is the reason behind that? I mean, the games we're playing today are very similar to those we were playing on PS4. Where do the hundreds of millions go?

Mangement, diversity and ceos paychecks, aka useless people that add nothing to the game's development. Theres no need for 500 teams working on a game anymore as its never being easier to make one. Sadly talented developers get fired, but the people I mentioned are still within said companies doing pretty much nothing or relying on AI nowadays.
 
Not only do so called AAA PS5 games barely look any better than PS4, they also don't play any differently in terms of game design. The games cost more to make, take longer to develop, and in the end don't sell any better than their predecessors.
this belongs on the ps5 tombstone (whenever it eventually appears)...
 
What do you mean by this bolded part? I didn't know this change happened.



Spiderman 2 sold incredibly well and was reviewed well by both critics and general gamers. It has a 8.7/10 on the Metacritic user score and a 4.79/5 (or 9.58/10) on the PSN user score.
I bought Spiderman 2. it sucked. I didn't review it on Metacritic or PSN user score (I actually tried to rate a game on PSN yesterday and couldn't figure out how lol).

I wouldn't trust these things.
 
People tend to not understand that going "3rd party" like Xbox also means Sony would be abandoning their platform advantage. Why sell a game like Ghost of Yotei on Xbox and give away 30% to Microsoft? Why?! It's simply to understand why Sony would want as many people as possible to spend that money within the Playstation ecosystem.

Playstation and Xbox are NOT the same. Not at all!!!
I don't think they are the same. Not even close. A 3rd party strategy is most likely to be very different for Sony. For one, there's no way they abandon their bread and butter...the console market. Secondly, Sony is much more deeply rooted in single player games. Going 3rd party with these games just doesn't make as much sense. Finally, having the largest install base for the caliber of games they offer means there is less of an incentive for them to go else where as Xbox, who stood to profit greatly from bringing their games to PS5.

I don't know if you mistook the post you responded to...but I just clarified it. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
This console gen needs to be extended. (unpopular take i'm sure).

So far the PS5 has been a console to run PS4 games at a better refresh rate.
Removing the fact that PS games are coming out on PC. I've not actually seen a solid reason to pick up a PS5.
A couple of games here and their but you need a solid stack to show off with.
Obviously this is probably the reason.

Devs need to back off from making AAA and start going smaller to get the ball rolling.
Games like Wipeout......
 
You guys are legitimately insane if you think the rise in cost came from wanting games to look better. Jesus Christ dudes get your head out of your ass. You all are saying this as if no other gaming company even tries to make amazing looking games.

But you are also saying this as if more detail is the "WHY" costs increased by 100%. Just think for one second!
Didn't you know? Approximately 400 people total worked on Spider Man 2 and all they did was build them polygons, textures and hand trace rays! At one point, even the janitors had to pitch in! The only department that had time for other things was mind-controlled by Sweet Baby.

When you ray trace woke-ness, you get Spider Man 2!
 
Last edited:
I would say there are three things they could do, and all are ones that I expect from a committed platform holder:
  1. Better project management for the studios in the US and Western Europe which are very expensive; you let these studios work on a project for 6-7 years, with hundreds of people working on it in that period, then yeah, no shit the development budget is so inflated you can't recoup the costs in any reasonable or meaningful time frame. So manage production better, even your flagships don't need to cost $300 million+. Shit, that number is so absurd there are only a dozen or so Hollywood movies *ever* that have cost that much, no game should ever cost that much, ever
The problem is that, 1. hundreds of people are still required to make those kinds of games a reality and 2. HFW, GT7 and GOWR didn't particularly take that long to make and still couldn't be made exclusives to a single console. And it's not like any of those games had difficulties in recouping costs, either. I think their cross -gen strategy has worked so far.
  1. Diversify their output to have a bunch of smaller and mid tier games to make sure they are hitting a proper release cadence and have several projects that are far more profitable than the bigger tentpole stuff (to Sony's credit they have started doing this in the last couple of years again, jury is out if they can stick with it, I hope they do)
2024-2026 will have seen the likes of Helldivers 2, Rise of the Ronin, Stellar Blade, Astro Bot (tentpole game, but not as far as development costs go), Lego Horizon Adventures, Midnight Murder Club, Lost Soul Aside, Saros and Marvel Tōkon: Fighting Souls. I don't think SIE has necessarily been lacking in efforts outside of the AAA heavy hitters spectrum after 2022-2023.
  1. Absorb the costs. This is actually baffling that it needs to be said, this was always Sony's (and Nintendo's) biggest strength – they were committed enough to the long term success of their platform that they knew that individual first party projects don't have to be profitable in and of themselves as long as they are driving sales and purchases around the ecosystem and platform. That is literally the crucial key difference between a platform holder and a third party – a platform holder is able to invest in a broader range of projects because they gain direct tangible benefits from doing so, unlike a third party where every project has to justify the expedite going into its development directly. Sony gave up on this a few years ago when they split the P&L reporting of software and hardware and made them independently answerable, I think this was a bad move, and I think they need to reverse it ASAP
It's hard to compare SIE with Nintendo here because Nintendo consoles are usually driven on first-party software, while PlayStation consoles are mostly driven on third-party software, and heck, not even Nintendo is lacking of cross-gen efforts these days (Metroid Prime 4: Beyond, Rhythm Heaven Groove and Tomodachi Life: Living the Dream). In the case of SIE, increasing development costs became a way bigger factor harder to ignore, and by the looks of it, those games being cross-gen haven't certainly impacted the long tail of PS5's hardware sales.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, not buying it, Devs with a quarter of the Sony Studios budget and support have embarrassed their first-party offerings this gen. If they haven't been able to deliver improvements with double the budget, then that's them just being bloated and inefficient. This gen it was simply a case of Sony's first party resting on their laurels since next-gen and being unfocused in terms of priorities. If they were actively pushing the envelope then I could atleast understand the argument even if flimsy but its not like other devs havent delivered large improvements by incorporating micropolygon detail tech and rt gi ingame while their tech has basically been last gen pipeline with settings on ultra.

Where is the money going exactly, since they haven't updated their engines or tools nor are their games on a much larger scale to their peers? Most devs don't have close to the support and time that Sony's first party gets....Sony needs to put them back on their toes because they have gotten sloppy and bloated.
 
- Make shorter games.
- Make 30fps games. Stop killing yourself to hit 60fps.
- Take 2-3 years to develop them. Instead of 5-7

Thats literally it. Go back to how things used to be in the golden age of consoles.

8-10 hour AAA games. 30fps. DONE.
I disagree on one point here. Make 60fps games and stop trying to go so over the top with visual assets that 30fps is necessary. 60fps just plays so much better anyway.
 
  1. Absorb the costs. This is actually baffling that it needs to be said, this was always Sony's (and Nintendo's) biggest strength – they were committed enough to the long term success of their platform that they knew that individual first party projects don't have to be profitable in and of themselves as long as they are driving sales and purchases around the ecosystem and platform. That is literally the crucial key difference between a platform holder and a third party – a platform holder is able to invest in a broader range of projects because they gain direct tangible benefits from doing so, unlike a third party where every project has to justify the expenditure going into its development directly. Sony gave up on this a few years ago when they split the P&L reporting of software and hardware and made them independently answerable, I think this was a bad move, and I think they need to reverse it ASAP

This happened in early 2024, when Jim Ryan was replaced as co-CEO by Nishino and Hulst. At the time, Totoki stated that the point of splitting up the hardware and software into their own independent led units was to ensure both would be able to be profitable as businesses without needing the other to support them.

Even after the leadership was consolidated under Nishino later, the two units remain separately led and managed, which I think is a core issue Sony needs to contend with.

What do you mean by this bolded part? I didn't know this change happened.

This is not true. In big publishers internally there are profit and loses per project, studio, division (in this case PS Studios for 1st party games) and company (SIE in this case), and they are so important that most if not all workers have bonuses attached to them. Everybody always tried to make their project profitable.

In the public reports for investors Sony since forever reported only the profit of SIE as a whole including hardware, accesories, games and so on. Never of games separated from hardware.

Regarding revenue, they specified for game revenue detailing hardware, game physical or digital sales revenue, addons, game sub and since a few years ago off-PS 1st party revenue. Then regarding game sales they also show game units splitting the 1st and 3rd party numbers.

And no, the difference between a 1st and 3rd party is if the publisher is also the owner of the platform. Which means if 1st party they'll get a bigger cut of the money generated by the game and control over the store featurings, the platform wide marketing and also have knowledge about release schedule, sales and other metrics from any game published in their platform.

What console makers traditionally did was to compensate

And well, before 2024 Hermen and Nishino already had their separete first party games (PS Studios) and platform divisions since forever and were in charge of them before 2024.

The change in 2024 was to promote Hermen and put formally under him Bungie and PS Productions, so he'd handle all the first party content, and to promote Nishino putting under his platform division the platform wide marketing and 3rd party relations.
 
Last edited:
Higher end and more complex tech that takes more time to be worked with and has to be incorporated into the production pipeline for all games because of expectations of cutting edge graphics and scope for every AAA game, as set by Sony themselves
This post doesn't mean anything. The PS5 has a similar toolchain to the PS4, and devs aren't forced to use tech like RT, they can make "PS4 level" games on the PS5 basically the same way they did on PS4.
 
The problem is that, 1. hundreds of people are still required to make those kinds of games a reality and 2. HFW, GT7 and GOWR didn't particularly take that long to make and still couldn't be made exclusives to a single console. And it's not like any of those games had difficulties in recouping costs, either. I think their cross -gen strategy has worked so far.
For what it's worth, I don't really have issues with ongoing cross-gen support. Long tail support for PlayStation consoles has always been a hallmark, so I am completely okay with it here. It would also not be as much of an issue had we managed to get a steady cadence of first party PS5 exclusive titles after the cross gen period had ended, I think that is where Sony faltered this generation (although, as I believe we've discussed previously, I think their 2024 in particular was a lot better as a year than it gets credit for, and that's with the stink of Concord)

2024-2026 will have seen the likes of Helldivers 2, Rise of the Ronin, Stellar Blade, Astro Bot (tentpole game, but not as far as development costs go), Lego Horizon Adventures, Midnight Murder Club, Lost Soul Aside, Saros and Marvel Tōkon: Fighting Souls. I don't think SIE has necessarily been lacking in efforts outside of the AAA heavy hitters spectrum after 2022-2023.
Yup, like I said, I give them credit for going back to this well the last few years. My only hope is this trend continues. I do think Sony potentially realizes that there is no alternative but to start putting out games with quicker turnaround times as well, so I am optimistic (but cautiously so)

It's hard to compare SIE with Nintendo here because Nintendo consoles are usually driven on first-party software, while PlayStation consoles are mostly driven on third-party software, and heck, not even Nintendo is lacking of cross-gen efforts these days (Metroid Prime 4: Beyond, Rhythm Heaven Groove and Tomodachi Life: Living the Dream). In the case of SIE, increasing development costs became a way bigger factor harder to ignore, and by the looks of it, those games being cross-gen haven't certainly impacted the long tail of PS5's hardware sales.
I meant the Nintendo and Sony comparison only to illustrate that both of these companies have performed well as first parties in the past by keeping their eyes on the overall health of the platform, rather than splitting hairs on the profitability of each individual project. Now of course, there are a lot of differences in how the two companies function, Nintendo is first party driven. Sony is third party driven – but to be honest, I would argue that is even more of a reason for Sony to be able to absorb costs better. They are guaranteed the revenue and adoption and uptake from third party developers and consumers, that takes the pressure off of their first party projects to substantiate themselves financially even more. Sony also has the backing of (by being a) gigantic multibillion dollar corporation, so of course, they are more than capable of tanking that hit to promote the overall health of their platform. This is the one area where I am unsure we will see them take the right steps going forward - but I can hope.
 
This premise is completely flawed.
Just make a PS4-level game, perhaps with higher resolution, on a PS4 budget, without the marginal improvements.
I think a PS4 level AAA game in higher resolution would cost at least 50-75% more than the PS4 game did 10 years ago.

And people would slag it for being old and outdated looking.
 
I think a PS4 level AAA game in higher resolution would cost at least 50-75% more than the PS4 game did 10 years ago.

And people would slag it for being old and outdated looking.
How? How would anyone slag off a game that looks like TLOU2 or GOW2018 or RDR2 or Horizon Forbidden West as "outdated looking"? Expectations are completely miscalibrated if that is the case.
 
Last edited:
Oh WOW! Didn't catch that they are throwing around lies like this $500 Million number. Why the hell do so many people want Concord to cost Sony so damn much? It's just pure console warring at this point.
People are going to believe what they want but the 400+ million is believed by some who would know these things
 
You guys are legitimately insane if you think the rise in cost came from wanting games to look better. Jesus Christ dudes get your head out of your ass. You all are saying this as if no other gaming company even tries to make amazing looking games.

But you are also saying this as if more detail is the "WHY" costs increased by 100%. Just think for one second!



Interesting.....we'll need to follow this going forward.
Its crazy you would think Sony has delivered leading tech showcases this gen by what the people write here. They barely upgraded their last gen pipelines the improvements have basically been ultra settings...meanwhile other devs have eclipsed them with nanite equivilant tech with rtgi with the same budgets as before. Maybe if they actually implemented rtgi they wouldnt have to waste so much time baking light and finetuning assets for specific conditions did anyone think of that?

For some reason, the new excuse is that technical advancement is bad and inefficient, and Sony's first-party games have reached some sort of pinnacle sweet spot where no improvement is possible without astronomical meanwhile devs who embarassed them with lower budgets are conveniently downplayed or ignored. I mean the comments from Kojimas tech team pretty much painted the picture when he said the ps5 is too weak to deliver signifigant improvements meanwhile we have assasins creed etc eclipsing their tech with rtgi, microdetail, much better lod management etc, but you know, 60fps and high resolutions are suddenly the mpst important after they joked about pcgamers hyping the same thing previously.
 
Games this gen are not that much better looking than last gen so it is a massive waste of money, imo. The only real improvements have been frame rate and load times (kinda).
That depends Sony,s games haven't been much better looking, but devs have delivered Wukong, ,Avatar and Assassin's Creed etc that are significant improvements. We didnt reach some magical pinnacle in realtime visuals after which we need to triple the budget thats simply a case of bad management. Witcher 4 and gta6 also showcase that the hardware is capable maybe if Sony devs implemented rtgi they wouldnt need to waste ages baking lighting and finetuning assets for specific conditions etc.
 
Last edited:
Did he offer any solutions?
He started to implement two solutions when he still was in charge of first party games:
  • Invest more in GaaS / MP games, because generate way more money than the non-GaaS and are dominating the market
  • Start to slowly expand to multiplatform, starting with late PC ports of old games and GaaS released day one in both places
Then how is it that Japan isn't having any issues with this?
Every AAA company from anywhere in the world has this issue. If they don't have it is because they don't make AAA games.

It's the reason of why all big publishers are investing more in multiplatform and GaaS in recent years.

Its crazy you would think Sony has delivered leading tech showcases this gen by what the people write here.
Games like Death Stranding 2, Gran Turismo 7, GoWR, HFW or Rift Apart were tech showcases when released, looking better than any previous game of their type.
 
Last edited:
He started to implement two solutions when he still was in charge of first party games:
  • Invest more in GaaS / MP games, because generate way more money than the non-GaaS and are dominating the market
  • Start to slowly expand to multiplatform, starting with late PC ports of old games and GaaS released day one in both places

Every AAA company from anywhere in the world has this issue. If they don't have it is because they don't make AAA games.

It's the reason of why all big publishers are investing more in multiplatform and GaaS in recent years.
I don't know. The likes of Fromsoft and Capcom are hiring and increasing dev earnings instead of laying people off.
 
Didn't you know? Approximately 400 people total worked on Spider Man 2
This is not true, over 3500 people worked in Spider-Man 2.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/210733/marvel-spider-man-2/credits/playstation-5/?autoplatform=true

I don't know. The likes of Fromsoft and Capcom are hiring and increasing dev earnings instead of laying people off.
They rare exceptions, Fromsoft won the lottery with Elden Ring and most Capcom AAA games (there are a few exceptions like Exoprimal or Dragons Dogma 2) have been selling better than ever in recent years.

And well, some companies (maybe not this ones) may have had layoffs but you didn't know about it. But well, layoffs in Japan are rare due to cultural reasons. When they need to reduce manpower they focus on other stuff like bonuses for early retirements, transfer workers to other divisions or companis, stop hiring new people or renewing contractors, bully workers to make them quit instead of being fired, etc.
 
Last edited:
I'll say this. Much like the film industry, a videogame does not have to cost 1-300million bucks, to be an absolute amazing piece of entertainment. It doesn't need to cost that much to look, or play amazing, or even the scope of said game/film. The issue comes in, with budget gloss. It has become part of the marketing to lay out "*insert game/movie* cost 250 million to make! Its a triumph!"

It has become a cycle. When you do start cost cutting, gamers/movie goers think the quality has been slashed, and are less prone to buy. Its super easy to raise prices, and very difficult to lower them adage. It looks bad to the consumer.

Working within budgetary constants, will often produce amazing results, as it forces people to think outside of the box. One constant rule;

You give a creative(don't care the medium)a massive budget, they will absolutely use it, often going over. It becomes a disaster, having to increase the budget, true to the sunk cost fallacy. Sometimes you gotta cut the turd loose, making an example, and letting folks know, the budget, is the fucking budget.
 
Why the FUCK did it double? For what reason? You dont just make new hardware and then shit just doubles in price for no reason.

SCALE DOWN YOUR GAMES idiots. Nobody needs or wants every game to be 80 goddamn hours
You say that, but as soon as there's a swathe of AA or Indie games shown at a State of Play, you have hundreds, if not thousands of people screaming "MID, PLAYSTATION IS DEAD" etc.
So no. Its not really that simple. It takes a while to pivot strategies.
 
Games in UE5 look good enough to me. I've been playing a bit of Claire 33, Oblivion Remastered and Avowed recently and they all look pretty good to me. None of which required a massive budget as far as I know. Returnal and Demon's Souls too.

Surely Sony don't need to double their production budget to have similar gameplay to what they have achieved with previous games and hit that level of graphics.
 
Slight improvement, double the development time despite more efficiency, and double the cost.

You'd think they'd investigate what's costing them so much with very little results and in turn costing them because the games aren't coming to market in reasonable time.

Instead the reasons are... because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


 
Smartest way out of this is to keep on backfilling with finds like stellar blade, etc. They have the initiative where they are scouting in india, too. The marketing and assistance makes those more credible as "exclusives". More accurately, ip's that can be closely associated with the brand.

If they could so easily make their tentpole studios make games cheaper, they would have by now.
 
Graphical fidelity has reached a point where you're just getting diminishing return at this point. Is it really worth it to be paying an environmental artist to do nothing but draw the most realistic looking trees in a game? Learn from Nintendo and focus your innovation on gameplay.
 
I'll say this. Much like the film industry, a videogame does not have to cost 1-300million bucks, to be an absolute amazing piece of entertainment. It doesn't need to cost that much to look, or play amazing, or even the scope of said game/film. The issue comes in, with budget gloss. It has become part of the marketing to lay out "*insert game/movie* cost 250 million to make! Its a triumph!"

It has become a cycle. When you do start cost cutting, gamers/movie goers think the quality has been slashed, and are less prone to buy. Its super easy to raise prices, and very difficult to lower them adage. It looks bad to the consumer.

Working within budgetary constants, will often produce amazing results, as it forces people to think outside of the box. One constant rule;

You give a creative(don't care the medium)a massive budget, they will absolutely use it, often going over. It becomes a disaster, having to increase the budget, true to the sunk cost fallacy. Sometimes you gotta cut the turd loose, making an example, and letting folks know, the budget, is the fucking budget.
When it comes to big media costs in games or movies, I get a sense with all the endless budgets floating around you might as well go big or go home. And a bigger budget gets bigger star power, better CGI, better voice work and better marketing. So the minimum floor of sales should be a lot more than a cheap ass project that nobody knows about. It'll cost a lot more to make, but the sales "should" trend to a lot more. The overall risk/reward ratio is high though. Like a gambler betting a lot of money. Win a lot. Lose a lot.

On the other hand, My Big Fat Greek Wedding made $360M sales on $5M budget. And recent PC hits like Schedule 1 and REPO look like bargain games made by a couple people.

Most big gaming companies will trend to AAA games, or at worst still some AA kinds of games. It's practically 0% chance any of them would carve out a small team to make anything like REPO or a similar game as Schedule 1 (minus the drugs of course, but anything simple and indie-ish like that).

The thing about budgets is over time they always get bigger too. Some of it could be legit. Some of it isnt, but simply hoarding because they dont want to lose it. It's like the marketing team who always gets grilled at every company when they claim they need all the money for TV ads and shit. Then the end of the year comes around and they do one of two things. They try to spend it last minute on dumb shit hoping nobody notices so they can get the same/more budget next year. Or someone catches it and says "It's already November you greedy fucks. The marketing campaigns are all done. Execs are taking back any unused $$$". Thats when all the marketing managers go ape shit because when the new year starts their budget will be less than if they blew their load.

It's stupid. But never trust people in charge of budgets. Always have some finance guys keeping track of that shit and call it out.
 
So double the price for very little improvements. So, what is the doubling of expenditure going into? Waste?
The price of living everyone is charging more money . It's not that more work is being done it's just people needing bigger pay just to survive now.
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected!

Didn't you know? Approximately 400 4000 people total worked on Spider Man 2 and all they did was build them polygons, textures and hand trace rays! At one point, even the janitors had to pitch in! The only department that had time for other things was mind-controlled by Sweet Baby.

When you ray trace woke-ness, you get Spider Man 2!
 
To me gen shows good art direction wins out over high tech graphics, this what devs should be focusing on instead of trying have the most expensive graphics......it just not worth it.
 
I'm sorry, not buying it, Devs with a quarter of the Sony Studios budget and support have embarrassed their first-party offerings this gen.
This gen it was simply a case of Sony's first party resting on their laurels since next-gen and being unfocused in terms of priorities.
Not sure what you're talking about:

This PS5 generation for Sony is the top grossing one for any console maker in gaming history, more profitable than all their previous generations combined, where also achieved the all time active userbase for any console brand in gaming history and broke revenue records in hardware, game sales, game addons, gamesub, accesories and off-PS revenue. All these metrics in a multi-year growth pattern. They also have record average user spent.

They approximatedly doubled their first party revenue, broke their first party sales records with titles released in 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024 (this last one making more money with MTX than with game sales). Almost every year they are the company with the biggest amount of GOTY award winners or candidate games.

In addition to grow in console, they're also growing in PC and in movie/tv adaptations.

Their focus, priorities are clear and their results are better than ever in most areas.

People are going to believe what they want but the 400+ million is believed by some who would know these things
Nah, people people used to know budgets of AAA and AA games know that saying that Concord did cost $400M until launch not counting the acquisition is just a bad joke.

If he would have said instead around $200M until launch plus up to (self funded by the game with its own revenue) around $100M more in post launch support and servers in case it would last 10 years could have been credible. Or around $200M until launch and $200M for acquiring the studio too.
 
Last edited:
It's likely a combination of three things:

1. DEI hires not knowing anything.
2. Frame rates increasing from 30-60
3. Ray-Tracing

We can firmly rule out graphics as that hasn't changed.
 
This premise is completely flawed.
Just make a PS4-level game, perhaps with higher resolution, on a PS4 budget, without the marginal improvements.
The marketing department will tell you they cannot market such a game, and downgrade their expected sales for such a game, the CEO will read their report, and decline to fund the project.
The CEO will do so because if he green lights the project despite the low sales estimate from market research, and the game bombs, his job is on the line with investors.
 
To me gen shows good art direction wins out over high tech graphics, this what devs should be focusing on instead of trying have the most expensive graphics......it just not worth it.
The game would had been better suited as a fun platformer than an ultra hard side shooter, but among the best art I've seen the past decade is Cuphead. And googling it, the entire game only had a couple dozen people making it. I dont know how many were the artists, but it goes to show awesome art doesn't have to come from a team of 100-200 people doing Unreal Engine 5 raytraced graphics.
 
- Make shorter games.
- Make 30fps games. Stop killing yourself to hit 60fps.
- Take 2-3 years to develop them. Instead of 5-7

Thats literally it. Go back to how things used to be in the golden age of consoles.

8-10 hour AAA games. 30fps. DONE.

And no one will buy it. When a game is 8-10 hours, people view that as a $30 product now. Telling the audience they're wrong never works.

As for 30fps - no. 3/4 of the PS5 audience has set their system default to Performance. Read the room.

If they just make PS4 level games, people stop buying hardware. Then software sales decline. The perceived value of that quality of game has a shelf life and it decreases over time.
 
Top Bottom