-
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.
I think it's time we paid more for our hobby, this feels unsustainable.
- Thread starter Ivory Samoan
- Start date
Came here to say this.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
At the risk of not having read on from this post and perhaps repeating someone else, a big part of this is due to Japanese labour laws which protect employees.
A little while ago we all applauded Iwata for taking a pay cut, rather than firing employees. Turns out that legally he had to. In general Japanese labour laws and culture make jobs more of a "for life" prospect than in America where "until a miniscule amount of profit can be made by firing 900 people" is the order of the
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Cartridge rom chips also cost way more than a blank disc or download.
Games cost more to make but the opportunity to make shit tons of sales and profit selling millions more copies + mtx + dlc + hardly any inventory costs etc…
Gaming has never been bigger with so many huge profitable corporations in slick offices. And then some indie guys make a hit game raking in the cash.
The money is there. The budget overruns and endless game studios trying to get their sliver of the pie are what is killing many studios.
Last edited:
NinjaBoiX
Member
I mean, I wasn’t referring to Unicorn overlord in particular, I’ve actually never even heard of that game.
But just £70 in general for a game seems insane to me. Even when it’s “on sale” and still £50+, I just think to myself “you guys are mad”, lol.
Now I will pay around £50 for a big ass game that I know I’ll play for a long time, but I have to really know I’ll get my money’s worth.
The last purchase I made was Helldivers 2 for £35, absolutely fine with that. Before that was RE4 remake for £25, etc…
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Exactly.
PS2 sales - 155 million
PS4 sales - 117.2 million
And that's why the PS4 games were cheaper to make than the PS2 games.
Oh, hang on.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I agree.
But get ready for gamers questioning your purchasing habits….. why are you being cheap at buying games when you gladly pay for a movie ticket or baseball game that only lasts a couple hours.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Heart_Attack
Member
Quite the contrary. There are just too many games releasing yearly. Raising the price is not the solution, it will accelerate the decline.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Agreed. Probably a reason why some gamers just stick to some tried and true favourites. Too many games out there thinning out hype and interest.
Gamerguy84
Member
Maybe game pubs can all have Patreon, venmo, or cash app and we can can them a hundred or two if we like it that much.
SCB3
Member
For new games? There are far too many releasing closely that people wanna play for example look at the beginning of this year alone, at least 5 or 6 games that are close to must play, now at £60-70 thats expensive and I'm lucky I have a job that I can afford them at release if I wanted
However, the markets are different, and there are at least 3 types of markets:
However, the markets are different, and there are at least 3 types of markets:
- People who will buy at release anything they wanna play, the hardcore games if you will, this is where I fit in, I obviously have preferences and don;t play every single game, but the big hitters and AAA stuff alongside the best indie games with the odd retro game sprinkled in during downtimes. Often these types will finish a game and move on, rarely replaying them again (in my case I do but a while after, for example I'm replying through Elden Ring again for the first time since I beat it near release)
- The more thrifty gamers who only buy on sale or when a complete edition is out, this can be good as it'll create a new surge of a games popularity, we see that often on Steam
- Then the casual gamers, who only buy maybe one or two games a year, these are the people that will buy for example FIFA or NBA games and only them, these gamers actually are a big cause of MTX being as big as it is, a lot more money is out into them
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
The last game i’ve paid full price for I think was FFXVI getting caught in the hype.
It just doesn’t make any sense anymore. Most of us have more than enough games in their backlog to last them more than a life time, subscription services offers have enough content to keep you entertained and before you know it your full price game is sold at half price or lower. I mean people on here buy games at full price new and buy the time they get to play them they are already discounted.
Seriously, it doesn’t make any sense to pay full price. “Support the developers”? What am I, a fucking charity? How about they support me by making a reasonable length game at an appropriate budget and reasonable price. Why am I the blame for their mismanagement?
It just doesn’t make any sense anymore. Most of us have more than enough games in their backlog to last them more than a life time, subscription services offers have enough content to keep you entertained and before you know it your full price game is sold at half price or lower. I mean people on here buy games at full price new and buy the time they get to play them they are already discounted.
Seriously, it doesn’t make any sense to pay full price. “Support the developers”? What am I, a fucking charity? How about they support me by making a reasonable length game at an appropriate budget and reasonable price. Why am I the blame for their mismanagement?
Maybe the platform holders themselves need to take far less than 30% of every game and transaction under the sun. Digital distrubtion should have kept prices on hold, but I don't see it. Maybe put some more of that cash into the developer hands so they can survive. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are going fairly main stream with hardware now, things must be cheaper for R&D.
Somehow these companies were better off before microtransactions, CD production costs, DLC, subscriptions and $10 game increases. They need to be brave and control their budgets better and stop paying their executives insane amount of money, speaking more about Western developers here. Stop chasing real like graphics, just because you can, doesn't mwean you should.
Stop making shit no one wants, that is sent out to die.
Somehow these companies were better off before microtransactions, CD production costs, DLC, subscriptions and $10 game increases. They need to be brave and control their budgets better and stop paying their executives insane amount of money, speaking more about Western developers here. Stop chasing real like graphics, just because you can, doesn't mwean you should.
Stop making shit no one wants, that is sent out to die.
Madjaba
Member
Yeah let's pay more for games that are decreasing on content and gameplay values.
They brought this to themselves by leaving creativity and gameplay innovation out of their priority and following trends like Open World, Heroes games, doing ports just because they just understood that gamers won't pay 70/80$€ anymore and are seriously missing the old days where content and creation weren't limited by how big is your wallet.
Thanks to Indies and AA to allow players to get some fresh air for way less than those lazy AAA full priced games.
They brought this to themselves by leaving creativity and gameplay innovation out of their priority and following trends like Open World, Heroes games, doing ports just because they just understood that gamers won't pay 70/80$€ anymore and are seriously missing the old days where content and creation weren't limited by how big is your wallet.
Thanks to Indies and AA to allow players to get some fresh air for way less than those lazy AAA full priced games.
Hudo
Member
This.
I remember seeing games for 120DM on the store shelves. I remember begging my Mom to buy me Heroes of Might & Magic III, which was 100DM.
I'm not paying more either. Exactly because "most games of this gen have been boring fast food experiences". Couldn't have said it better.
If you want me to pay 70€+ then I am gonna be picky as fuck. And, as a result, buy fewer games overall.
Starbuck2907
Member
Prices haven’t risen as fast as inflation but the market is much bigger and companies are more profitable than ever, often due to spending on mobile games. They aren’t hurting for profit.
I think you are forgetting that the many profitable games, even extremely profitable games, are often free (e.g. Fortnite).
Much like regular pay-games, the monetization strategy for many companies is to sell the base game or give it away for free and make their “real” profit on season passes, micro transactions, or dlc.
High prices also push people to buy subscription services to get games on day one, but to avoid day one prices (like gamepass, ea’s gamepass, or Ubisoft+). Publishers would rather have the recurring revenue (and sell you micro-transactions).
High prices mainly affect day 1 or first-month buyers. It’s a way to cash in on high hype games, but it doesn’t reallly affect customers who are willing to wait nearly as much.
My personal situation is that I usually only pay full price for a game if I can see myself getting at least 80-100 hours out of it or if it’s a game that I really want to support for other reasons. Everything else, I wait for dirt cheap pricing or for a $30 (usually $20ish) or below game of the year edition.
I think you are forgetting that the many profitable games, even extremely profitable games, are often free (e.g. Fortnite).
Much like regular pay-games, the monetization strategy for many companies is to sell the base game or give it away for free and make their “real” profit on season passes, micro transactions, or dlc.
High prices also push people to buy subscription services to get games on day one, but to avoid day one prices (like gamepass, ea’s gamepass, or Ubisoft+). Publishers would rather have the recurring revenue (and sell you micro-transactions).
High prices mainly affect day 1 or first-month buyers. It’s a way to cash in on high hype games, but it doesn’t reallly affect customers who are willing to wait nearly as much.
My personal situation is that I usually only pay full price for a game if I can see myself getting at least 80-100 hours out of it or if it’s a game that I really want to support for other reasons. Everything else, I wait for dirt cheap pricing or for a $30 (usually $20ish) or below game of the year edition.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Forspoken was the best game last year and look how it ended. New ip, original game, best open world movement and combat in a while, music by ragnarok composer, great game.
And it was doa.
People really do only play among us.
RickSanchez
Member
What a narrow world view the OP has. Maybe the more developed countries of the world have a seen a small bump in prices compared to the 90s.
In many other countries prices are now multiple times higher than they were in the 90s. Here in india, a new AAA game at launch is between 4000 to 5000 of Indian currency, which in 90s it was 500, and as early as 2010 was 1000. Then publishers decided we were not a worthwhile market and fucked us by eroding regional pricing more and more to the point where a young middle class guy with a median salary has to spend 4 days' salary for a new game or wait 4 years for the prices to come to decent levels (which isn't even happening anymore for games released 4 years ago).
Instead, how about the C-suite pay themselves a few million dollars less and not buy a second house/yatch/private jet
In many other countries prices are now multiple times higher than they were in the 90s. Here in india, a new AAA game at launch is between 4000 to 5000 of Indian currency, which in 90s it was 500, and as early as 2010 was 1000. Then publishers decided we were not a worthwhile market and fucked us by eroding regional pricing more and more to the point where a young middle class guy with a median salary has to spend 4 days' salary for a new game or wait 4 years for the prices to come to decent levels (which isn't even happening anymore for games released 4 years ago).
Instead, how about the C-suite pay themselves a few million dollars less and not buy a second house/yatch/private jet
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
You and
hemo memo
need to talk because this will just lead to games becoming more and more McDonald F2P BS with the occasional mega blockbuster like this.Inflation has hit everyone hard for many years, a lot of small studios that want to take a creative break need cash more than the super big corpos with super well known IPs and we are driving them more and more into predatory MTX heck like people did on mobile.
UnravelKatharsis
Member
PS2 game price 49.99
PS4 game price 59.99
Not sure you thought that one through bud but I can see this is a little over your head.
Last edited:
Team Andromeda
Member
We already pay more than enough. Studios need to be run better and this is just a correction that so many of the world's industries are going through after COVID.
Thanks for nothing China
Thanks for nothing China
Lord Malachite
Member
Continuously raising the prices on gaming is a short-term solution that guarantees the entire industry either goes niche or dies altogether in the long run. The more prices on games rise, the more and more average people will be priced out of it. There's nothing about gaming that is a necessity, and people can pickup cheaper and frankly healthier hobbies should they be priced out of this one.
Raising costs continuously will drive gaming into an enthusiast hobby for whales who have more money than they know how to spend. We're already at $70 to purchase most games, and in many cases these aren't even complete experiences, but require the purchase of add-on content. Most games cost somewhere between S70 and $120 for the complete experience. Let's bear in mind you can subscribe to an entire year of PS+ Essential at the full MSRP for only $80. That'll net you 30 or so games for the year without paying anything else right there. Or you can get Gamepass Ultimate for $17 monthly, or PS+ Premium for $18 monthly. These services provide you with access to a wide variety of games on Xbox, PC, and PS for far less than the cost of a single new release. It's arguable that this model is damaging the industry, but is it necessary to pay $70+ for a single game when you can wait for the game to come to Gamepass or Plus and play it for a fraction of the cost? The entire industry is increasingly devaluing games and promoting them as something disposable and impermanent. The more games are developed and published under this mantra, the less I'm interested in purchasing them. It's a losing deal for the consumer.
Perhaps most importantly, the OP presents the situation form the opinion that we, the gamers, are somehow obligated to correct problems that the publishers and platform holders created. We did not cause them to make this industry unsustainable and to depend upon unrealistic growth where a game that sells five million copies is considered an abject failure because it cost $300 million to make. This isn't our problem to solve. We as gamers don't owe the industry some kind of bailout because they keep wailing on the self-destruct button. Things aren't good out there. They're going to get worse. Let them. There are so many games to play, everyone on this forum could resolve to never buy a game released after today and there would be so many games to go through it would be a painfully long time before any of us could legitimately lament that "there's nothing to play". The truth is, many of us either aren't paying attention to our back catalogs and subscription catalogs, or just aren't being honest with ourselves.
Raising costs continuously will drive gaming into an enthusiast hobby for whales who have more money than they know how to spend. We're already at $70 to purchase most games, and in many cases these aren't even complete experiences, but require the purchase of add-on content. Most games cost somewhere between S70 and $120 for the complete experience. Let's bear in mind you can subscribe to an entire year of PS+ Essential at the full MSRP for only $80. That'll net you 30 or so games for the year without paying anything else right there. Or you can get Gamepass Ultimate for $17 monthly, or PS+ Premium for $18 monthly. These services provide you with access to a wide variety of games on Xbox, PC, and PS for far less than the cost of a single new release. It's arguable that this model is damaging the industry, but is it necessary to pay $70+ for a single game when you can wait for the game to come to Gamepass or Plus and play it for a fraction of the cost? The entire industry is increasingly devaluing games and promoting them as something disposable and impermanent. The more games are developed and published under this mantra, the less I'm interested in purchasing them. It's a losing deal for the consumer.
Perhaps most importantly, the OP presents the situation form the opinion that we, the gamers, are somehow obligated to correct problems that the publishers and platform holders created. We did not cause them to make this industry unsustainable and to depend upon unrealistic growth where a game that sells five million copies is considered an abject failure because it cost $300 million to make. This isn't our problem to solve. We as gamers don't owe the industry some kind of bailout because they keep wailing on the self-destruct button. Things aren't good out there. They're going to get worse. Let them. There are so many games to play, everyone on this forum could resolve to never buy a game released after today and there would be so many games to go through it would be a painfully long time before any of us could legitimately lament that "there's nothing to play". The truth is, many of us either aren't paying attention to our back catalogs and subscription catalogs, or just aren't being honest with ourselves.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
It costs that much because it takes lots of people a really long time.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
I'm not sure it's not over both our heads if you forget the variable that is the massively increased development cost.
balls of snow
Member
They did. Nobody bought them.
Senua
Member
They do when they're good, Robocop did well.
ToadMan
Member
Really? This is a forum for people who like videogames....
SJRB
Gold Member
Zero qualms paying 80 bucks for a game, honestly. Provided that the game is good, which it often isn't. The problem lies more in the subpar quality of a lot of games that completely ruin the value proposition.
I would gladly drop 80 bucks for games like Elden Ring, Red Dead Redemption and Hogwarts.
I would gladly drop 80 bucks for games like Elden Ring, Red Dead Redemption and Hogwarts.
Cyberpunkd
Member
OP be like:
Leave it to people getting paid to figure this out. They already did - Deluxe Editions for 3-day head start, Battle Passes, MTX, Cosmetics, etc.
Do not think FOR A SINGLE SECOND increasing prices will make all the above go away, it will only result in profits going up.
Industry is growing, profits are at a record high. You have 10 000 people losing their jobs, but nobody wrote about 50 000 extra people being hired in the first place. Check all the headcount for major studios from 5 years ago.
You guys really need to listen more to us working corporate.
Leave it to people getting paid to figure this out. They already did - Deluxe Editions for 3-day head start, Battle Passes, MTX, Cosmetics, etc.
Do not think FOR A SINGLE SECOND increasing prices will make all the above go away, it will only result in profits going up.
Industry is growing, profits are at a record high. You have 10 000 people losing their jobs, but nobody wrote about 50 000 extra people being hired in the first place. Check all the headcount for major studios from 5 years ago.
You guys really need to listen more to us working corporate.
Last edited:
Hydroxy
Member
You are not being considerate of people in low income countries where the median income is much lower than the developed countries. Regional pricing is dead and today $70 games are impossible to buy for someone from a middle income family from a low income country. So are we now going to gatekeep gaming for only the rich and elite? No thanks.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Essentially that they are and have always charged the most that they think the market will bear. If they thought people wouldn't push back on going to $80, they'd do it starting today. Or $90. Or $100. Or $200 with the season pass and 10 operator skins themed around Barbie, Spongebob and The Rock.
And I don't say that with any particular tone. It's just business. I don't like or not like it. TBH, If there was an option for games to be better but cost 20% more, I'd go for it. But I don't think that's how this works.
Personally, I'd prefer it if more games were in the AA space - where people can aim for parts of the market instead of everything needing to be a no.1 hit around the world to break even.
Last edited:
Kiya's Guard
Member
I don't think that if we bump the price (of big budget games we're talking) the corps would reduce their abusive market practices. They would still milk the fuck out of every game
UnravelKatharsis
Member
Last edited:
Tajaz2426
Psychology PhD from Wikipedia University
Loving video games doesn’t mean you have to buy any gaming companies product to support them. They are a company not a human being and they want your money. It is their job to make me want to buy their game, not my job to support them or even care about them.
Is there something I’m missing here? I’m not a charity and all these developers and publishers could disappear and I’d wake up the same way I did yesterday. Why would it be this consumers issue at all?
Companies mismanaged all the time and their employees suffer the consequences. If they want to make bad decisions it isn’t my job to help fix that with my money. They are multimillion dollar companies and some a billion dollar companies that I do not and will not feel sorry for.
Hudo
Member
Just stop being poor.
Elysium44
Banned
Look at how many people are needed to make the games we love and it is no surprise.
A multitude of hard working, talented people who have bills to pay, families to feed just like we do. If they aren't going to make a decent living making these games, they'll go and work in a different industry and then we'll be left with shitty games, or no games at all.
Last edited:
dragonyeuw
Member
At this point dare I suggest this industry would be healthier dominated by Indies and AA( and by AA, something like Robocop Rogue City and A Plague tale are AA games and pretty easy on the eyes without requiring hollywood blockbuster production costs). We've reached the tipping point with production costs, consumer expectations, tech, and inevitable capitalistic greed.
MonkeyClaw36
Banned
I DO hope you're being sarcastic.
Platinumstorm
Member
Cartridges were expensive to manufacture compared to discs. Within a year or two after ps launched I was buying cds in bulk and had a cdrw. Competition heated up between Nintendo and Sony in a space that Nintendo for the most part was dominating over Sega.
There's infinitely more competition today.
There are tons of factors that have changed what games are valued at in the modern world, and prices were way higher in the past is one fraction of that.
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
So not fun at all?
According to you. Tell that to the millions more who buy games where they hadn't before. Tell that to the increased in completion rates. Tell that to the people spending 1000s of hours in the so called ripoffs. I might not agree with their tastes, but I don't dictate what other people find fun, or what is objectively more successful.
I'm sure you've heard the point that maybe you're not talking about the games themselves but how you generally felt at the time?
