Eiknarf
Banned
This ^
This is the only reply/response that should be in this entire thread
It should be the OP, and then this ^, and then the thread is locked
Last edited:
I think it's time we paid more for our hobby, this feels unsustainable.
- Thread starter Ivory Samoan
- Start date
This is the only reply/response that should be in this entire thread
It should be the OP, and then this ^, and then the thread is locked
KXVXII9X
Member
A very unpopular opinion, but I'm glad someone has said it. I agree.
There has been a HEAVY devaluing of games in the past several years. People want everything free with 100+ of content, open world, that is constantly updated. Games like Prince of Persia were considered too expensive when it is $50. While I didn't agree with locking New Game Plus in Like a Dragon Infinite Wealth, I still thought people were getting a LOT for $70. The games already have multiple full arcade titles in them.
I saw how mobile games went down the drain the second people didn't want to pay $5 for a quality premium game that was similar to a DS game at the same time for a fraction of the cost. With the whole "$1 for every hour" took off, I knew that wouldn't be sustainable.
Despite what I said above, I don't fully blame other consumers fully because there are always discounts and sales, rental services, and games given away for free like with Epic games. We've been spoiled with cheap options. I don't really blame someone to wait for a sale since they can be so frequent. The industry kind of conditioned people into that and are surprised when people don't buy stuff at full price. It also hasn't been the best time economically for a lot of people, so luxuries are less of a priority.
The big question is: If consumers pay more, will the added funds be used to increase the quality of games and retain employees, or will they be used to line the pockets of greedy individuals even more? I don't mind paying more on developers who continue to push the medium forward. I want the games I like to continue being made.
I think Nintendo supports the idea of a more healthy industry. They still uphold value to their games while not chasing absurdly high production values. The culture within Nintendo seems to value retaining cultivating their employees.
There has been a HEAVY devaluing of games in the past several years. People want everything free with 100+ of content, open world, that is constantly updated. Games like Prince of Persia were considered too expensive when it is $50. While I didn't agree with locking New Game Plus in Like a Dragon Infinite Wealth, I still thought people were getting a LOT for $70. The games already have multiple full arcade titles in them.
I saw how mobile games went down the drain the second people didn't want to pay $5 for a quality premium game that was similar to a DS game at the same time for a fraction of the cost. With the whole "$1 for every hour" took off, I knew that wouldn't be sustainable.
Despite what I said above, I don't fully blame other consumers fully because there are always discounts and sales, rental services, and games given away for free like with Epic games. We've been spoiled with cheap options. I don't really blame someone to wait for a sale since they can be so frequent. The industry kind of conditioned people into that and are surprised when people don't buy stuff at full price. It also hasn't been the best time economically for a lot of people, so luxuries are less of a priority.
The big question is: If consumers pay more, will the added funds be used to increase the quality of games and retain employees, or will they be used to line the pockets of greedy individuals even more? I don't mind paying more on developers who continue to push the medium forward. I want the games I like to continue being made.
I think Nintendo supports the idea of a more healthy industry. They still uphold value to their games while not chasing absurdly high production values. The culture within Nintendo seems to value retaining cultivating their employees.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
This should be kept open and stickied at the top of the page so people can pile on the OP endlessly.
People here legitimately think this crap and they've been talking shit on anyone trying to prioritize value in pricing this whole gen. They need to hear how stupid their corporate bootlicking really is, for a good while. What they have been advocating for 3 years straight is unsustainable, and they still are in denial. They think we can sustain it with bullshit.
Last edited:
Deerock71
Very Poor Hoice of Wor
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Genesis and snes and n64 carts were around $70-100 CDN. There might even had some n64 over $100. Not sure as I didn't have an N64 but I know for sure some games were $99.99.
And that was 25-30 years ago.
So with inflation people want games costing $200?
Talk about video game apologists hoping gamers group together and send a message they want to pay more for games. Weird.
Last edited:
Thick Thighs Save Lives
NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
Prices for games have increased from €60 to €80 just a few years ago so how about
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
We need to price poor people out of gaming. Let the chosen few carry the industry
Rhazer Fusion
Member
$60 to $70 is already pushing it especially for certain incomplete, broken or buggy games. Corporate greed in one of the reasons companies are losing money as well as escalating development costs. With the sheer over abundance of DLC, microtransactions, Season passes, etc, that is a huge contributing factor there. Imo companies need to try to make smaller, shorter less large budget games in addition to their AAA output for balance.
Isn't the Unreal Engine supposed to help keep prices down as well? Are most AAA games even using it because I played some U5 Engine games that imo can compete with AAA games visually.
Isn't the Unreal Engine supposed to help keep prices down as well? Are most AAA games even using it because I played some U5 Engine games that imo can compete with AAA games visually.
havoc00
Member
why stop at two?
Spyxos
Member
I germany we had two price increases. Towards the end of the Ps4 from 60 euros to 70 euros and then again to 80 euros with the Ps5. And I notice in my circle of friends that people are not prepared to fork out the 80 euros. Instead of spending the money now, they'd rather play f2p.
Last edited:
KXVXII9X
Member
Not every game has these though. This is assuming this is all anyone plays. I believe they are saying we should support the developers who are making great games without all the bs. You people say this crap but ignore all the quality AAA/AA games that don't have this and say they are too expensive. I've seen this with Sifu, Hi Fi Rush, Prince of Persia, Stray, and many more AA and Japanese made games without the bs.
soulbait
Member
I remember having to pay close to $100 for Conker's Bad Furday back when it was released on the N64. As a kid in high school, it was a lot of money. The cost then was justified due to the additional cartridge size.
I think $100+ (USD) for a game is a hard pill to swallow for most people. It is a psychological thing. I do not see games crossing that in a while.
The DLC content is what is helping them make up money for the budgets. However, the game needs to be good for people to come back and buy that DLC.
I think $100+ (USD) for a game is a hard pill to swallow for most people. It is a psychological thing. I do not see games crossing that in a while.
The DLC content is what is helping them make up money for the budgets. However, the game needs to be good for people to come back and buy that DLC.
Dazraell
Member
Yeah, in Poland plenty of AAA games on PS Store are priced to about 85 dollars at launch with today's currency rate. It's already too much
Last edited:
vodka-bull
Member
If games get substantially better I'd be willing to pay more. But as it is I have more fun with playing Metroid Prime 2 than with any other FPS that released in the past 10 years, I'd say developers should be glad I'm buying their games once they hit the below 20€ threshold.
Tajaz2426
Psychology PhD from Wikipedia University
Yeah, I don't play games with microtransactions, nor would I ever be dumb enough to throw my money in a blender.
I'm going to pay what I want to pay and if I don't then that's on the company for not enticing me to play their game. I don't owe them or their employees anything. I don't owe them support in any capacity unless they make what I want.
I'm thinking you think I care about the gaming industry and the people in it. I don't, it could go away tomorrow and I'll go mudding, hiking, fishing more. I don't let any company tell me what to pay or that I should pay for their product. That's not how this works.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
You totally can.
But when are you going to do it? Now? Or after you finish your all day ping pong tournament with free food and dry cleaning service?
clarky
Gold Member
Great news .
After of course, work always comes last!
Edit: on a serious note, is the OP ok? Getting the impression his opinion isnt going down too well. Somebody check on them.
Last edited:
Last Hearth
Member
Honestly the mentality of gamers worried about the "sustainability" of the game industry is in of itself laughable. Unless you're trying to break into and work in the industry. Why do you care?
Even if the entire AAA gaming industry completely collapsed and stop making games altogether, there are already enough great games out there that you haven't played that you will never run out of games to play until you die. Plus the indie industry will continue to make new games anyway. Did you know that the #2 wished for game on Steam, Manor Lords, is being made by one person? There would still be hundred of new games being made each year.
That being said, I don't have a problem paying more than $70 to play a game if I felt it was worth it. I probably would have paid over $100 to play BG3, whereas I probably wouldn't play Spiderman 2 if they gave it to me for free.
Even if the entire AAA gaming industry completely collapsed and stop making games altogether, there are already enough great games out there that you haven't played that you will never run out of games to play until you die. Plus the indie industry will continue to make new games anyway. Did you know that the #2 wished for game on Steam, Manor Lords, is being made by one person? There would still be hundred of new games being made each year.
That being said, I don't have a problem paying more than $70 to play a game if I felt it was worth it. I probably would have paid over $100 to play BG3, whereas I probably wouldn't play Spiderman 2 if they gave it to me for free.
Last edited:
Ristifer
Member
Anyone defending this is out to lunch. Look, I'll personally start a GoFundMe page for the poor games industry and you can throw your money into it there. At the end of it all, if I have enough money to completely revamp the entire video gaming industry, I'll happily donate it to all developers.
We're changing the world here, people!
We're changing the world here, people!
The game industry has no one to blame but themselves for the devaluing of games. There's gamepass for one (but that's a whole nother conversation ).
Everyone knows you can get basically every Ubisoft title 50% off a month after release if you wait. 90% off if you wait a year. I buy games I'm interested in two ways:
- At launch if it's a game where I want to support the developer or type of game they are making. I buy maybe 3 of these a year. This year it will be Rebirth, the new College Football game, and Elyusian Chronicles.
- On a deep sale if it is something I am interested in but maybe don't have time to play at the moment. I haven't paid more than $10 for a digital game in years. Physical I'm willing to spend more, but even then I get most physical games sub $20......with one exception. Nintendo. Their games don't go on deep discount and I know I'm getting a quality product. With a lot of games you run the risk it's trash, broken, a micro transaction filled mess, or unfinished in some way.
Scale back and focus on more mid-tier stuff with compelling gameplay and a unique art direction.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Banned
Why do you think this idea hasn't been considered by the entire industry for the last 20 years?
ShadyAcshuns
Member
Go ahead and throw money at them and see if it helps keep jobs, or just inflates their greedy pockets. Either way, don't expect it to help save the industry. Meanwhile, I'll continue to keep my wallet intact, and only reward the gems with coin, and let the lesser devs' fates unfold to famine or fortune.
Last edited:
Elysium44
Banned
You know what would happen if we didn't have more expensive food, rent, gas, devices?
Would it result in cheaper food, rent, gas, devices?
No, it would result in no food, rentals, gas, devices.
Last edited:
MacReady13
Member
As has been said before, if these muppets actually released full, complete games like we used to have instead of the shit we get served now in beta form that is already overpriced for what it is, then yes, i'm quite content paying more for games.
Complain all you want about Nintendo but they actually release completed games that work! They haven't caught up tech wise but who gives a shit? They make so much money and yet the one thing we want from games- to have FUN- is only given to us on a consistent basis by 1 company, and that's Nintendo. Stop spending exorbitant amounts on games that are easily disposable trash (i'm looking at you Spiderman 2) and give us more Mario Wonder please! You'd find less reason to spend hundreds of millions and in turn, less people would lose their jobs.
Complain all you want about Nintendo but they actually release completed games that work! They haven't caught up tech wise but who gives a shit? They make so much money and yet the one thing we want from games- to have FUN- is only given to us on a consistent basis by 1 company, and that's Nintendo. Stop spending exorbitant amounts on games that are easily disposable trash (i'm looking at you Spiderman 2) and give us more Mario Wonder please! You'd find less reason to spend hundreds of millions and in turn, less people would lose their jobs.
BobLeeSwagger
Banned
Bud, three of the five listed are necessities. People will pay for rent, food, and gas because they have no choice lol.
Gaming is an expensive hobby. I think there will be a good amount of people willing to spend more on gaming, for a social status.
winjer
Member
We already pay too much, for what is essentially a long term rental, that companies can revoke when they please. Or remove features, musics, etc.
And the 60-70$ price tag, for a lot of games, is just the bare minimum. Then there is DLCs, MTX, pre-order bonus, and companies even tried to push fucking NFTs.
And to make it much worse value than ever, most games are broken at launch and require months of patching.
Then we have the games that make players grind and grind to pad gameplay time. Or to "encourage" people to pay for XP boosts, or in-game items, etc.
And the 60-70$ price tag, for a lot of games, is just the bare minimum. Then there is DLCs, MTX, pre-order bonus, and companies even tried to push fucking NFTs.
And to make it much worse value than ever, most games are broken at launch and require months of patching.
Then we have the games that make players grind and grind to pad gameplay time. Or to "encourage" people to pay for XP boosts, or in-game items, etc.
clarky
Gold Member
Gaming is also a necessity you heathen. Wash your mouth out son
cart00nero
Member
NO.
Errr no way, i still play multi plat games on pc rather then consoles due to pc being at least £10 cheaper then on consoles, I no a lot of people who hold off buying new games and wait till they are in the sale, think I could happily box my ps5 up and just play play all the games I have on my ps4 all the way back to nes consoles, tbh i get more fun playing them games then i have with 90% stuff released on ps5. For me think the switch 2 will be last console ill ever buy
KXVXII9X
Member
"Scale back and focus on more mid-tier stuff with compelling gameplay and a unique art direction." I've been saying this for several years now. Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't even acknowledge games like Skull and Bones or Suicide Squad because they feel so forced, by the numbers, corporate, schlock. My profile pic should give you a hint of the kinds of games I like. Do you mean Eiyuden Chronicles? I'm very excited for that.
I don't think I explained my post the best. I'm not really for pricing of games to increase even more, but for people to not undervalue games made with quality and no bs. My comment was mostly in defense of the mid-tier games with interesting art directions. I also explained that I understand why people wait for sales and how that was the industries doing. I think more of my frustrations come from good quality mid-tier games that people outwardly dismiss and joke about it being a mobile game and how it should be free. From your comment, we are similar in our purchasing.
Moriarty1889
Member
Fuck off with paying more and getting less like we are with todays gaming. Only an absolute moron would want to pay more money for the shite they are putting out lately. However, there are a lot of morons out there who will gladly line up and do whatever is asked of them……..braindead sheep.
Valt7786
Member
ShadyAcshuns
Member
You jest, but that's exactly what I do when I find a game I love and want to throw my support behind. I'll either get a digital and physical version, or two physical versions on different systems. I'd much rather do that then spend $70 to $100 on random games I might not even like.
It also seems to me that most of the people who champion the idea of raising prices on games probably just buy a few games per year, and don't actually support the industry the way they claim others should.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I get it. I have a lot of games that I've bought more than once, too. Those games are exceptional and, in my opinion, are worth of the support. I don't feel that way about 99% of games, though. If someone told me that every $70 game being released should release at $100 I would probably die from laughing at them.
{insert code here}
Member
This is some straight-up Paul Krugman level of mental gymnastics to dance around the core issue. Fucking incredible mate, cheers
It's really sad that this is how most people see things. You're all going to get left behind when this whole house of cards falls down.
I don't see it working, for several reasons:
01. The market is completely saturated with games. And individual games themselves are now saturated with content. When you release games at a clip that people cannot realistically keep up with, it just makes it easier to wait for a price drop, because what is the point of buying something before you have time to play it? And with games being loaded to the gills with non "critical path" content, people will pour more hours into the games they own. In 2011, it was to delay trade ins which resulted in new copy sales being lost to second hand sales. In 2024, it is "engagement" to keep people playing and spend more on the game, be it expansions, microtransactions, or (I'm looking at you, Sega) New Game +.
02. There are really two major categories of gamers these days - people who buy a lot of games and have a very healthy backlog, and people who spend hundreds of hours each year on the same games. These are not mutually exclusive either, I'm sure plenty of people do both. Either way, you have people who have plenty of entertainment in front of them and do not need to be paying more than $70 on a new release.
03. The only games that could realistically sell in high volume at a higher than $69.99 MSRP on standard editions are the games that already make the most money - Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, etc. This is a "rich get richer" scenario, not a path that would do much good for publishers or developers on the bubble. It would not correct the "sustainability" issue at all. It is far more likely to exacerbate the problem.
The industry created a product saturation / glut problem, and it will be up to the industry to find a way to navigate through it. I think Game Pass Ultimate and PlayStation Plus Premium were an attempt at solving this, but ultimately run into the same problems when you are talking about people who already have a bunch of unfinished or yet to be played games. The cumulative pricing ($363 per year, before taxes) also makes it a tough sell for anyone to subscribe to both, and that assumes they either own both (still relatively expensive consoles) or one of the consoles and a gaming capable PC. And once you've got a gaming capable PC, you've likely got even more of a backlog on Steam and can routinely purchases discounted games either directly through steam or on reputable key sites.
Outside of some of very major properties, more expensive games would find themselves in the same scenario as streaming services outside of the top five: a massive discrepancy in subscribers / purchasers.
01. The market is completely saturated with games. And individual games themselves are now saturated with content. When you release games at a clip that people cannot realistically keep up with, it just makes it easier to wait for a price drop, because what is the point of buying something before you have time to play it? And with games being loaded to the gills with non "critical path" content, people will pour more hours into the games they own. In 2011, it was to delay trade ins which resulted in new copy sales being lost to second hand sales. In 2024, it is "engagement" to keep people playing and spend more on the game, be it expansions, microtransactions, or (I'm looking at you, Sega) New Game +.
02. There are really two major categories of gamers these days - people who buy a lot of games and have a very healthy backlog, and people who spend hundreds of hours each year on the same games. These are not mutually exclusive either, I'm sure plenty of people do both. Either way, you have people who have plenty of entertainment in front of them and do not need to be paying more than $70 on a new release.
03. The only games that could realistically sell in high volume at a higher than $69.99 MSRP on standard editions are the games that already make the most money - Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, etc. This is a "rich get richer" scenario, not a path that would do much good for publishers or developers on the bubble. It would not correct the "sustainability" issue at all. It is far more likely to exacerbate the problem.
The industry created a product saturation / glut problem, and it will be up to the industry to find a way to navigate through it. I think Game Pass Ultimate and PlayStation Plus Premium were an attempt at solving this, but ultimately run into the same problems when you are talking about people who already have a bunch of unfinished or yet to be played games. The cumulative pricing ($363 per year, before taxes) also makes it a tough sell for anyone to subscribe to both, and that assumes they either own both (still relatively expensive consoles) or one of the consoles and a gaming capable PC. And once you've got a gaming capable PC, you've likely got even more of a backlog on Steam and can routinely purchases discounted games either directly through steam or on reputable key sites.
Outside of some of very major properties, more expensive games would find themselves in the same scenario as streaming services outside of the top five: a massive discrepancy in subscribers / purchasers.
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
How the fuck are we getting less? Some of you must be high.
AAA Games are 30 hours MINIMUM now.
Explain how we are getting less
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
Given that companies were posting record profits not six months ago, I think layoffs have very little to do with the cost of the average AAA video game. The idea that games need to cost more because "won't someone think of the wholly owned subsidiaries!" is the most laughable thing I've read on the internet for a while.
Banjo64
cumsessed
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.001
I don't like paying full price for anything that's just not me.
metareferential
Member
So it's either fire the devs or milk consumers?
Fuck that.
Fuck that.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
I'll let you guys buy my games from now on if it would make you feel better. Who wants to buy rebirth for me?
Itchy Tickles
Member
So you (and I) overpaid a massive amount for games from the 80s to now, and you think game companies are the victims? We have been exploited and gouged since day 1. Have you seen how much money these companies make? How many MILLIONS the CEOs get as BONUSES?
Like others said, don't ignore season passes, online passes, console online services, dlc, or microtransactions (have you seen the recent Diablo 4 bundle, for example? Or Call of Dutys monthly Blackcell stuff?) How about controller prices? Game companies continue to exploit us, and you are here defending / feeling sorry for them? How about games like Tekken 8 announcing microtransactions after a month / after reviews? Activision and EA do that a lot, too. EA actually patched adverts in UFC 3 AND UFC 2 at one point. Ubisoft and I think Blizzard, maybe others like Epic, etc, recently sent out messages saying the prices of some shitty made-up in-game CURRENCY will have to cost more "due to inflation". Inflation only affects these million / billion dollar companies and not us peasants, of course, who see basic food prices rise and rise while the companies leaders get richer, but I digress.
On the Xbox 360 alone, for example, I remember paying £60-£70 constantly for games. On PS4 I remember having to pay £50 and that was digital games on their store as they stopped allowing game codes to be sold elsewhere, but as physical media I could buy the game for about £35 from an online retailer, which is so backwards. On Steam right now, outside of sales, Final Fantasy 7 Remake is £70 (thank fuck I don't care about the game but that's besides the point) more and more games are already upping there base price.
Why do you think so many people say, "looks good, but I'll have to wait for a sale" In my case as a full time PC gamer, I use sites like CDKeys as buying a game day 1 from a main digital platform like Steam makes no sense as I would be paying anywhere from 30 - 45% more. Oh and some of these companies take away access of your account / digital library if you don't sign in over a certain period. What the fuck?
Like others said, don't ignore season passes, online passes, console online services, dlc, or microtransactions (have you seen the recent Diablo 4 bundle, for example? Or Call of Dutys monthly Blackcell stuff?) How about controller prices? Game companies continue to exploit us, and you are here defending / feeling sorry for them? How about games like Tekken 8 announcing microtransactions after a month / after reviews? Activision and EA do that a lot, too. EA actually patched adverts in UFC 3 AND UFC 2 at one point. Ubisoft and I think Blizzard, maybe others like Epic, etc, recently sent out messages saying the prices of some shitty made-up in-game CURRENCY will have to cost more "due to inflation". Inflation only affects these million / billion dollar companies and not us peasants, of course, who see basic food prices rise and rise while the companies leaders get richer, but I digress.
On the Xbox 360 alone, for example, I remember paying £60-£70 constantly for games. On PS4 I remember having to pay £50 and that was digital games on their store as they stopped allowing game codes to be sold elsewhere, but as physical media I could buy the game for about £35 from an online retailer, which is so backwards. On Steam right now, outside of sales, Final Fantasy 7 Remake is £70 (thank fuck I don't care about the game but that's besides the point) more and more games are already upping there base price.
Why do you think so many people say, "looks good, but I'll have to wait for a sale" In my case as a full time PC gamer, I use sites like CDKeys as buying a game day 1 from a main digital platform like Steam makes no sense as I would be paying anywhere from 30 - 45% more. Oh and some of these companies take away access of your account / digital library if you don't sign in over a certain period. What the fuck?
Last edited: