Bernd Lauert
Banned
The market will ultimately decide whether $70 is too much. So far the reception has been rather lukewarm.
-
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.
Once again, I'm here to remind you that every argument in favor of $70 games is wrong.
A remake is not the same as a remaster.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
There's always someone who doesnt understand that one price includes tax and one doesn't, and unfortunately, today it's you.
TheGecko
Banned
I'm still the end buyer paying that price aren't I you muppet.
Last edited:
jigglet
Banned
If I spent the last 10 years rallying against why a $10 increase in a hobby that had me buying 5 games a year was a bad thing (zmg $50 a year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), I'd look at myself in the mirror and think: why the flying fuck did I take an arts degree.
(answer: the arts degree was a great excuse to get high, but you knew in your heart of hearts it was never going to pay the bills)
(answer: the arts degree was a great excuse to get high, but you knew in your heart of hearts it was never going to pay the bills)
Last edited:
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
People keep refusing Sony’s advice of getting two jobs.
You pay £10 or whatever for 1.5hrs and can't even replay it. You buy a game you get many more hours of entertainment and it's yours. You can even resell it if you bought physical. Value and quality is up to the individual.
Last edited:
Uiki
Member
Why would I need an excuse?
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
You mean a remaster or the availability of playing your purchased halo 6 on next generation?
Microsoft is already full supporting bc all the way back to the first xbox.
You even get a PC version of the game.
Don't know why
Ezekiel_
find it so funny though.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
If I as creator want to charge more than you, the end user, are willing to pay, that's my right. Tough titties.
You aren't entitled to my work, there's no conceivable scenario where you absolutely need it in order to prevent suffering or deprivation in your life, and so there's no moral question about access being withheld.
You can't even argue exploitation based on material or manufacturing cost when its a creative work, where value is somewhat intangible and based on provenance and reputation. i.e. its not just A thing, it's a thing BY that creator.
Bottom line: You aren't entitled. You have no inalienable right, your option is to pay or don't pay. Choice is yours.
You aren't entitled to my work, there's no conceivable scenario where you absolutely need it in order to prevent suffering or deprivation in your life, and so there's no moral question about access being withheld.
You can't even argue exploitation based on material or manufacturing cost when its a creative work, where value is somewhat intangible and based on provenance and reputation. i.e. its not just A thing, it's a thing BY that creator.
Bottom line: You aren't entitled. You have no inalienable right, your option is to pay or don't pay. Choice is yours.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Hardly seems appropriate to throw around insults when someone is trying to help. Nonetheless, since I obviously didn't make it clear enough - American price $70 + 20% tax (that is included in the uk price) = $84. Roughly what you said the Brits pay, and British prices include tax.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Back in the N64/PS2/Gamecube/etc eras publishers had to split every single sale with retailers as well as royalty fees, etc.
Now they get a much larger cut of the sale via the vastly dominant digital platform that cuts out the middlemen. Also saves them money on manufacturing costs.
But those savings are never brought up. It’s just gamers arguing that we should be handing over more money for $70 starter editions, that come with Battle Passes and extra paid content. All to a far larger audience then ever before.
That’s not even getting to the money these publishers collect by selling their game to Microsoft for Game Pass, Sony for Plus, Epic to be on their shitty store, Etc.
You want to spend $70, all the power to you. Personally I can’t even count on one hand the number of games I’ve played that deserve that kind of money taken out of my wallet.
Now they get a much larger cut of the sale via the vastly dominant digital platform that cuts out the middlemen. Also saves them money on manufacturing costs.
But those savings are never brought up. It’s just gamers arguing that we should be handing over more money for $70 starter editions, that come with Battle Passes and extra paid content. All to a far larger audience then ever before.
That’s not even getting to the money these publishers collect by selling their game to Microsoft for Game Pass, Sony for Plus, Epic to be on their shitty store, Etc.
You want to spend $70, all the power to you. Personally I can’t even count on one hand the number of games I’ve played that deserve that kind of money taken out of my wallet.
FalsettoVibe
Member
This.
All to a far larger audience than ever before isn't accurate though. Game sales have declined not gone up. The audience has gone up but largely from people who play f2p games and pay for mtxs. Games with zero microtransactions are not making more money than before.
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Didn't know that, very interesting. I wonder, if like music and films, if the records that were set in the past for number of purchases will ever be broken.
gunslikewhoa
Member
Where the fuck are you paying 20% sales tax?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I don’t believe game sales have declined one bit.
The industry has never been like it is now where three consoles are doing well, the PC market is massive, and mobile is gigantic. There’s more games released now then ever before. No previous generation compares.
Especially when you look at those old generations that are brought up.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Pointless comparison really.
Can’t you buy a wooden mansion with 40 acres of land in most American states for about £4k?
In the UK you have to pay about £800k for a bedsit on the outskirts of Stoke-on-Trent.
I kid (a little).
John Wick
Member
Sony are bang out of order charging $70 for The Last of Us. It should be $50 with multiplayer thrown in. Otherwise £30. Even then I see no point in them making it as the PS4 remake was good enough.
But with the way things are it's inevitable that most games will rise to $70 if not more. World is gone crazy. Do we expect console prices to go up?
But with the way things are it's inevitable that most games will rise to $70 if not more. World is gone crazy. Do we expect console prices to go up?
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
He is using the UK tax percentage to show why the price is so much higher.
John Wick
Member
Also with game subs now, playing games will be cheaper for some.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Not anymore. Google average house prices in the USA.
John Wick
Member
I never pay full price. Do people not shop around for deals? Use sites like hotukdeals etc.
Sometimes waiting a week or two can make a ten pound difference.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Everyone shops around, the topic is about the RRP though.
Hardware sales combined isn't that much higher than other gens but PC, console and especially mobile hardware sales doesn't represent software sales if people are playing F2P games like Fortnite, Rocket League, Apex Legends, CoD Warzone, Roblox etc.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
I did when I made my comment (just so I didn’t look silly!), there’s websites that break it down by state.
The US is so vast that the average house price in some of the southern/middle states is extremely low but then the overall numbers are boosted by the insane cost of living in places like California - it makes any cost of living comparison with the UK moot.
From an English perspective; yes we’ve had £70 games before with the N64. I’d argue that those games were worth it due to cartridge costs, no MTX and groundbreaking 3D graphics. Following on from that the price of games dipped in the PS2-PS3 era to around £40 for a new game day one. Is £70 acceptable in the UK for a stripped back TLOU when we are entering a recession and Sony are making money hand over fist with PSN/PS Plus? Not in my opinion. Am I poor or do I need another hobby? Not at all, a fool and his money are easily parted and Sony will have to do much better than TLOU Part 1 for me to buy a game day one at that price.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Well, if you wish to cherry pick and find the cheapest place in the USA and put it up against a Million Pound house in Stoke on Trent, then I guess it works. The fact is that the average house price in the USA is higher than the average house price in the UK.
Mithos
Member
If they release a Halo 6 named game anytime in the future, I've already paid for Halo 6, I mean they claim they are selling a license and not a product, so lets go all in on that.You mean a remaster or the availability of playing your purchased halo 6 on next generation?
Microsoft is already full supporting bc all the way back to the first xbox.
You even get a PC version of the game.
Don't know why
So yeah, Halo 6 or Halo 6: Remastered or Halo 6: Remake, sake game different name.
If this becomes a thing I'll absolutely pay that asked €70+ for a game.
Edit:
Also, YES, if they are selling me a license to play Halo 6 for €70+ it should be platform agnostic. (a small thumbs up on MS for at least for that)
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
Well yeah like I said it was a bit of a joke comparison, and that’s why I said comparisons are moot. There’s other factors like salaries and healthcare and other additional costs that also further render the comparison pointless.
As an example, for the role of senior manager you can expect to earn £62,500 on average in the UK, whereas the in the USA the same position has an average salary of $136,048 (£98,113).
I can only speak for the perspective of an average Englishman when I’m telling you the worth of a game to me. I’m sure $70 is offensive/inoffensive to many Americans depending on their individual circumstances also.
CherryFalls
Banned
You mean 1 hour of entertainment then 19 hours of recycled repetition
Last edited by a moderator:
BlackTron
Gold Member
It's alarming to me how few people seem to get this. Inflation is simply tracking what a dollar is worth. Value of a dollar fluctuates all the time to begin with, but companies don't like to change their prices constantly because it's bad for marketing, bad for retail organization and appears petty. In the same way a restaurant can't print new menus every day just because of a cost fluctuation. I'm sure there were times that Japanese companies wanted to add a few dollars to their games because they feel the weak dollar directly when they transfer their money to yen, but didn't.
The value of a dollar changes regardless of whether the items it's being used to buy change in price. If inflation increases, and the prices of those goods don't increase at pace, then you're simply paying less money than before for the same item, and the company is taking a hit. It won't be such a "theoretical" idea when that company tries to exchange that money for its own currency and finds that it gets less of it because the value of the dollar was destroyed. Or when its own employees want more money to compensate for their own increased costs due to inflation.
When we talk about inflation, it's all other things being equal. Sure, prices can go down or up for a multitude of reasons. It could be more efficient production, or supply and demand, or anything else. Those things don't change the value of a dollar though. They're independent of inflation's effects. Yes, many companies try to absorb the hit, but there's a limit, if inflation keeps rising they will eventually bump it.
Let's say that due to more efficient management and processes, Sony managed to shave off $5 of 2017 money. That would equate to a game being about $65 today. Sony actually continued selling games at the same $60 despite losing money on inflation for years, and waited for the gen change to do anything about it because it was just smarter timing to hit everybody with it.
Nintendo's evergreen $60 titles are essentially "Player's Choice" cheaper versions now due to inflation. They would be smart to simply let them sit as they are and whistle nonchalantly.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Do you think Sony should be passing on the increased operating costs to the consumer or should they not tap in to the billions they now make through their 30% cut on PSN and 50 million PS Plus subscribers?
Hugare
Gold Member
- "It's inevitable. People will pay it."
Good luck getting that new standard to stick."
So, about the last part. Bad news: the new standard is already here for good.
"No, I won't. I'll just wait for titles to drop in price or during a Steam sale.". Good for you. But this wont change shit.
Maybe you did the same when games were $60, and how well did that boycott go, OP?
It's all about the same old supply and demand argument, There's no hidden reason, no "games are getting hard to develop" and etc., it's all about people are willing to pay more, so why the hell not?
Prices will keep going up until eventually people get enough of it, sales drop, then prices will adjust
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Yep. Games with "unlimited" resolution, performance, controllers support, mods, tweaks, settings should be easily worthy more.
John Wick
Member
That price is inevitable with the way things are going. Sooner rather than later $70 will be the norm.
Topher
Identifies as young
Which one do you think will help Sony beat its projected earnings each quarter?
DETACA
Banned
INTERESTING!
BlackTron
Gold Member
This doesn't take too many mental gymnastics to comprehend. $60 in 2017 is $72.50 in today's money. In other words Sony is selling games for a few bucks less now than in 2017. So if you think that games should not be $70 now, that is taking the same position as being mad that games did not go DOWN to $50 had inflation not taken place.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
No. But considering they’re making more money now then they ever have, why stop at $70? Why not charge $100 a game or more?
Topher
Identifies as young
Probably because that price would far outpace demand and actually result in less revenue.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Ah ok, so in that case I wonder if Sony have increased the pay of their employees by 18% or anywhere close? After all, their salaries now are worth much less than they were in 2017.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
And once again, I'm here to remind you that I'll spend my money however I please.
I'm a grown adult with an actual paying job. So if I feel like paying $70 for a game, I will, and I don't care what some random entitled whiner on the Internet says.
I'm a grown adult with an actual paying job. So if I feel like paying $70 for a game, I will, and I don't care what some random entitled whiner on the Internet says.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
DispatchNinja
Banned
You only get 1 hour of entertainment out of the games you buy? Stop wasting money on things you don’t enjoy
BlackTron
Gold Member
I have no idea, but actually, yeah I would expect higher wages than in 2017. Depends though. I know a guy who owns a school bus company who got reamed with gas prices because he had contracts set up. So he had essentially no operating profit due to being locked into contracts agreed upon when prices were better. This is an inherent risk. Maybe some employees have employment contracts and they have to absorb the difference. Just like Sony absorbed the difference for years of inflation without going past $60. I would certainly suspect the compensation of new hires to be different.
Employees are not the only expense. What about the retailer's profit margin? What about distribution costs of physical games and hardware due to inflation/higher gas prices/ increased truckers wages? We could go on all day, there is no 1:1 system of exactly when and how prices ought to change, but to make it VERY simple for everyone, everything else being equal, $60 in 2017 equals $72 today. Again, not that hard. Once you realize that, your argument shifts as to why Sony should be making their games cheaper. Adjusted for inflation, there was never a price increase, they just decided to be nice for a long time.