Is it me or are games becoming way too expensive for what they are?

[Grantorino]

Edit: I don't care about this thread anymore so just let it fade away please. Thank you.

[Sentinel 08295]

Автор сообщения: Grantorino

Money isn't a problem for me but imagine paying £70 pounds for the Demon Souls remaster. How do you even justify that?

Games are actually much cheaper now with game sale sites like Reddit Game Deals and Cheap Shark. Other than a new release there is no reason to ever pay full price for a game that's been out for at least 60 days. Then again I am not a poor teenager or young adult so I don't have to really budget my game spending, even though I still do out of habit.

[Start_Running]

Автор сообщения: brian9824

Автор сообщения: ;2974027084085242416

We have already had shifts in the industry. Day-1 DLC comes to mind. So it's as always complicated.

That's less to do with a shift in the industry and more to do with the tech. A game goes gold MONTHS before its released because they need the time to produce units, distribute copies to the stores, etc.

That gives them time to work on DLC and other features as they can no push it to customers over the internet where as 20 years ago the game was dead and nothing could be added to it.

Those DLC like anything else also go on sale pretty fast

YTo look at it another way. Once the Game Gioes gold and work stops you still have a whole team of artists, programmers and audio engineers sitting on their hands. Now sure you could move them to a new project but you kuinda want the team to stick around and together post release because there will be issues that will need patching, rewiorking etc. SO what do you do with that paid labour? You put them to work on DLC and extra content. Keeps them sharp, and gives you more content to sell.

Автор сообщения: The nameless Commander

There is one part of the picture that is concerning. Investors/shareholders are like a black hole. The more you give them, the more they demand next year.

Its not qyuite as imple. Investors are basically trying to get the most out of their money. If you invest in a company the return should at least be better than what you'd get from a bank or government paper. And WIth investment for the most part its all about riding that growth curve and figuring the right point to cash out. SO companies generally ahve to maintain growth to keep old investors happy and new investors coming in.

Of course there are ways around this but thats a slow and very risky process.

They don't understand that a market is eventually saturated as well as that the purchasing power of the customers has a limit. Capitalism is a system which needs constant growth and expansion, but the space for that is finite.

Nope. The MArket as in the audience might not grow but there's always a matter of making sure more of that audience is buying and playing YOUR games as opposed to someone else's

There has to be a business model for these "flatline" times as well.

Oh there is. There's people for example who buy stocks for their growth so they can sell high, and then there's people who buy for the dividends. Dvidends are never going to yield you nearly as much (common idea is that you're break even on the initial investment after 10 years or so) and its very much a long term game.

Let's assume people will keep spending more and more on games despite their purchasing power not rising.

Then the question becomes. WHat is the consumer sacrificing to purchase the games.

Eventually however, the costs for gaming will start eating into bare necessities. And all of a sudden, the number of customers plummets, and so does the revenue, because the amount of people spending has drastically decreased.

Not really. At that point the game is just about making sure the customer pends their money on your stuff rather thasn the other guys.

Lets take it another way. Say we have a scenario where a gamer has $100 a month for gaming. FOr the publisher/developers their game is to make sure as much of that $100 gets spent on their goods and not their competitors. Thats where marketing comes in.

[The nameless Gamer]

Автор сообщения: Start_Running

Автор сообщения: The nameless Commander

There is one part of the picture that is concerning. Investors/shareholders are like a black hole. The more you give them, the more they demand next year.

Its not qyuite as imple. Investors are basically trying to get the most out of their money. If you invest in a company the return should at least be better than what you'd get from a bank or government paper. And WIth investment for the most part its all about riding that growth curve and figuring the right point to cash out. SO companies generally ahve to maintain growth to keep old investors happy and new investors coming in.

Of course there are ways around this but thats a slow and very risky process.

They don't understand that a market is eventually saturated as well as that the purchasing power of the customers has a limit. Capitalism is a system which needs constant growth and expansion, but the space for that is finite.

Nope. The MArket as in the audience might not grow but there's always a matter of making sure more of that audience is buying and playing YOUR games as opposed to someone else's

But that eventually leads to cannibalism between predators. So the companies are growing at each other's expense at one point. I wonder if there is a better and more elaborate system than this primitive "dog-eat-dog" model.

Автор сообщения: Start_Running

Eventually however, the costs for gaming will start eating into bare necessities. And all of a sudden, the number of customers plummets, and so does the revenue, because the amount of people spending has drastically decreased.

Not really. At that point the game is just about making sure the customer pends their money on your stuff rather thasn the other guys.

Lets take it another way. Say we have a scenario where a gamer has $100 a month for gaming. FOr the publisher/developers their game is to make sure as much of that $100 gets spent on their goods and not their competitors. Thats where marketing comes in.

No amount of marketing will make people choose entertainment over bare necessities. Unless a person is a heavy addict.

[crunchyfrog]

Автор сообщения: 󠀡󠀡

And they will keep going up, same thing happening with the GPUs and stuff.
The whole "I want it,I want it now!!!" mentality is allowing them to do it. Enjoy paying 150 for an indie game in 3 years.

Yeah, I'm sorry but that's just silly hyperbole.

This doesn't occur in a vacuum. People haven't suddenly got impatient and want things NOW. It's ALWAYS been the case especially for things like games. I recall my first memory of this sort of thing being queues for Christmas shopping in the early 1980s, and some of the desperation to get one of the computers then.

It's ALWAYS been there and to that degree.

And publishers and developers know this. But they also know basic sales data too. They know that increasing the price will generate less sales, so they don't hike it up too much. This new generation attempt at a price hike happens EVERY console generation. Nothing new there.

Why it's perhaps generated more interest is simply down to triple A publishers ballooning costs. It's getting a bit sticky for them, through their own faults, and they publicise this to test the water.

[Start_Running]

Автор сообщения: The nameless Commander

But that eventually leads to cannibalism between predators. So the companies are growing at each other's expense at one point. I wonder if there is a better and more elaborate system than this primitive "dog-eat-dog" model.

Thats literally how competition works, in every environment.

For every one person hired for a job, it means about 3 other people didn't get hired.
For every 1 gold-medal sprinter there are at least 9 others who didn't get gold.
Welcome to the world of business competition. Thats how it has been, and how it will always be in a capitalist free market, at least until we hit the post-scarcity singularity.


Also FYI cannibalism in the business sense is where one of your own products eats into the market share of another of your products.. Or simply put, when you ahve two products competing for the same audience at the same time.

Автор сообщения: Start_Running

Not really. At that point the game is just about making sure the customer pends their money on your stuff rather thasn the other guys.

Lets take it another way. Say we have a scenario where a gamer has $100 a month for gaming. FOr the publisher/developers their game is to make sure as much of that $100 gets spent on their goods and not their competitors. Thats where marketing comes in.

No amount of marketing will make people choose entertainment over bare necessities. Unless a person is a heavy addict.

I didn't say this was about eating into necessities. My example is specifies $100 as a budgeted gaming fund. Sure this doesn't apply for everyone the number is going to be different but no matter what your number you can find something to enjoy in your budget. If you have nio leeway to afford games ...well you have problems to sort out and the less time you spend playing games the better.

Games are a *luxury* item. You are not entitled to anything you haven't earned the money to pay for. Thats how the world works. NO matter where you are.

[The nameless Gamer]

Автор сообщения: Start_Running

Автор сообщения: The nameless Commander

But that eventually leads to cannibalism between predators. So the companies are growing at each other's expense at one point. I wonder if there is a better and more elaborate system than this primitive "dog-eat-dog" model.

Thats literally how competition works, in every environment.

For every one person hired for a job, it means about 3 other people didn't get hired.
For every 1 gold-medal sprinter there are at least 9 others who didn't get gold.
Welcome to the world of business competition. Thats how it has been, and how it will always be in a capitalist free market, at least until we hit the post-scarcity singularity.


Also FYI cannibalism in the business sense is where one of your own products eats into the market share of another of your products.. Or simply put, when you ahve two products competing for the same audience at the same time.

No amount of marketing will make people choose entertainment over bare necessities. Unless a person is a heavy addict.

I didn't say this was about eating into necessities. My example is specifies $100 as a budgeted gaming fund. Sure this doesn't apply for everyone the number is going to be different but no matter what your number you can find something to enjoy in your budget. If you have nio leeway to afford games ...well you have problems to sort out and the less time you spend playing games the better.

Games are a *luxury* item. You are not entitled to anything you haven't earned the money to pay for. Thats how the world works. NO matter where you are.

Ah, I see. Well, thanks for the clarification. As for the "entitlement" part... gaming is still hardly the most expensive hobby (as a regular manga buyer, I have first-hand experience). Occasional indie gems are satiating my current gaming needs. Wouldn't want to see them go due to the negative trends in the industry. If they do... c'est la vie. The majority is speaking and it seems to be embracing the mainstream trends. I'll be enjoying my good (gaming) times while they last.

[Radene]

Автор сообщения: Start_Running

You are not entitled to anything you haven't earned the money to pay for. Thats how the world works. NO matter where you are.

That is up to debate in many countries these days. And thank ♥♥♥♥ for that. I mean, not so long ago, you'd have said something like "You are not entitled to anything unless you own some land".

Entertainment isn't a luxury, by the way. It's needed for a mind to stay functional. Yes, sure, you may entertain yourself in other ways, but gaming is one of the cheapest hobbies with greatest returns per money spent, if you do it with some consideration.

[Satoru]

Автор сообщения: cinedine

[
Also this would only hold a candle IF games would actually tick the boxes above. As it stands most of them are rather iterations of the sequels with re-used assets and technology and lots of filler content. Ever wondered why games have warehouse and sewer levels?Also the quality is often lackluster. Recent examples: XII remake, Watch Dogs: Legion

Note that good/bad games have nothing to do with any of the above.

Lets also kinda ignore that a metric ton of WD games require the devs to recreate entire cities from scratch. Almost thing from WD1/2 could even be used in WD:L. So again you cant reuse most of your assets there, you're functionally building a city, entirely from scratch.

Lastly someone needs to explain to me how NBA 2K21 is worth ten bucks/quid more than NBA2K16. With all the added secondary monetization and freaking unskipable in-game adds that were totally an accident to include. We are sorry you got annoyed by them.

https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/15/18184044/nba-2k-license-agreement-take-two

So lets go over that. The licensing deal for 7 years is going to cost them up to 1 billion dollars. Meaning that you have to make 142 million dollars a year, to just cover the LICENSING cost for the next 7 years. Oh btw the previous contract was around 500 million meaning you were only 70 million in the hole at the beginning of each game.

So you're now in charge of a game that has to make upwards of 100 million not to break even but to cover the licensing cost. Here's the reality, when that much money is on the line, people get VERY conservative with creative decisions. No one wants to be 'that guy' who tanked the franchise. Someone has a fun/crazy idea? that's probably gonna get shut down hard unless you can basically prove it will make a metric ton of money. since there are functionally no other basketball games, well you basically have no other metric to measure other than, other NBA games. So producers are going to only make very conservative changes jsut so they can keep their jobs. The risk of doing something 'weird' is not an option.

Licesning NBA is expensive meaning that iterative changes to the franchise are small to avoid any high risk scenario where you can't recoup that extremely expensive licensing cost.

And the ultimate metric. The reality is people keep buying the NBA games. Meaning that the only actual metric of success is previous NBA games. Meaning that consumer behavior has not indicated that this is a problem no matter how much 'gamers' say it is.

[Lunacy]

Better than paying an extra $20 for Dark Souls for an extra bonfire and resizeable ui

[Paratech2008]

I agree with those who mentioned Super NES and Sega Genesis games. There were $70 games including Super Street Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat II, Starfox, Phantasy Star IV, Donkey Kong Country, etc...

Now games with DLC are upwards of $100, but patient gamers can wait about six months to a year and get 50% or more off games...

[Tito Shivan]

Автор сообщения: Paratech2008

I agree with those who mentioned Super NES and Sega Genesis games. There were $70 games including Super Street Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat II, Starfox, Phantasy Star IV, Donkey Kong Country, etc...

Now games with DLC are upwards of $100, but patient gamers can wait about six months to a year and get 50% or more off games...

You have to account for inflation when comparing game prices. SNES games weren't precisely cheaper back then either:
https://techraptor.net/gaming/features/cost-of-gaming-since-1970s

The rival to the Sega Genesis, the Super Nintendo (SNES) would be another massive success for Nintendo, netting over 49 million units sold between 1990 and 2003. A ton of classic titles were released on the system, from Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country, and Street Fighter II.

Cost at Launch (1990): $199.99
Cost Today (2020): $395.81
Average Game Cost (1990): $59.99
Average Game Cost (2020): $118.73

[Naota]

Автор сообщения: Tito Shivan

Автор сообщения: cinedine

Frankly, I have stopped to care. I'll still call them out on this. But it's hard to shame a company for doing something that the market proves them right on.
You can lambast companies all you want, but in the end it's the consumers who support such behaviour - and in some cases actively encrourage them to deploy some.

That's why I keep saying wallets speak louder than words.

Автор сообщения: Naota

There's literally no reason to waste my time or my money with them.

Devs have to work to earn my money. Otherwise, they are ignored

Have you considered those devs may not be after your money?
There's a lot of fish out there and not every customer is worth attracting.

One thing I've noticed over the years is how there's a certain subset of people who react negatively to discovering they're not the ones in the spotlight. They're not the target demographic anymore of product X and the product is no longer catering to their tastes.

Kind of like the old recalcitrant fan being bitter all around how his favourite band 'went commercial' and 'have changed' but in videogame version.

First of all - of course they're after my money, they are after as much money as they can get

I'll say it again - I have almost 500 games - at least 200 of those are backlog, and another 100 on wishlist

in a saturated market - They need us more than we need them

I don't need to waste my time or money with anti consumer devs - I just won't buy their product .
The End

[Realigo Actual]

My god! Imagine how bad it would be if the licensors ever started to concern themselves with how much money the people they're licensing to are making and what their markets look like!

Licensing costs would probably go through a nightmare change overnight! The sports franchises would be out of business overnight! We wouldn't have an NBA game for 10 years!

I also think the hobby would be much better off without the gamers and instead just had the consumers, you know those guys who spend the most and are exposed to the actions of the industry most often, versions those gamers who just get maybe one game a year and complain about everything.

[TheTycoon]

I spent 5500 PHP on MS Flight Simulator Premium Deluxe yesterday.

Still trying to install it.

[Crazy Tiger]

Автор сообщения: Naota

First of all - of course they're after my money, they are after as much money as they can get

Yes and no. They're after the money of their target audience. Money from people who fall outside their target audience is a bonus that always will be welcome.

Game devs who create lots of DLC are after the people who will purchase them. If you don't want to purchase such games or refuse to purchase the DLCs, then you simply don't fall within the actual target audience.

So yes, they still will like your money, but no, they're not initially after your money. There is a difference there.

Автор сообщения: Naota

I don't need to waste my time or money with anti consumer devs - I just won't buy their product .
The End

And towards those devs, you are not the target audience. It's not your money they're after. They're after the money of the people who do spend their money and time on those games. As said, they would still like your money, but it's not that money they're after.