Game publishers don't understand how inflation works

[biesoid]

Inflation doesn't mean people have more money to spend on games, it means cost of food, electricity, gas etc. rises, so people have less money to spend on entertainment and they will eventually give up and quit the hobby.

[miakisfan]

引用自 Start_Running：

引用自 miakisfan：

I agree with 99% of everything you said. The only thing I don't is thinking someone isn't watching these boards, Steam or otherwise. It pays to knows what people are thinking no matter if it is negative or positive.

And if I am being honest here then if Steam or developer controlled boards aren't being followed closely what is the point of forums? There have to be mods running them. At some point something will be said that gets directed to the right people.

You'd be surprised m8.
You'd be surprised. The point of the boards.. is right there in the name. DIscussion. It's for users to discuss stuff amongst themselves.

Always remember in capitalism there's a constant tug of war between buyers and sellers. Sellers will always charge the maximum price they can get away with.

I live in a capitalistic society so no, I wouldn't be surprised at all. I'm well aware of how capitalism works. At 58 years old I wouldn't be surprised if I knew about capitalism before you were born.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

This is also in the name. Steam Community Forums. They are solely made up of other Steam users.

[Start_Running]

引用自 miakisfan：

引用自 Start_Running：

You'd be surprised m8.
You'd be surprised. The point of the boards.. is right there in the name. DIscussion. It's for users to discuss stuff amongst themselves.

Always remember in capitalism there's a constant tug of war between buyers and sellers. Sellers will always charge the maximum price they can get away with.

I live in a capitalistic society so no, I wouldn't be surprised at all. I'm well aware of how capitalism works. At 58 years old I wouldn't be surprised if I knew about capitalism before you were born.

Unlikely. Unless a time machine was involved. And Knowing about capitalism and understanding all the ramifications of it are two very different things.

引用自 miakisfan：

1) You can be a fan of a business and realize it is a business. Besides, I never said I was a fan. I appreciate what they do. BIG difference.

You can appreciate something without being a fan. Being fan implies being some sort of follower and having some sense of allegience to it. And I can't imagine having that towards a business.

引用自 miakisfan：

2) You know the people who say the U.S. is "living large" aren't paying attention to what has been going on here lately ... not to mention that some folk keep fooling themselves into believing the U.S. economy doesn't have a part in the larger world. You pay zero attention to what the U.S. gives to other countries. That's the simple truth. If you were as smart as you sound you'd be in the U.S. "living large" with the rest of us. It's a straw man argument that is used by people who can't be honest. BTW it isn't my fault or the fault of others where you live. If you want to better yourself you know what to do.

Just saying m8. I've been able to amas a sizeable library of great games without being wealthy. As said. As long as you aren't trying to buy the latest AAA launch day releases... you can buy lots of games. Great games, which have had all their bugs ironed out already .

引用自 C²C^Guyver |NZB|：

This is also in the name. Steam Community Forums. They are solely made up of other Steam users.

You'd think the use of those words was meant to carry some meaning?

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

You think so, but it seems people just like to ignore things lol

[Satoru]

引用自 miakisfan：

引用自 Start_Running：

You'd be surprised m8.
You'd be surprised. The point of the boards.. is right there in the name. DIscussion. It's for users to discuss stuff amongst themselves.

Always remember in capitalism there's a constant tug of war between buyers and sellers. Sellers will always charge the maximum price they can get away with.

I live in a capitalistic society so no, I wouldn't be surprised at all. I'm well aware of how capitalism works. At 58 years old I wouldn't be surprised if I knew about capitalism before you were born.

Allow me to reiterate the appropriate adage

Age does not equal wisdom

[BJWyler]

引用自 biesoid：

引用自 BJWyler：

Again, you not being able to afford Starfield is not the problem you think it is. You don't have a right to play Starfield. If you can't afford it, then don't buy it. Simple as, just like your own solution stated. I can't afford a Dodge Viper, so I don't buy a Dodge Viper. You don't see me going to the forums to complain that luxury cars are too expensive. Man, the entitlement of gamers nowadays is simply staggering.

Todd Howard is driving Dodge Viper and you are betatesting $80 Starfield.

So? He has the money to drive a Viper. I choose when I pay for Starfield and how much I am willing to pay. I don't feel the need to be jealous over someone else's success.

引用自 biesoid：

The topic is about publishers trying to use inflation as an excuse to raise prices despite still making hundreds of millions in profits.
There is no need to raise the price if Diablo 4 made $666 revenue in 5 days, so if the game cost $300 mil they made $300 mil already, now imagine if the game was cheaper and they only made $200 mil in 5 days, really hard to understand.

No, the topic is about you not understanding the first thing about how inflation works, being jealous of people with more money than you, and not liking that microtransactions are a viable business model in the gaming industry which is one of the reasons why the price of games has remained relatively flat compared to the cost of living and actual rises in inflation.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

引用自 RasaNova：

I'm not a huge fan of $70 being the new norm for AAA games (which are a luxury that we don't have to buy, unlike food or clothing) but inflation has pretty much dodged the gaming industry for literal decades. It was not uncommon to pay upwards of $50 for a game in the 80s. Today, many excellent games can be had for $15 - $25. But if we're impatient or we just want the latest and greatest as soon as it releases, well yeah the cost of new blockbusters is finally starting to increase by 15%.

"Today, many excellent games can be had for 15-25$ initially. Then they are going to ask you to dish out the same amount four or five times over time instead of just giving it all to you at once for a smaller price. All this with completely buggy software at launch."

There, I fixed it for ya. If you want to compare stuff, at least compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 BJWyler：

No, the topic is about you not understanding the first thing about how inflation works, being jealous of people with more money than you, and not liking that microtransactions are a viable business model in the gaming industry which is one of the reasons why the price of games has remained relatively flat compared to the cost of living and actual rises in inflation.

Microtansactions are not the reason why prices are stable. They are a cheap way to make extra money.

If games cost too much, many games would make less money.
If your game costs too much, people will buy something else.

[Nx Machina]

引用自 biesoid：

Inflation doesn't mean people have more money to spend on games, it means cost of food, electricity, gas etc. rises, so people have less money to spend on entertainment and they will eventually give up and quit the hobby.

Inflation affects every consumable product.

Secondly your boss wants you to take a pay cut to help reduce costs yet i can guarantee you will say no.

[BaLuX]

引用自 biesoid：

The topic is about publishers trying to use inflation as an excuse to raise prices despite still making hundreds of millions in profits.

Explain then why games have been keeping the same price for many years.

On the contrary, if you consider inflation, games have been becoming cheaper and cheaper in price.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

引用自 BaLuX：

引用自 biesoid：

The topic is about publishers trying to use inflation as an excuse to raise prices despite still making hundreds of millions in profits.

Explain then why games have been keeping the same price for many years.

On the contrary, if you consider inflation, games have been becoming cheaper and cheaper in price.

Games used to ship with cardboard boxes with (most of the time) beautiful art. A small text book explaining the game, how to use/play it and sometimes several extras. Not to mention that it had a physical medium of some kind, which justified a minimum amount of expenses to produce the whole thing in the first place.

If anything, the fact that AAA games remained at pretty much the same price in the era of digital sales yells plenty on the fact that they've been over pricing everything since the very start.

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 Eagle_of_Fire：

Games used to ship with cardboard boxes with (most of the time) beautiful art. A small text book explaining the game, how to use/play it and sometimes several extras. Not to mention that it had a physical medium of some kind, which justified a minimum amount of expenses to produce the whole thing in the first place.

And those were just pennies on the overall cost of a game.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

引用自 Tito Shivan：

引用自 Eagle_of_Fire：

Games used to ship with cardboard boxes with (most of the time) beautiful art. A small text book explaining the game, how to use/play it and sometimes several extras. Not to mention that it had a physical medium of some kind, which justified a minimum amount of expenses to produce the whole thing in the first place.

And those were just pennies on the overall cost of a game.

Patently false, is only because back then you could not print million of copies. Market was small, margins were way more different than today.

Which is exactly why I keep saying that you have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

[Start_Running]

引用自 Eagle_of_Fire：

引用自 BaLuX：

Explain then why games have been keeping the same price for many years.

On the contrary, if you consider inflation, games have been becoming cheaper and cheaper in price.

Games used to ship with cardboard boxes with (most of the time) beautiful art. A small text book explaining the game, how to use/play it and sometimes several extras. Not to mention that it had a physical medium of some kind, which justified a minimum amount of expenses to produce the whole thing in the first place.

If anything, the fact that AAA games remained at pretty much the same price in the era of digital sales yells plenty on the fact that they've been over pricing everything since the very start.

Do you know something else about that era?
Dev studios tended to close down, like all the time. It's worth noting that in the digital age studios seem to be a lot more stable. And these were even big name developers, indie development was essentially a crapshoot for most.

Why? Because back in ye old day how much do you think the dev/pubs got from each sale?
50% if they were lucky, and uit was not uncommon to see a literal inverse of the current revenue split.. Yeah consider that next time you hear someone talk about how unfair the 70/30 split is..

All that to say, what has happened is that with digital dev/pubs are actually getting a sustainable income from their releases.

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 BaLuX：

引用自 biesoid：

The topic is about publishers trying to use inflation as an excuse to raise prices despite still making hundreds of millions in profits.

Explain then why games have been keeping the same price for many years.

On the contrary, if you consider inflation, games have been becoming cheaper and cheaper in price.

They make way more money know.
When a game is made, and made its cost back, it has no price anymore. Everything after that is profit.
Thats why sales are happening. The only thing that matters after a while, that everyone buys it. Its then millions x 15, or none.

And more people play now.