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.

[lsdninja]

引用自 Start_Running：

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.

"Stability" is relative. They're getting bought out by larger ones, reduced to a shell of their former selves and it's only then they get shut down.

[Start_Running]

引用自 lsdninja：

引用自 Start_Running：

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.

"Stability" is relative. They're getting bought out by larger ones, reduced to a shell of their former selves and it's only then they get shut down.

As oppsed to going bankrup and being carved up among several larger studios.
And remember the thing about prices. You can always elect to not buy.

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 Eagle_of_Fire：

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

Yes you could. That's why games were delivered that way. Mass printing discs has always been a cheap business. And a business the biggest players had into their own business, which cheapens the cost even more.

Manufacture and shipping costs for physical games have always been around the 5-6% mark of a $60 MSRP game. And you have to consider the jump from physical to digital doesn't make that expense gone, it just changes it for different ones.

[Kargor]

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

Exactly. Which means that operating costs rise, and employees are going to ask for more raises.

Besides, I've never paid full-price for a game. Ever. And it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Also, for the few prices I've actually looked at in the past, I haven't seen any increases.

引用自 biesoid：

Starfield costs $80 here also I would need to buy 7800 xt to be able to run it in 60 fps.

So? Wait until it gets on -75% sales -- I don't know Bethesda, but I generally consider -75% to be feasible until I have reason to believe otherwise.

And, don't run it on "60 fps".

引用自 Tito Shivan：

Manufacture and shipping costs for physical games have always been around the 5-6% mark of a $60 MSRP game. And you have to consider the jump from physical to digital doesn't make that expense gone, it just changes it for different ones.

There's still a hige difference, though -- they cut all production, transportation, wholesalers to 0; games are directly delivered to the store at 0 cost. Also, no premiums for better shelf spaces, no Walmarts doing "take the offer or get lost" stuff etc.

Many years ago, I read that the 70% offer that Steam had was just insane compared to what profits came back from selling in stores.

[lsdninja]

引用自 Start_Running：

And remember the thing about prices. You can always elect to not buy.

I learned today that not only does Steam place a Market restriction on your account if you don't make any sort of purchase in a 365 day period, but also that my account has one. Make of that what you will.

[[N]ebsun]

引用自 biesoid：

Inflation doesn't mean people have more money to spend

Inflation means the value of money decreases - and since the value of everything else remains the same, the monetary price for everything across the board increases.

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 Nebsun：

引用自 biesoid：

Inflation doesn't mean people have more money to spend

Inflation means the value of money decreases - and since the value of everything else remains the same, the monetary price for everything across the board increases.

Inflation means, prices rise.

There is no other value in money other than the promise what you can get for that coupon. If no one increases a price, the promise (value) would not change.

[[N]ebsun]

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

There is no other value in money other than the promise what you can get for that coupon. If no one increases a price, the promise (value) would not change.

Unless more of those coupons are created...
They have value because they are limited - you can't go out and spend more than you have without borrowing them.
You have to choose what to spend on - that limited choice gives them value.
If more of them are created, there is more spending (increase in demand), but it's not like people can just make more stuff available so supply remains the same....
Increase demand without changing supply, and prices are forced up to compensate.

If what you say is true, then I could just go and get the government to give me a trillion dollars - I would buy up everything from the shops... but that wouldn't change the price ??

[BJWyler]

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

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.

And let me help you finish that:
So in order to keep the game from costing too much, DLC and microtransactions help make up for the difference. Hence, why game prices have remained relatively flat - because microtransactions have allowed developers to cover the increased costs of making the game. Just like I said.

引用自 Eagle_of_Fire：

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.

Incorrect, as I just pointed out. As Tito said, the actual cost of physical production is relatively small in the overall cost of making a game. The two biggest costs have always been (and this is generally true for any business) payroll and marketing. Payroll is generally the single most biggest expense in a business.

When I got my first job, I was paid something like $4.00 an hour in a retail store. My daughter just got her first job, in retail, and is starting at over $15.00 an hour.

Back in the 90's the average programmer salary ranged from $40-$50k. Now it's closer to $90-$100k. That's double over the course of 30 years. That's an 80% to 100% increase. Comparatively, the price of games have risen by only 45% over that time, if you figure an average base cost of $45 then to $65 now.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

There is a thing called inflation. Has been mentioned quite a bit already. You can't just directly compare the salary of someone 30 years ago and make a direct comparison. Everything was on scale back then with that salary. Now everything is on scale with today standards. Pretty sure that if you check correctly everything you'll realise that they don't really pocket much more money than back in the days, if any.

And I've already said it and I'll just repeat again, but you also can't compare today standards in term of industrial production to what you had 30 years ago. The cost of creating those boxes and the booklets and what not were huge in comparison, mostly due to the fact that by today standards all you have to do is produce a huge amount and the cost will lower itself to next to nothing. That's pretty much what you are saying too, don't deny it. Back in the days it didn't work like that tho. PC gaming was a thing in its infancy and you would never have expected to sell million of copies. Most of the time they just made a small amount of production and waited to see if it would be popular enough to do more. The vast majority of PC gaming in its infancy was a dream, and most developers which are now legends nowadays started in their basement solo coding a game out of nowhere with the little they had at the time (and the little which was actually also available as hardware and software at the time too).

This is without saying, again, that in the age of digital goods all of this go straight up the window. Bandwith is virtually free, copying a program over and over on the internet is not only virtually free, it is factually free. Even if they bothered to create a manual or booklet (which is almost unheard of nowaday), PDF sharing is in the same boat. Meanwhile the quality of games in general has been reduced greatly instead of increasing (graphics are WAY better today, but try to find a game which don't bug out at launch. EA is kind of a joke, you pay nowaday to be the beta tester of a product and most people do it as an encouragement for non professionals to do a job you can't expect professionals to do anymore for a bunch of reasons. Add to this to so many games using predatory marketing tactics, microtransactions, planned DLCs which is actually withheld cut content...) with absolutely no change in the cost of the game... It is also not exactly the problem of the consumer that the industry shifted to the need of a high standard of graphics at the cost of gameplay.

Anyhow, all this to say that those direct comparisons just don't hold any water and this is mostly why I'm taking the time to step in on this particular thread. I'm actually happy to spend more money on games I know are good and would be quite content to do it regularly. If it was to happen regularly, of course. Baldur's Gate 3 would be a great example of this. The simple fact that it has no DRM alone is enough for me to see it in a positive light from the get go. But bring me other games (and man is there a majority in this group in the past few years) which ask the same price and don't even deliver a fraction of quality, don't be surprised that people like OP step in and declare that they are not happy with the cost of games versus their quality. And I completely agree with him... I just don't have a problem with those particular facts that some people are just going to call it quit and leave. That's not the beef I have in this particular thread...

[Start_Running]

引用自 lsdninja：

引用自 Start_Running：

And remember the thing about prices. You can always elect to not buy.

I learned today that not only does Steam place a Market restriction on your account if you don't make any sort of purchase in a 365 day period, but also that my account has one. Make of that what you will.

So? What does that have to do with game prices?
And this as you mention is 'any sort of purchases' including market purchases.
So this is kind of a non-issue


Also the packaging production costs weren't that high. As someone who's worked on the production side, doing the artwork, sourcing printers etc.The booklets are actually cheap as all heck to produce. Especially if you're doing something like lithography.

And Bandwidth is not virtually free. I mean that's literally one of the things they charge you for when you're doing things at corprate scale./Not to mention the cost of maintaining the hosting servers

Aklso eagle What is 'Quality' to some is trash to others. Plenty of great games to be had for less. Again Games are plenty affordable and cheap if you aren't chasing launch day AAA releases. Heck BG3 is kinda egregious in that people seem to have forgotten the years it spent in Early Access. :P

[wesnef]

Based on the last day's threads, it seems like what the OP really needs is to learn budgeting, self control, and personal responsibility.

Any hobby can be more or less expensive depending on how one pursues it.

引用自 BJWyler：

Back in the 90's the average programmer salary ranged from $40-$50k. Now it's closer to $90-$100k. That's double over the course of 30 years. That's an 80% to 100% increase. Comparatively, the price of games have risen by only 45% over that time, if you figure an average base cost of $45 then to $65 now.

Additionally, there's a lot more programmers/etc on non-indie projects now.

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 Nebsun：

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

There is no other value in money other than the promise what you can get for that coupon. If no one increases a price, the promise (value) would not change.

Unless more of those coupons are created...
They have value because they are limited - you can't go out and spend more than you have without borrowing them.
You have to choose what to spend on - that limited choice gives them value.
If more of them are created, there is more spending (increase in demand), but it's not like people can just make more stuff available so supply remains the same....
Increase demand without changing supply, and prices are forced up to compensate.

If what you say is true, then I could just go and get the government to give me a trillion dollars - I would buy up everything from the shops... but that wouldn't change the price ??

Making extra money needs to lead to people having it. People getting more money, thats increasing the price.
It all boils down to increased prices.

There are several "ways to cause that".
Increasing the amount of money and handing it over is another way how you can cause it.

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 BJWyler：

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

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.

And let me help you finish that:
So in order to keep the game from costing too much, DLC and microtransactions help make up for the difference. Hence, why game prices have remained relatively flat - because microtransactions have allowed developers to cover the increased costs of making the game. Just like I said.

If microtansactions were for covering the cost, they would not stay permanently. And every game would need them.

[biesoid]

There is no such thing as microtransactions anymore, it's MACROtransactions, if one skin costs 1/6 or 1/7 of game's price it's not micro.

People need to start using proper terms.