安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Work smarter, not harder.
I couldn't care less about AAA
Subscriptions for a singular game is a bad idea in term of a business model to me however it all depends on the price tag to suit it's demographics.
I mean the good thing is that you can pay way less for a game and since aubscriptions are usually per month, you have plenty of time to finish the game
If that thing means paying less, then yeah, is ok v:
And then if you want to permanently buy Game, do it 🤷♀️
Itt is sad yes but at this point I got used to it and I just care about my own interest and thankfully I already have enough valuable things: great videogames,great toys, things that will give me joy and fun forever. Those things are still available for everybody, if younger kids will prefer to stick to the newer games and pay the absurd price in terms of both money and freedom that companies will ask then it is just their problem not mine and they will have what they deserve.
From the time of the Sega Genesis all the way up until the introduction of the Wii U, the typical price of a video game was $50[techraptor.net]. It was adjusted to $60 with the introduction of the Wii U. which was only a couple of generations ago at most. Some popular cartridge based games cost more, but those weren't just games, but additional hardware chips.
My point is if we are accounting for inflation since the last price adjustment, under the assumption that game developers knew what they needed to be charging after decades of marketing and sales experience, we should only be counting from 2012, not 1989.
$50 from 1989, when the Sega Genesis launched in the U.S.A. adjusts to $123.81.
$60 since 2012 is $80.24.
(Side Note: the inflation calculator I am using[www.usinflationcalculator.com] only seems to adjust up to 2023 so far. This shouldn't make a significant difference, since 2023 just ended less than two weeks ago, but still.)
That is a huge difference. We are not ready for $120 games, especially in this time of strife. Games are a luxury people can afford to cut out of their budget. Game developers know all of this. That is why the price of the typical mainstream game was only bumped up to $70 rather than say $100+.
Although that does nevertheless suggest video games are undervalued. Inflation doesn't track evenly across all industries. It is an average devaluation of the dollar. Most of it comes from increased housing costs. Historically, video games haven't met inflation, (although cost cutting measures like changing the physical medium and removing the manuals have been employed over the years).
Second, that doesn't really say anything about subscription. In fact, it seems to be referring to M.S.R.P. by mentioning the $70 figure. Per hour could just refer to the fixed retail price of the game relative to the time it is expected to beat the game.
For example, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past used to cost $50 according to the Toys R Us Catalogue. It is estimated to take 17 ¼ hours to fully complete the game.[howlongtobeat.com] Dividing the M.S.R.P. by the amount of unique entertainment value in the game returns us with a rough value of $2.86 per hour played.
Now in the year 1992, when the game was released in North America, the average cost of a movie ticket was $4.15[www.natoonline.org] If we assume a movie lasts 90 minutes, that means you get $2.77 cents per hour of movie.
So Hogwarts Legacy has an M.S.R.P. of $60. A completionist run is estimated to take 68 hours.[howlongtobeat.com] That only costs 88 cents per hour of entertainment. However, a completionist run of a game these days can be rather grindy, and repetitive content is not as value as distinct content.
Games were not so grindy in the past. A main story playthrough of A Link to the Past is only 2½ hours shorter than a main story playthrough. Doing a completionist run of Hogwarts Legacy takes 42½ hours longer than a main story playthrough (26 ½ hours). If we only count the main story. A Link to the Past costs $3⅓ per hour (15 hours total), whereas Hogwarts Legacy is $2.26, which lessens the gap considerably.
So I do have to concede to Strauss Zelnick that it does seem like video games are undervalued in the modern era. If we did adjust for inflation based on A Link to the Past, you would expect an hour of game time to cost somewhere beteen $6.26–7.29.
Using movie tickets as a basis of comparison, the average price is about $11 last I checked, although the inflation since 1992 suggests they should only be $9.08.
P.S. Both Hogwarts Legacy and A Link to the Past are of the same genre (A Link to the Past game would have been considered an Action R.P.G. in its era, (I know because Zelda clones like Crusader of Centy and Beyond Oasis were billed as R.P.Gs. by Sega[www.mobygames.com]). It might not be the best basis of comparison 'cause a Zelda game is somewhat distinct from most action R.P.Gs. in that it lacks leveling mechanics, but I do not have concrete evidence of how much Secret of Mana, Terranigma or Secret of Evermore cost back in the day, and even if I did, I don't want to be factoring in additional hardware costs that might be present in the more complex S.N.E.S. games, since game developers are not offering us any physical product on the steam storefront.
Same, there is a lot of talented indie devs, we don't need those companies to play. As AAA games become more and more boring, tasteless and expenssive, they'll just lose a part of their customers and they'll don't come back. I can't even remember the last time I way really hyped by an AAA game.
*CS2 players' laughing noises*
Gabe won't be around forever. People retire.
Anyway, I don't think game subscriptions are going to become the sole method of distribution anytime soon. It might happen eventually, but Google Stadia failed, and so did Onlive before that. I think Microsoft was complaining about game pass a while back too if I recall correctly, although I do not recollect the nature of the complaint.
Point is, they're going to have to offer some very good value proposition to persuade players to move away from perpetual licensing to a subscription-only model.