Why are games so expensive now?

[76561198095142420]

I was looking at the price of starfield $70 and DLC for Total War warhmmaer 3 which is $25. There was a time when bug-free games were $25-30. There wasn't anything as internet updates and games did not feel broken or crash that much. This may have to do with the cost of running a studio now and people spending exorbitantly on high-end GPUs. Personally, I am still running a gtx 1080 and refuse to buy expensive games. I just wanted to know what does the community think about this.

[cinedine]

引用自 D. Flame：

THIS IS MORE THAN JUST AN EXTRA $10. Either acknowledge this fact or give up on getting another reply. I am done humoring you.

The discussion about "game prices are actually cheaper than ever" has been held a couple of times on this forum here.

Some people are absolutely immune to the idea of anything but the base game getting counted towards the price.
I fully agree that it is quite ridiculous to ignore the various ways they found to monetise games further if discussing game prices. All these secondary monetisation schemes ARE what is keeping the base price down.

Personally I fully believe that we will see a lot more games shifting over to the GaaS model and becoming either very cheap to buy-in or even free, but with a similar hard-on on microtransaction that we now see in the mobile gaming world.

[Brian9824]

引用自 cinedine：

引用自 D. Flame：

THIS IS MORE THAN JUST AN EXTRA $10. Either acknowledge this fact or give up on getting another reply. I am done humoring you.

The discussion about "game prices are actually cheaper than ever" has been held a couple of times on this forum here.

Some people are absolutely immune to the idea of anything but the base game getting counted towards the price.
I fully agree that it is quite ridiculous to ignore the various ways they found to monetise games further if discussing game prices. All these secondary monetisation schemes ARE what is keeping the base price down.

Personally I fully believe that we will see a lot more games shifting over to the GaaS model and becoming either very cheap to buy-in or even free, but with a similar hard-on on microtransaction that we now see in the mobile gaming world.

Some people are also incapable of basic logic, such as if you pay $60 for a game and get 100 hours out of it that is a full game.

If they sell DLC for $30 and you get another 50 hours or more from the DLC its no real difference then buying a $30 game. Those people completely ignore that DLC is either purely cosmetic and not needed, or it adds many hours of fun on top of the game just like expansion packs did 20+ years ago so they aren't any different.

[D. Flame]

引用自 cinedine：

引用自 D. Flame：

THIS IS MORE THAN JUST AN EXTRA $10. Either acknowledge this fact or give up on getting another reply. I am done humoring you.

The discussion about "game prices are actually cheaper than ever" has been held a couple of times on this forum here.

Some people are absolutely immune to the idea of anything but the base game getting counted towards the price.
I fully agree that it is quite ridiculous to ignore the various ways they found to monetise games further if discussing game prices. All these secondary monetisation schemes ARE what is keeping the base price down.

Personally I fully believe that we will see a lot more games shifting over to the GaaS model and becoming either very cheap to buy-in or even free, but with a similar hard-on on microtransaction that we now see in the mobile gaming world.

I have seen people try to use that as a counter example of why the base price of the games should rise instead, but games like D4 already show that companies will still add in all those extra monetization strategies, even if we accept the higher base price.

Plus, these companies have proven time and again, that they will do this, even if they are already making a hefty profit. It is a fault of the "infinite growth" white whale that modern capitalism chases. It is no longer just good enough to make a profit. Now they have to make more this quarter than they made last quarter, and it can never stop increasing.

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 cinedine：

Some people are absolutely immune to the idea of anything but the base game getting counted towards the price.

One of the most liberating things I realised over the years is I don't need all that DLC.

I don't usually cater to most DLC out there nowadays. Only on my top time wasters I've spend in lots of its DLC.

The one genre where I do care about "getting everything" is fighting games, because I lie to own the whole rooster. That also means I wait A LOT for 'definite editions' or full bundles to come out.

[Keltrain]

引用自 Daedrik：

I was looking at the price of starfield $70 and DLC for Total War warhmmaer 3 which is $25. There was a time when bug-free games were $25-30. There wasn't anything as internet updates and games did not feel broken or crash that much. This may have to do with the cost of running a studio now and people spending exorbitantly on high-end GPUs. Personally, I am still running a gtx 1080 and refuse to buy expensive games. I just wanted to know what does the community think about this.

Rising inflation and the cost of development, games are using newer tech which is more expensive to develop.

Games are now costing tens of millions to develop and they're passing that cost onto us, the consoomer.

[76561199559798421]

with 15 or 20 years of gaming to catch up on before you play every title out , really users don't need to worry much about over priced games.

I have recently got a few ps4 games for 5 dollars each, quality titles and 100's of hours of enjoyment to play, things are only expensive if you get sucked into the media hype of it. there are plenty of really awesome games from the last 10 years that cost next to nothing today to own.

ps3 games are like 2 dollars a peice, ps 4 games 5 to 10 dollars a peice ps5, switch games 60 dollars, its a no brainer, forget the new consoles an stick to the games that are now classics and you won't be burdened by over priced gaming.

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 Welcome, Everyone is Invited：

with 15 or 20 years of gaming to catch up on before you play every title out , really users don't need to worry much about over priced games.

I have recently got a few ps4 games for 5 dollars each, quality titles and 100's of hours of enjoyment to play, things are only expensive if you get sucked into the media hype of it. there are plenty of really awesome games from the last 10 years that cost next to nothing today to own.

ps3 games are like 2 dollars a peice, ps 4 games 5 to 10 dollars a peice ps5, switch games 60 dollars, its a no brainer, forget the new consoles an stick to the games that are now classics and you won't be burdened by over priced gaming.

Anything before the PS4 will start increasing in price.

[76561199559798421]

yup certainly will , that is why you have to buy stuff at the sweet spot.

[xBCxRangers]

引用自 Welcome, Everyone is Invited：

with 15 or 20 years of gaming to catch up on before you play every title out , really users don't need to worry much about over priced games.

I have recently got a few ps4 games for 5 dollars each, quality titles and 100's of hours of enjoyment to play, things are only expensive if you get sucked into the media hype of it. there are plenty of really awesome games from the last 10 years that cost next to nothing today to own.

ps3 games are like 2 dollars a peice, ps 4 games 5 to 10 dollars a peice ps5, switch games 60 dollars, its a no brainer, forget the new consoles an stick to the games that are now classics and you won't be burdened by over priced gaming.

Yep, that's what i'm doing. I'm skipping Series X, and just sticking with the older stuff. I was just on PS2 of all things and enjoying that. The whole simplicity of it, no need for internet, to mtx, game services or updates that will ruin my games, etc. I just got into Socom, never playing it before back in the day.

Gaming has gotten too ugly, too expensive, and quite frankly, the new games i've tried, not very good. That's why i want to keep my older games here beyond Jan. But yet, another reminder to stay away from these sole digital games and stores.

Consoles def the way to go, and as you said, a lot of bargains, with no strings attached.

[D. Flame]

引用自 xBCxRangers：

Yep, that's what i'm doing. I'm skipping Series X, and just sticking with the older stuff. I was just on PS2 of all things and enjoying that. The whole simplicity of it, no need for internet, to mtx, game services or updates that will ruin my games, etc. I just got into Socom, never playing it before back in the day.

I was just playing Burnout Revenge on PS2. No game in the series has ever topped that one.

[ KARR™]

引用自 D. Flame：

引用自 brian9824：

Eh if that was the case then games would be $100. Again basic facts show games have not kept rise with inflation like all other goods and services. They have remained static in price for 20+ years and you are FINALLY seeing some slight cost increases for SOME titles.

Wrong.

$60 game + ($30 Season Pass times 2 or 3) + $60 a year online fee for console games - game engines that reduce work load and costs per game + larger audience base increasing returns per product compared to when gaming was a niche hobby + micro transactions + etc.

You're full of it because you are ignoring all of these other factors and drinking the kool-aid on the base cost of the game only. As I said before, so say I again, if the cause was inflation, they would not simultaneously be reporting record profits.

I would buy games, thirty years ago and it was 69.99. This was a game that was UNDER 100kb in size. Had 7 people on the credits.

Lets look at Starfield. 3903 people on the credits, had an orchestra, had voice actors, came in MANY MANY GBs. High res artists, etc. Base game is **CHEAPER** than it was 30 years ago. Even the "deluxe" version is only about 15 more - and you'd be paying around that to purchase the album if it was released anyway!

Inflation says the game i bought in the 80s should be in todays prices 160. Even deluxe editions aren't that much. Games HAVE stayed under inflation. Even ignoring inflation, taking a tiny team producing a game in 100kb HAS to be insanely cheaper than hiring voice actors from film and tv, high-res artists, orchestras, etc.

[Brian9824]

引用自  KARR™：

引用自 D. Flame：

Wrong.

$60 game + ($30 Season Pass times 2 or 3) + $60 a year online fee for console games - game engines that reduce work load and costs per game + larger audience base increasing returns per product compared to when gaming was a niche hobby + micro transactions + etc.

You're full of it because you are ignoring all of these other factors and drinking the kool-aid on the base cost of the game only. As I said before, so say I again, if the cause was inflation, they would not simultaneously be reporting record profits.

I would buy games, thirty years ago and it was 69.99. This was a game that was UNDER 100kb in size. Had 7 people on the credits.

Lets look at Starfield. 3903 people on the credits, had an orchestra, had voice actors, came in MANY MANY GBs. High res artists, etc. Base game is **CHEAPER** than it was 30 years ago. Even the "deluxe" version is only about 15 more - and you'd be paying around that to purchase the album if it was released anyway!

Inflation says the game i bought in the 80s should be in todays prices 160. Even deluxe editions aren't that much. Games HAVE stayed under inflation. Even ignoring inflation, taking a tiny team producing a game in 100kb HAS to be insanely cheaper than hiring voice actors from film and tv, high-res artists, orchestras, etc.

Yep, although to be fair the market for it has increased meaning they can make more money, but they also take more risk and spend more money producing them. I mean for the older systems you could make AAA games for like 100k, good luck doing that today.

[Ganger]

Maybe the costs of making said game now hitting tens of millions of dollars might be a reason for the inflated price of today's games.

My only advice: if your not happy with said price for a game then don't buy it. Wait for a discount, shop around for a cheaper deal, play it via a subscription based service... but what ever you do, stick to your guns and set a limit to how much your willing to pay.

Back in the 90's nintendo games were costing upwards of £50 (uk pound) and amiga games were costing £30 and this was back in the 1990's. £50 for a game today isn't that bad factoring in game prices has not increased that much in 30 years.

[D. Flame]

引用自  KARR™：

引用自 D. Flame：

Wrong.

$60 game + ($30 Season Pass times 2 or 3) + $60 a year online fee for console games - game engines that reduce work load and costs per game + larger audience base increasing returns per product compared to when gaming was a niche hobby + micro transactions + etc.

You're full of it because you are ignoring all of these other factors and drinking the kool-aid on the base cost of the game only. As I said before, so say I again, if the cause was inflation, they would not simultaneously be reporting record profits.

I would buy games, thirty years ago and it was 69.99. This was a game that was UNDER 100kb in size. Had 7 people on the credits.

Lets look at Starfield. 3903 people on the credits, had an orchestra, had voice actors, came in MANY MANY GBs. High res artists, etc. Base game is **CHEAPER** than it was 30 years ago. Even the "deluxe" version is only about 15 more - and you'd be paying around that to purchase the album if it was released anyway!

Inflation says the game i bought in the 80s should be in todays prices 160. Even deluxe editions aren't that much. Games HAVE stayed under inflation. Even ignoring inflation, taking a tiny team producing a game in 100kb HAS to be insanely cheaper than hiring voice actors from film and tv, high-res artists, orchestras, etc.

$70 * 100,000 people = $7,000,000.
$60 * 20,000,000 people = $1,200,000,000

Then you have DLC, MTX, Battle Passes, Etc.

Your inability to comprehend this is a "you" problem.

[Brian9824]

引用自 D. Flame：

$70 * 100,000 people = $7,000,000.
$60 * 20,000,000 people = $1,200,000,000

Then you have DLC, MTX, Battle Passes, Etc.

Your inability to comprehend this is a "you" problem.

Your ability to ignore basic math is yours. If the price is to high people wait for it to drop to 60 then buy it letting them get the sales at $70 at $60, etc.

Also can you cite your sources that say if they charge $10 more their sales drop from 20 million to 100k. I'd be interested to see how you arrived at that claim

Whats far more likely is
$70 * 18,000,000 people = $1,260,000,000
$60 * 20,000,000 people = $1,200,000,000

Then add on more when the price drops