Why are games so expensive now?

[Rice Field Marshall]

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.

[Rice Field Marshall]

One good thing in late 90s and early 2000s was when I would go to a shop and buy an unknown game or unknown music album and it got me glued. At that time I would ask myself probably what could I buy with 40 bucks and then read requirements for pentium 2/3 xD. I just don't get the same feeling anymore. There is too much to explore online with limited content or early access content at an exorbitant price or microtransactions.

[Cool hedgehog]

Inflation

[D. Flame]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ice Sonic:

Inflation

false

Greed-flation is the correct answer. They are using "inflation" as an excuse to raise prices because they think consumers are too stupid to tell the difference. You can't say that inflation is forcing you to raise prices while simultaneously reporting record profits. It doesn't work that way.

[Brian9824]

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ice Sonic:

Inflation

false

Greed-flation is the correct answer. They are using "inflation" as an excuse to raise prices because they think consumers are too stupid to tell the difference. You can't say that inflation is forcing you to raise prices while simultaneously reporting record profits. It doesn't work that way.

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.

[D. Flame]

Oprindeligt skrevet af brian9824:

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

false

Greed-flation is the correct answer. They are using "inflation" as an excuse to raise prices because they think consumers are too stupid to tell the difference. You can't say that inflation is forcing you to raise prices while simultaneously reporting record profits. It doesn't work that way.

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.

[Brian9824]

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

Oprindeligt skrevet af 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.

Sorry, your still wrong on so many levels.

1. Most games don't even have season passes
2. If your factoring in consoles there were $70 games on NES , so $70 in 1980 is equal to $250+ today
3. Online isn't a requirement, and even if so its divided among all your games and your also ignoring that the consoles don't just sell online access and they come with other features and benefits that your ignoring.
4. Season pass isn't required, the base game itself is what you buy. DLC adds more content, more playtime, and is optional
5. Games are far more complex now. A NES game could be built in as little as a few days, these big games that cost $70 take YEARS to develop and HUNDREDS of people vs 2-3 people making a game on the nes...
6. Your completely ignoring 99.9% of games are still $60 or less, and only a handful even get an increase.
7. There are FAR more games and of a higher quality available now at cheap prices then there EVER were prior to 2020. For $20 you have a plethora of incredible games available now, where as back in the day $20 got you crap IP shovelware

The only bit of info you have correct is a larger audience size which is offset by the amount of work going into a game and the costs to develop it now. They make more per game, but spend way more per game as a result.

Really don't understand how people delude themselves into the mentality that DLC is required. I'm playing Disgaea 7 right now, and not bothering with the DLC. If I do get it later it will add hours of playtime to my original purchase, meaning its worth the cost

[Kargor]

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

$60 game + ($30 Season Pass times 2 or 3)

Most games do not cost $60.
Most games don't even have one "season pass", let alone several

Like every DLC, "season passes" are optional. Don't buy them if you feel they aren't work the money.

$60 a year online fee for console games

You only need that for online games
It's not the publisher asking for it, it's the console manufacturer

micro transactions

Most games do not have microtransactions.

It seems you're focusing on a specific few games, and ignore everything else. Whatever you're looking at, it's not "all games" -- it's THAT game.

In general, if you don't feel its worth the price, don't buy it. So yes, it's very likely that I don't know the games you're talking about, because all that extra stuff is likely to happen on games I'm not interested in, like "service"-games, multiplayer games, this kind of stuff.

[D. Flame]

Oprindeligt skrevet af brian9824:

snip

Games were $40 during the PS1 era. Nintendo has been found guilty of illegal price fixing back when their prices were that high.

So yeah...

[Brian9824]

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

Oprindeligt skrevet af brian9824:

snip

Games were $40 during the PS1 era. Nintendo has been found guilty of illegal price fixing back when their prices were that high.

So yeah...

Games were $40, they were also $60, they varied. Like FF7 was $50 which is equivalent to $90 today.

https://i.redd.it/admc1s5lwnta1.jpg

Pretty similar to today in all honestly, only lower prices when adjusted for inflation. Most AAA games are $60, a few are $70, but they are still cheaper when adjusted for inflation and we have far more sales today then we did back then and ways to get them cheaper. Competition is fiercer and another advantage over the "good ole days"

[Zefar]

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

Games used to have way more content and replay value back then. The only PS2 game that I owned was DOA2:HC until FFX came out. I would occasionally rent others, but that is the only one that I owned.

More content? No, they generally did not have more content.
Replay value? That's because you where a kid back then and as a kid you where easily able to replay stuff without any care.

What makes DOA2:HC different from Tekken series that are on PC?
I have played DOA5 and I'm gonna guess it's practically the same as DOA2 because fighting games often do not change much at all.

For content we can compare Final Fantasy 7 on PS1 vs the Remake.
If you where to put in 50 hours into the PS1 version you would basically have done 95% of the game.

In the remake 50 hours is enough to complete the part 1 of Remake and there are going to be 2 more parts. You might still not have done everything too as there is a DLC to it.


There are some very rose tinted glasses being used in this discussion.

[D. Flame]

Oprindeligt skrevet af brian9824:

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

Games were $40 during the PS1 era. Nintendo has been found guilty of illegal price fixing back when their prices were that high.

So yeah...

Games were $40, they were also $60, they varied. Like FF7 was $50 which is equivalent to $90 today.

https://i.redd.it/admc1s5lwnta1.jpg

Pretty similar to today in all honestly, only lower prices when adjusted for inflation. Most AAA games are $60, a few are $70, but they are still cheaper when adjusted for inflation and we have far more sales today then we did back then and ways to get them cheaper. Competition is fiercer and another advantage over the "good ole days"

$40 was the industry standard, just like $60 was the industry standard for the PS4 generation. Having outliers doesn't change that. Also, budget games on the PS1 were $20, as were "Greatest Hits" versions of games.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Zefar:

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

Games used to have way more content and replay value back then. The only PS2 game that I owned was DOA2:HC until FFX came out. I would occasionally rent others, but that is the only one that I owned.

More content? No, they generally did not have more content.
Replay value? That's because you where a kid back then and as a kid you where easily able to replay stuff without any care.

What makes DOA2:HC different from Tekken series that are on PC?
I have played DOA5 and I'm gonna guess it's practically the same as DOA2 because fighting games often do not change much at all.

For content we can compare Final Fantasy 7 on PS1 vs the Remake.
If you where to put in 50 hours into the PS1 version you would basically have done 95% of the game.

In the remake 50 hours is enough to complete the part 1 of Remake and there are going to be 2 more parts. You might still not have done everything too as there is a DLC to it.


There are some very rose tinted glasses being used in this discussion.

They literally did have more content. Compare Soul Calibur 2 or 3 to Soul Calibur 5, for example. Tekken 7 didn't even add in minigames except as paid DLC.

"In the remake 50 hours is enough to complete the part 1 of Remake and there are going to be 2 more parts. You might still not have done everything too as there is a DLC to it."

FF7 takes longer than 50 hours to 100%, and it is also a full game and and open game. The remake is not only super linear, but they are selling it to you in pieces at full price for each piece, and that only serves to prove my point. So if each piece is $70 with a $30 DLC, that is a $300 game right there.

[Zefar]

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

They literally did have more content. Compare Soul Calibur 2 or 3 to Soul Calibur 5, for example. Tekken 7 didn't even add in minigames except as paid DLC.

Haven't played Soul Calibur series other than the sixth installment.

Most fighting games I played back in the days have now more content. Street Fighter series, Guilty Gear series, Tekken series and others. But I'm mainly talking about most other games.

Zelda series have gotten pretty long these days. A link to the past is an all time favorite for me on the SNES but you can 100% it in under 10 hours. I don't think I can 100% any of the newer ones in less than 10 hours. Or even the ones on Wii.

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

FF7 takes longer than 50 hours to 100%, and it is also a full game and and open game. The remake is not only super linear, but they are selling it to you in pieces at full price for each piece, and that only serves to prove my point. So if each piece is $70 with a $30 DLC, that is a $300 game right there.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+long+to+beat+ff7+ps1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
FF7 is a pretty popular game and a lot of people have played through it and it's 50 to 60 hours. To do the entire game.

The remake focus on the city which in the first game you where out of it within the hour.
That is why it's more linear. The next parts are most likely going to open up. But even so the first part has enough content to fill up 50+ hours.

The price of the game isn't much of an issue for me seeing how it's a few years apart. The DLC was added for free on PC too.

[Kargor]

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

FF7 takes longer than 50 hours to 100%, and it is also a full game and and open game. The remake is not only super linear, but they are selling it to you in pieces at full price for each piece, and that only serves to prove my point. So if each piece is $70 with a $30 DLC, that is a $300 game right there.

That's just a rubbish argument.

For once, the "old" FF7 and the new one are entirely different games. I don't know the details, though -- you'll have to research that elsewhere. I'm not interested in old FF because its old, and I'm not particulary interested in new FF because they are too expensive (even on sales) for what they deliver.

Also, if you have an overarching story line across multiple games, that does not make it "one game" for the purpose of price comparisons. Are the individual games full games, or not? That's the question here.

[D. Flame]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Zefar:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+long+to+beat+ff7+ps1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
FF7 is a pretty popular game and a lot of people have played through it and it's 50 to 60 hours. To do the entire game.

Did you even read your own link before posting it?

This quote comes from your own link:
"There are also the optional super bosses and all the ultimate weapons. With grinding and scavenging for all the necessary materials, a completionist playthrough on the original PS1 can take up to and over 80 hours."

[Komarimaru]

Oprindeligt skrevet af D. Flame:

Oprindeligt skrevet af brian9824:

Games were $40, they were also $60, they varied. Like FF7 was $50 which is equivalent to $90 today.

https://i.redd.it/admc1s5lwnta1.jpg

Pretty similar to today in all honestly, only lower prices when adjusted for inflation. Most AAA games are $60, a few are $70, but they are still cheaper when adjusted for inflation and we have far more sales today then we did back then and ways to get them cheaper. Competition is fiercer and another advantage over the "good ole days"

$40 was the industry standard, just like $60 was the industry standard for the PS4 generation. Having outliers doesn't change that. Also, budget games on the PS1 were $20, as were "Greatest Hits" versions of games.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Zefar:

More content? No, they generally did not have more content.
Replay value? That's because you where a kid back then and as a kid you where easily able to replay stuff without any care.

What makes DOA2:HC different from Tekken series that are on PC?
I have played DOA5 and I'm gonna guess it's practically the same as DOA2 because fighting games often do not change much at all.

For content we can compare Final Fantasy 7 on PS1 vs the Remake.
If you where to put in 50 hours into the PS1 version you would basically have done 95% of the game.

In the remake 50 hours is enough to complete the part 1 of Remake and there are going to be 2 more parts. You might still not have done everything too as there is a DLC to it.


There are some very rose tinted glasses being used in this discussion.

They literally did have more content. Compare Soul Calibur 2 or 3 to Soul Calibur 5, for example. Tekken 7 didn't even add in minigames except as paid DLC.

"In the remake 50 hours is enough to complete the part 1 of Remake and there are going to be 2 more parts. You might still not have done everything too as there is a DLC to it."

FF7 takes longer than 50 hours to 100%, and it is also a full game and and open game. The remake is not only super linear, but they are selling it to you in pieces at full price for each piece, and that only serves to prove my point. So if each piece is $70 with a $30 DLC, that is a $300 game right there.

Don't know what world you're living in. But $40 was not the standard for PSX era games. They ranged from $49 to $59. They even showed you the advertisement. The only time you got new games cheap was if it was turned into A Greatest Hits Edition, which were $19.99 starting, to $29.99.

So, in this world and dimension, the prices were exactly as stated, not your made up ones.