Inflation means nothing versus what people think your product is worth
That's not true. Inflation is the increase in currency supply causing price rises. If the Cantillon Effect is in play, and the general population is getting the benefits of inflation last, then the price rises will hurt them because of the lost purchasing power. If we frame the value of games per working hour, or energy used by the consumer, we should see the fact that the consumer will need to work more to purchase a game.
if you can't afford to keep making the product without charging too much for people to buy it, that's called a failed business/market and history is littered with them.
This I 100% agree with. The benefit of the entertainment industry is that you don't need large capital investments to get people to consume your entertainment. They can cut costs, the industry is just refusing to because there is so much bloat that a lot of people are going to lose careers if they do, despite the fact that they should lose their careers because they are unnecessary.
why are they demanding absurd amounts more? ... So without even getting into the bloated cost problem, its a complete farce of their raw greed to even dare ask for more money without cutting back on all their other milking nonsense.
Capital investors from the financial markets who know nothing about entertainment or games, and are demanding arbitrary growth and revenue targets out of complete ignorance.
I have an argument that Corporations are actually Socialist Legal Fictions designed create a wealth distribution scheme using finance as a weapon against itself, and that this shit doesn't happen as much with fully private businesses (which is why those are taxed so aggressively and given no legal protections).
Inflation is the increase in currency supply causing price rises
I meant the inflation argument. Everyone can say "games cost more because inflation!" all they want, but if the product isn't registering as worth more money then it doesn't matter if it relatively costs the same.
Just like McDonald's learned earlier this year, wages haven't kept up with inflation so the argument means nothing to the common man who the increasing cost just ends up more expensive, period.
I agree. I'd go even further and say McDonald's has a more justifiable problem because their business model only works at maximum scale, so they must take aggressive cost cutting measures to maintain profit (by automating everything and hiring less people).
For video games it's about spending less time rendering walls that the player character will never access. It's a much easier effort to just not waste time on stuff that won't actually facilitate the player's enjoyment.
For video games it's about spending less time rendering walls that the player character will never access.
The problem here is, while you aren't wrong, is that games mostly aren't priced based on the effort/quality or even the product as a whole. The majority of major industry games will be full priced (60/70/80) no matter fucking what, from cheap anime license shit to top prized IPs and everything in between. Even the Indie market has roughly the same problem with the 10-15$ and 20-30$ price point.
This is because its the "norm" and they are simply pricing with the trend to maximize, regardless of what they put in investment or time wise nor what you can expect to get out of it. They want to get paid, sometimes deservedly so, and the product is sold to reflect that mindset first and the consumer second.
If AAA companies slashed their budgets by like 50%, they still wouldn't lower the price they are trying to sell for even if they realistically should. Instead they are caught up in a war similar to the old one where Sony saw Microsoft charged for online play and decided they could too and added a sub for no additional gain, followed by Nintendo in the next generation doing the same (albeit a lot cheaper, 20$ a year instead of like 12$ a month for the other two).
So they are all watching each other, waiting for the first guy to pull the trigger and take all the heat, then they will all try to slip in once the controversy becomes normalized. Its all about what they can get away with, the actual product and its investment is secondary to determining what they will sell for.
That's not true. Inflation is the increase in currency supply causing price rises. If the Cantillon Effect is in play, and the general population is getting the benefits of inflation last, then the price rises will hurt them because of the lost purchasing power. If we frame the value of games per working hour, or energy used by the consumer, we should see the fact that the consumer will need to work more to purchase a game.
This I 100% agree with. The benefit of the entertainment industry is that you don't need large capital investments to get people to consume your entertainment. They can cut costs, the industry is just refusing to because there is so much bloat that a lot of people are going to lose careers if they do, despite the fact that they should lose their careers because they are unnecessary.
Capital investors from the financial markets who know nothing about entertainment or games, and are demanding arbitrary growth and revenue targets out of complete ignorance.
I have an argument that Corporations are actually Socialist Legal Fictions designed create a wealth distribution scheme using finance as a weapon against itself, and that this shit doesn't happen as much with fully private businesses (which is why those are taxed so aggressively and given no legal protections).
I meant the inflation argument. Everyone can say "games cost more because inflation!" all they want, but if the product isn't registering as worth more money then it doesn't matter if it relatively costs the same.
Just like McDonald's learned earlier this year, wages haven't kept up with inflation so the argument means nothing to the common man who the increasing cost just ends up more expensive, period.
I agree. I'd go even further and say McDonald's has a more justifiable problem because their business model only works at maximum scale, so they must take aggressive cost cutting measures to maintain profit (by automating everything and hiring less people).
For video games it's about spending less time rendering walls that the player character will never access. It's a much easier effort to just not waste time on stuff that won't actually facilitate the player's enjoyment.
The problem here is, while you aren't wrong, is that games mostly aren't priced based on the effort/quality or even the product as a whole. The majority of major industry games will be full priced (60/70/80) no matter fucking what, from cheap anime license shit to top prized IPs and everything in between. Even the Indie market has roughly the same problem with the 10-15$ and 20-30$ price point.
This is because its the "norm" and they are simply pricing with the trend to maximize, regardless of what they put in investment or time wise nor what you can expect to get out of it. They want to get paid, sometimes deservedly so, and the product is sold to reflect that mindset first and the consumer second.
If AAA companies slashed their budgets by like 50%, they still wouldn't lower the price they are trying to sell for even if they realistically should. Instead they are caught up in a war similar to the old one where Sony saw Microsoft charged for online play and decided they could too and added a sub for no additional gain, followed by Nintendo in the next generation doing the same (albeit a lot cheaper, 20$ a year instead of like 12$ a month for the other two).
So they are all watching each other, waiting for the first guy to pull the trigger and take all the heat, then they will all try to slip in once the controversy becomes normalized. Its all about what they can get away with, the actual product and its investment is secondary to determining what they will sell for.