The problem is people making a game worth $20 stuffing it to the brim with MTX, Loot-Boxes, season passes, on-Disc-DLC and other post-launch monetization schemes and then pricing it at $70
Absolutely. There's a reason I haven't strayed from the indie side of things in ages. Get a fun, mechanically sound, not grey/brown/moldy game for $8? Frik yes!
Why buy a newly released game anyway? You're just getting half the game and have to wait for a year for the DLC. And you're basically beta testing the game. Wait for a year or two and buy the bug-fixed GOTY/gold/complete bundle at 75% off.
Dunno about consoles but PC has been all digital for years, possibly decades by now. Physical PC boxes are just an install disc with a code for Steam, Origin, Uplay, etc. Well, they used to be anyway. Haven't actually bought a physical box in 15 years or so. For all I know they might not even exist anymore.
IMHO digital isn't the problem. I like digital because I can put all my games on an external harddrive and they take up almost no physical space. As far as sales go they've been much better than in the olden days too. Of course you can't resell your games anymore but I don't care. I'd rather keep them anyway. The big problem however is DRM which make you reliant on someone else's server.
Why buy a yearly sports game as soon as it comes out anyway, even before this price bump? They hardly ever change anything except rosters and stats year to year
If you want the full experience as the developer intended, you're shilling out for the "Gold" or "Silver" edition. If you're a broke plebe, then it's "Standard" for you. Upping the base price does nothing.
If you can't offer your product at a reasonable price your customers are willing to pay for, that means there's a problem on your end. The customer doesn't care how much time and money it took to make the product, the customer cares about what kind of value he's getting for his money. Anything else is just chuffa.
TL;DR - rein in your ridiculous fucking budgets, EA.
They say that game's take alot more effort and money to make, but they do they honestly feel 10+ million dollars more than games of the past? Can I tell EA to skip the 50$ million marketing to keep costs down because who the fuck doesn't know Star Wars is coming out?
Minus graphical prowess, are games that much better than older ones? I still end up going back to older games far more than newer ones.
I think people might be much more willing to compromise on these prices, but AAA studios release every single game at maximum price (plus usually multiple limited edition packs and DLC Season Passes). If 5 hour action games were released at 30-40$, while 30-50 hour JRPGs or highly replayable games at 60-70$, people might be less angry about prices. Instead they shovel them all out and expect us to cry for them that people are mad that their "story driven super beautiful" game is over in one sitting.
The problem with flexible pricing is that most people wandering into stores see the discounted price and think it must be a substandard game. And why shouldn't they? That's the case with almost every other product in the world.
But it is substandard, its a "one sitdown and done" game. They've played their game, they know how much time value it is. To pretend its worth a lot more is deceitful and why "game reviewers" were supposed to be a useful group.
Also Steam regularly tops sales with 20-30$ games that are considered far and above standard. Both in terms of quality and length of possible use. They aren't AAA studios but the proof is there that the market doesn't care entirely.
Thirdly, if I bought a bottle of shampoo that was the same size and price as the bottles near it, but filled with 1/3rd the product, I'd be livid. That's why various size and prices exist in the first place for "every other product in the world." Its why most products are marked with the amount of product within them, most grocery stores put "price per pound" on tags, and we have the option to pay for the more expensive if we so choose.
AAA Gaming just throws every product on the shelf at the same price, with nearly zero info for the consumer and says "yeah its all worth the exact same!"
Talking about Steam doesn't help because in order to use Steam you need a functional PC capable of playing PC games, which are demanding and require knowledge of hardware the average consumer doesn't have.
What I'm talking about is the average person walking into a big box retailer like Target and seeing a game for their PlayStation Box One. And these people do exist. In fact, I'd argue they make up the majority of purchasers in video games. They are the ones that see a $29,99 new game next to the $59.99 new game and think "something must be wrong with it," because if it was any good, why wouldn't the store price it to gain maximum revenue? Unless they are, and the store thinks that $29.99 is what they believe all anyone is willing to pay, in which case, they don't have confidence in the product, now do they?
And don't pretend people don't do this with everything. It's not just video games. It's practically all consumer goods. People have been trained to believe (and quite accurately in most cases), that the price of a product is reflective of its quality. While there is certainly wiggle room with that axiom, it's more or less true. I sure as shit don't buy tools from Wal-Mart, even if a skilsaw will only cost me $70 as opposed to $299.
I just wait on games. I think the last time I paid more than $30 for a game was Red Dead Redemption II. Even then I was disappointed. It was certainly worth more at least, I just didn't find the missions enjoyable at all.
They just aren't offering me much that I could play and look back happy with my $60 anymore, much less $70. It doesn't take that long to wait for a $20 price. Jedi Fallen Order for example has already been $30 a few times in less than a year and it will likely trend further down.
What? There's absolutely no precedent for this; no good game has a price that extravagant.
The only games that have prices like that are "muh big aaa please buy the game because its my picture look my picture now consumeproduct.win", which are better off pirated anyway.
Sometimes I feel like the crazy one for remembering when games were £35 new. Then they pushed it to £45, then £50 with some £60. It always came with bulshit reasoning.
Same with controllers only with no reasoning. Brand new official PS2 pad? £20. PS3/360? £40-50, wired 360 pads were in that band too so it's not like the price hike was wireless 'tax'. Steam pad was a comparative steal during the discontinuation sale.
To this day, I am still flat-out unwilling to pay more than that £35. The last new game I actually found at that price was RE2R and it wasn't worth it. In fact, I probably paid more for the original because of the pre-order and the included memory card (store deal, it was gold, still have it).
In this era frequent sales that have even new games at half price within a few months of release, why even worry about whatever the new ceiling is for a new game's price? Publishers are making up the backend with continued monetization (season passes, DLC, MTX, ect.) anyway.
Because my gaming backlog is so big, I usually don't mind waiting till prices hit dirt cheap before I pick games up. Go ahead, charge your games at 70. I'm still gonna buy it when it goes under 5 bucks.
If they make a game worth $70 then I'll buy it. The problem is people making a game worth $20 then pricing it at $70
The problem is people making a game worth $20 stuffing it to the brim with MTX, Loot-Boxes, season passes, on-Disc-DLC and other post-launch monetization schemes and then pricing it at $70
My "favorite" are cosmetic DLCs for singleplayer games and ones that are basically just paid cheat codes.
"But if it doesn't effect gameplay its okay!"
Yeah Horse Armor didn't effect gameplay but is considered the foundation for DLC from that moment on.
Eh, i won't ever care about cosmetic DLCs for any game (as in, i won't buy it because who gives a shit, but i definitely won't mind it's existence).
Fuck any game that releases the aforementioned paid cheat codes though.
And sheep keep buying it
Absolutely. There's a reason I haven't strayed from the indie side of things in ages. Get a fun, mechanically sound, not grey/brown/moldy game for $8? Frik yes!
Stop shit talking my favorite game, Superman 64.
If you pay that it's your own fault.
Why buy a newly released game anyway? You're just getting half the game and have to wait for a year for the DLC. And you're basically beta testing the game. Wait for a year or two and buy the bug-fixed GOTY/gold/complete bundle at 75% off.
Dunno about consoles but PC has been all digital for years, possibly decades by now. Physical PC boxes are just an install disc with a code for Steam, Origin, Uplay, etc. Well, they used to be anyway. Haven't actually bought a physical box in 15 years or so. For all I know they might not even exist anymore.
IMHO digital isn't the problem. I like digital because I can put all my games on an external harddrive and they take up almost no physical space. As far as sales go they've been much better than in the olden days too. Of course you can't resell your games anymore but I don't care. I'd rather keep them anyway. The big problem however is DRM which make you reliant on someone else's server.
Why buy a yearly sports game as soon as it comes out anyway, even before this price bump? They hardly ever change anything except rosters and stats year to year
I don't know. I feel like my takeaway was that games were expensive 15 years ago.
It's not all bad news: We expect an uptick in the quality of our swag bags and paid-for trips to play upcoming games!
Games already cost $90 USD.
If you want the full experience as the developer intended, you're shilling out for the "Gold" or "Silver" edition. If you're a broke plebe, then it's "Standard" for you. Upping the base price does nothing.
If you can't offer your product at a reasonable price your customers are willing to pay for, that means there's a problem on your end. The customer doesn't care how much time and money it took to make the product, the customer cares about what kind of value he's getting for his money. Anything else is just chuffa.
TL;DR - rein in your ridiculous fucking budgets, EA.
"Never pay more than 20$ for a computer game" - Guybrush Threepwood
They say that game's take alot more effort and money to make, but they do they honestly feel 10+ million dollars more than games of the past? Can I tell EA to skip the 50$ million marketing to keep costs down because who the fuck doesn't know Star Wars is coming out?
Minus graphical prowess, are games that much better than older ones? I still end up going back to older games far more than newer ones.
I think people might be much more willing to compromise on these prices, but AAA studios release every single game at maximum price (plus usually multiple limited edition packs and DLC Season Passes). If 5 hour action games were released at 30-40$, while 30-50 hour JRPGs or highly replayable games at 60-70$, people might be less angry about prices. Instead they shovel them all out and expect us to cry for them that people are mad that their "story driven super beautiful" game is over in one sitting.
The problem with flexible pricing is that most people wandering into stores see the discounted price and think it must be a substandard game. And why shouldn't they? That's the case with almost every other product in the world.
Then people are stupid.
But it is substandard, its a "one sitdown and done" game. They've played their game, they know how much time value it is. To pretend its worth a lot more is deceitful and why "game reviewers" were supposed to be a useful group.
Also Steam regularly tops sales with 20-30$ games that are considered far and above standard. Both in terms of quality and length of possible use. They aren't AAA studios but the proof is there that the market doesn't care entirely.
Thirdly, if I bought a bottle of shampoo that was the same size and price as the bottles near it, but filled with 1/3rd the product, I'd be livid. That's why various size and prices exist in the first place for "every other product in the world." Its why most products are marked with the amount of product within them, most grocery stores put "price per pound" on tags, and we have the option to pay for the more expensive if we so choose.
AAA Gaming just throws every product on the shelf at the same price, with nearly zero info for the consumer and says "yeah its all worth the exact same!"
Talking about Steam doesn't help because in order to use Steam you need a functional PC capable of playing PC games, which are demanding and require knowledge of hardware the average consumer doesn't have.
What I'm talking about is the average person walking into a big box retailer like Target and seeing a game for their PlayStation Box One. And these people do exist. In fact, I'd argue they make up the majority of purchasers in video games. They are the ones that see a $29,99 new game next to the $59.99 new game and think "something must be wrong with it," because if it was any good, why wouldn't the store price it to gain maximum revenue? Unless they are, and the store thinks that $29.99 is what they believe all anyone is willing to pay, in which case, they don't have confidence in the product, now do they?
And don't pretend people don't do this with everything. It's not just video games. It's practically all consumer goods. People have been trained to believe (and quite accurately in most cases), that the price of a product is reflective of its quality. While there is certainly wiggle room with that axiom, it's more or less true. I sure as shit don't buy tools from Wal-Mart, even if a skilsaw will only cost me $70 as opposed to $299.
I just wait on games. I think the last time I paid more than $30 for a game was Red Dead Redemption II. Even then I was disappointed. It was certainly worth more at least, I just didn't find the missions enjoyable at all.
They just aren't offering me much that I could play and look back happy with my $60 anymore, much less $70. It doesn't take that long to wait for a $20 price. Jedi Fallen Order for example has already been $30 a few times in less than a year and it will likely trend further down.
What? There's absolutely no precedent for this; no good game has a price that extravagant.
The only games that have prices like that are "muh big aaa please buy the game because its my picture look my picture now consumeproduct.win", which are better off pirated anyway.
cracks are also inevitable
Sometimes I feel like the crazy one for remembering when games were £35 new. Then they pushed it to £45, then £50 with some £60. It always came with bulshit reasoning.
Same with controllers only with no reasoning. Brand new official PS2 pad? £20. PS3/360? £40-50, wired 360 pads were in that band too so it's not like the price hike was wireless 'tax'. Steam pad was a comparative steal during the discontinuation sale.
To this day, I am still flat-out unwilling to pay more than that £35. The last new game I actually found at that price was RE2R and it wasn't worth it. In fact, I probably paid more for the original because of the pre-order and the included memory card (store deal, it was gold, still have it).
In this era frequent sales that have even new games at half price within a few months of release, why even worry about whatever the new ceiling is for a new game's price? Publishers are making up the backend with continued monetization (season passes, DLC, MTX, ect.) anyway.
Because my gaming backlog is so big, I usually don't mind waiting till prices hit dirt cheap before I pick games up. Go ahead, charge your games at 70. I'm still gonna buy it when it goes under 5 bucks.
I normally don't pay more than $20 for a game. The last game I paid $50 was FF7R and that's because I bought the Deluxe Edition.