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 $299.
They say that game's take alot more effort and money to make, but they do they honestly feel 10+ million dollars more than games of the past? Can I tell EA to skip the 50$ 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.