237
Capcom President Thinks Game Prices Are 'Too Low' - IGN
(www.ign.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
237 points (96.8% liked)
Games
32540 readers
611 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Even the most terrible AAA games sell millions of copies these days. They more than make their money back with each one, the margins are slimmer but the volume is magnitudes higher than ever. Cry me a river.
This exact thought (volume) occurred to me when I saw the headline. They like to say that the price of games hasn't increased in line with inflation, but I'd be interested to know how big the market was in the 80s, 90s, 2000s and today. I'd bet the market is orders of magnitude bigger today.
This drives me crazy every time I see it so I'm glad to see others recognizing this. Yes game production has gone up, but the market has massively increased. Your costs are fixed; doesn't matter if you sell 10,000 copies or 10,000,000. More people are gaming than ever so when I see all these attempts to squeeze more money from consumers to address rising costs I have no sympathy for the publisher.
Prices of video games and consoles have actually declined over time when accounting for inflation.
https://techraptor.net/gaming/features/cost-of-gaming-since-1970s
Here's an example:
PlayStation 1
Cost at Launch (1995): $299.99 Cost Today (2020): $509.19 Average Game Cost (1995): $49.99 Average Game Cost (2020): $84.85
PlayStation 2
Cost at Launch (2000): $299.99 Cost Today (2020): $450.64 Average Game Cost (2000): $49.99 Average Game Cost (2020): $75.09
AAA titles going to $90 would actually be putting them back to PS1 and earlier pricing.
And the profitability has skyrocketed. The videogame industry is now one of the largest insudtries on the planet. A big driver has been normalisation of after-purchase items. Console players now pay to unlock their collar to the internet (ps+ and XBlive). Microtransactions add to this, and now battlepasses want $10+ every 50-90 days. Lootboxes normalizing near-gambling with overwatches success was a huge bar-lift in profitability expectations for shareholders.
Special editions are also hitting $90 and higher, plus those other expenditures. Ask "the gamers tm" and they'll tell you you have to buy a special edition for $120 or you're not a real fan anyway. Starfield has a $300 version. The Digital Premium doesn't even come with the GAME! It's another $35 after you already gave Microsoft $70.
Additionally, the work to make a new game has decreased. Assets are able to be salvaged from one engine to the next reducing the amount of work to make a game in UE6 after it was on UE5. the workforce has matured and can be taught as a class so there's not nearly as many "self taught" making half a game. Roller Coaster Tycoon was made almost entirely by one dude. Obviously re-using assets is smart. But then to say you "built the game from the ground up" is false. Elden Ring was even praised for it
Marketing budgets have fuckin EXPLODED. A "Rule of Thumb" for indie devs is to spend HALF your budget on just marketing. Destiny allegedly spent 2.5× what they spent on development, for marketing. Publishing studios didn't used to spend this much. "For every dollar on the game, spend another .25 to .50 on marketing"
Buying power has gone DOWN since ps1. You think I'm joking but federal minimum wage in the US is still 7.25. In 1994 (launch of ps1). It was 4.25 - adjusted for inflation thats $8.43. Meaning if you made minimum wage then, you'd be making more than minimum wage now, effectively. People are fucking broke and game companies want MORE money for games.
In 1994 when you bought a PS1 game you got THE WHOLE GAME. That was it. There was no merch drop pip-boy for the special edition. There was no Day-One patch. There was no "pay to get multiplayer". There was no in-game shop to buy skins for the characters. All these features were intentionally cut to resell to consumers post-launch.
Games cost less to make now, but budgets went up. Buying power is down. Please stop defending corporate bullshit excuses about wanting more money, forever.
The article you linked for elder ring (a game with no micro-transactions) talked about re-using assets from that game.
As in it was built from the ground up but reused in the game.
It was a specific example to show how AAA games reuse assets, not mtx. A low hanging fruit of that could be like...any sports game.
A similar example of good reuse could be EA and a specific Female Character Mesh they've had for awhile and they just keep reusing her. The photo example I found searching was Falck from BF 2042. Her hitbox and mesh is in Battlefront 2, as a First Order officer; and in Battlefield 5.
I dont outright hate reuse of things here and there - it saves money and time.
The article said it re-used assets in the game that were made for that game and that game alone.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what you said, I'm just repeating information from the article you posted.
I'd be curious comparing these prices to median income or median disposable income. I'm guessing it tracks those numbers much closer than inflation, which wages haven't kept pace with.
Yeah but in PS1 days those prices got you the full game.
That's not what I asked though. Irrelevant information because we don't know the economies of scale at play.
Well distribution is basically entierly free at this point so more customers is just directly more money.
Not to mention the price of games has increased. See micro transactions and dlc.