For news, discussions and memes!
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
$100 games with day 1 patches and I bet ads in-game. What the fuck are we paying for?
You have fun. I ain't paying for that shit
The economy might have the clout to normalise buying it on sale three years after release.
Fuck AAA studios; long live indie gaming.
First point in favor:
I actually think Rockstar is one of the true AAA studios that can justify this kind of pricing, they have such a huge dev team for rockstar flagships and on top of that the quality is unmatched throughout the gaming industry.
We are not talking about Bethesda here, RDR2 was basically a masterpiece.
Counterpoint: they also make more than enough money from GTA online to subsidize the base game cost. They will make many many times over what they spent on game dev and marketing with their online pricing model. So it’s just a further money grab really.
I will get downvoted to hell probably, but I agree. I also think gaming pricing is out of date. $60 was set in the 90s. Maybe earlier. It has not kept up with inflation, while games have only gotten more expensive (albeit qso more popular). Not saying every game should be 100, but if it's worth 100 I'll gladly pay that much.
RDR2 was a masterpiece. It was worth 100 - maybe even more for how many hundreds of hours of enjoyment I got out of it.
Ubisoft on the other hand, makes what I put in the mid tier list. They're a fine way to waste time, but a far cry (get it) from a masterpiece. In a 60 world they're worth 40, in a 100 dollar world they're worth 60 I guess.
$30 was in the 90s, $60 in the mid late 00s
Why does the price have to increase? As you said, if rising sales covers the rise in development costs, then also raising the price on a digital good that is infinitely reproducible at no extra cost is just double dipping. These game publishers make crazy profits. Prices for everything don't have to just keep rising perpetually.
Don't forget the drop in necessary production costs, tools have only gotten better and cheaper while corpos have valued less and less.
Only thing a $100 price tag is going to normalize is pirating.
Oh well, looks like it'll be another gaming gen in which I will buy zero AAA games.
Nope
"publishing director". So Marketing.
As for game prices, in fairness to the industry prices have actually come down since 2000.
AAA Games on consoles in 2000 were around $50; that is $92 now due to inflation. Games went up to around $60 on consoles in 2006, that is around $93 now due to inflation. By 2019 they were still $60 but inflation eroded the value, and that had become equivalent to $73 today. When they then went up to $70 in 2020, that would be equivalent to $84 now.
So a nominal price of $100 is not as unreasonable as it sounds. It's higher than games were in 2000 but in the future if static would erode back to equivalent to $90 in probably 3-4 years.
But the problem is people do not think in terms of inflationary value, and instead in terms of nominal value. And the bigger problem is most peoples earnings are squeezed by inflation and we have not been having pay rises to account for the inflation, so games are more expensive as proportion of income.
Glad you had that last paragraph, because inflationary justifications are just hand waving when people's income isn't keeping pace. It's not based in reality.
Im not gonna buy it, already bought helldivers and I am happy with that
A fool and their money are soon parted
I could see it. And I think it could (read: will happen) at some point in the near future. Think about all the fanboys and whales and parents who don't give a shit that'll buy it anyway cause it's the next new thing.
It'll fucking suck when it happens.