Why are sub prices and B2P costs the same now as 30 years ago? Ease of distribution, volume of sales and competitive market saturation.
These things actually make it harder to get your game seen. When every title coming out has to deal with literally hundreds to thousands of titles releasing the same month or even day it makes it incredibly difficult to even get noticed. Game development is a risky business to be in and has grown even more so as the years have passed. Around 70 percent of games released do not turn a profit. 70 percent. As a consumer it is easy to say of course the price of games should not be increased over their 25 to 30 year baseline. As a studio it becomes a question of how do we recover any kind of ROI in our labor of love? Hence the birth of the micro transactions. That is reality.
Reality is that the market is oversaturated as supported by your own 70% figure and the statement about how hard it is to be noticed. What can be charged for a given type of game has nothing to do with what should be charged: it's whatever the market will bear and in gaming, most of that is determined by what the competition is charging.
You have a distinctly developer focused take on how things should be and you have a tendency to blame the pricing reality on what gamers are willing to pay. That's backwards. The reality of the pricing is that it is determined by what the other developers are charging in an incredibly overcrowded market. Wishes that it were different are all well and good but also unrealistic.
It is a very risky and volatile industry these days. I understand that very well since my son has been in the business developing games for more than a decade. He and his boss just got back from a trip to Japan to pitch their new game to one of the gaming giants (which shall remain nameless ) as an exclusive. Things are looking good too.
For the past 5 years they have been living and funding development off the proceeds of their one and only success to date, Crypt of the Necrodancer. That's an indie success story but there are 100s of failures that go along with the few that succeed.
Yeah maybe in a perfect dev-friendly world, games should be $100 or more and subs $30 considering time, effort and costs. But as long as someone else is selling something comparable for $49 and subs for $15 you're stuck with that whether you like it or not.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I mean the thread was dead the moment you described the $60 price range as too cheap.
Let me introduce you to steam and steam metrics. Constantly proving that the price point of games is much too expensive to the masses. You are thinking $ amount and not quantity. They can make money on $15 with enough sales. It all has to do with the quality sold not the price point. That's why Early Access is thriving.
OP I don't feel there was any effort in your "research" before trying to prove your point.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
I dont like the whole "free to play" and/or "cash shop" idea much. I want a fixed subscription, so everyone plays the same game. The SOE concept was already very borderline to me, frankly I mostly tolerated it because I loved Vanguard so much.
[...] they should be priced due to how expensive it is to make good quality games these days compared to the past. [...]
Err ... when I play a MMO I dont expect top notch graphics. Which is the thing that drives development cost up like that.
Sure I expect pretty enough graphics, but much, much more importantly a huge gameworld with lots of diverse quests and most importantly a rock solid rulesystem with many classes that all play very differently, a mix thats enjoyable to play for years.
Large gameworlds and top notch graphics are impossible to have at the same time.
If you cannot manage that for a low enough price then I'm just out.
please show us the math that produced this number.
I expect something like:
stupid + dull * riddiculous / sanity
More seriously: I think he just posts random numbers and doesnt get that once you start with such random numbers, the prices would only get up and up afterwards. And I just cant afford that. Sorry. Especially not for something I dont need in the first place (uber graphics).
An MMORPG charging 30 - 60 dollars for a sub would immediately kill itself.
I would perfectly accept 30 dollars per sub if I get two sets of characters I can play in parallel for that.
Because thats what I do anyway. Having two such sets of characters is a huge buff in respect to useability. You can trade items between characters, you can have pure inventory characters just for storage, and you can have one character adventuring and the other character either soloing or crafting or whatever. So if theres a pause in adventuring you can play the other character.
Games have been the same price since the 1990’s and even in the 80’s they absolutely should be priced higher. Studios know this as well but are afraid of the backlash involved with raising the price. For those who say they should be cheaper because of micro transactions well why do you think developers started to do this in the first place? To recoup a larger ROI I worked on a project for the PS3 launch and the team thought of releasing it at a $69.99 price point but Sony would not allow it. Saying market baseline is what it is. Saying gamers won’t spend that kind of money on a game. Which the team found funny considering the hardware was so highly priced.
PC games for me in Canada used to be $49 in the 80's and 90's now they're $80.00. Console games used to always cost more, they were $60 when the PC games were $49. I used to think about how the console players were getting shafted.
Canadian Dollar was shittier back then too $0.69 as opposed to $0.76
As a note before the actual post, the amount here is all in USD. Also the numbers are examples, but what I "feel" they should be priced due to how expensive it is to make good quality games these days compared to the past. But in any case, games are still far too cheap
In general, games are too cheap...60 dollars isn't very much in todays world. Games should cost over 150 dollars for a brand new game, in how expensive everything else is. Development in todays world is far more expensive than it used to be.
But, MMOs also seem to have by far too cheap subscriptions. For a while, they cost 10 dollars...but then it only went up five dollars to 15. For an MMO to prosper, and also maybe even rely on cash shops less...they really should cost anywhere from 30 (double the price) to even 60 dollars a month of current priced games.
Expansions for example, like BFA are 50 dollars. But the amount should be more 90-140 dollars for how much work has gone into it.
I think companies are afraid of increasing the price to the appropriate amount of how much things cost cause they think people will scoff at the price. But, they really need to not just slightly increase the price...but dramatically increase the price to match todays economy and how expensive it is to develop games.
You're looking at development cost but ignoring the money they get back from subs and the cash shop as well as the high profit margins based on how many people actually buy the boxes.
They know what they are doing. Now if LOTRO devs spent that much developing an expansion for such a tiny population, then yes they'd need to jack up the price. But the goal is to get people to buy the expansion and then keep subbing. And since expansions don't come with a free month you can add $15 to that price anyway for the first month
Have games been fixed at a fixed subscription point for over 20 years seemingly defying inflation? Yes. Does that mean games are too cheap now or too expensive then? Probably a bit of both. Why haven't games gone with a 'whatever the market will bear' approach? It's quite likely that they actually have, with cash shops and concept-level buy ins. Will it continue? Probably. Will it doom us all? Unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
Now, back to the squabbling. Or do something useful, like play a game.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Please show evidence to back up the claim that it is more expensive to make good quality games today than it was in the past (also, clarify what you mean by the term "the past", and who is to decide what is a good quality game, and how are they going to do so?).
So are saying that you can’t see how games being made today are more expensive to make and market than they were 30 years ago? Really?
No, I am asking exactly what I typed.
You mention 30 years ago, but the OP just said "in the past", the OP is also talking about "good quality games", both are very broad terms, so I asked for evidence and clarification.
WoW (as an example) is older than Allods online (as another example), both were made "in the past", yet WoW is further "in the past" and cost more to make/market, and it is anyone guess if they qualify as the "good quality games" the OP is talking about.
It is a funny world we live in. We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
I never understood the love for a sub and hate for the cash shop.
It's like "I'd pay more for nothing and outraged at the idea of getting something for my money"
Can someone actually explain this to me, in a way that does not sound insane?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
As a note before the actual post, the amount here is all in USD. Also the numbers are examples, but what I "feel" they should be priced due to how expensive it is to make good quality games these days compared to the past. But in any case, games are still far too cheap
In general, games are too cheap...60 dollars isn't very much in todays world. Games should cost over 150 dollars for a brand new game, in how expensive everything else is. Development in todays world is far more expensive than it used to be.
But, MMOs also seem to have by far too cheap subscriptions. For a while, they cost 10 dollars...but then it only went up five dollars to 15. For an MMO to prosper, and also maybe even rely on cash shops less...they really should cost anywhere from 30 (double the price) to even 60 dollars a month of current priced games.
Expansions for example, like BFA are 50 dollars. But the amount should be more 90-140 dollars for how much work has gone into it.
I think companies are afraid of increasing the price to the appropriate amount of how much things cost cause they think people will scoff at the price. But, they really need to not just slightly increase the price...but dramatically increase the price to match todays economy and how expensive it is to develop games.
LMFAO. This is one of the funniest and most ridiculous posts i've read in a long time. How does a monthly subscription to one game warrant the cost of an entire game? I'd never play another MMO again if they cost $60 a month. I would gladly take an upcharge for an MMO without cash shop. I'd pay $20/mo for Vanguard if they keep cash shop out. But $60 is outlandish.
I'd be curious how you justify $90 - $140 for an expansion. Does that mean the initial game should cost $200? LOL Most MMO expansions are no where near the content of many Open World console games that go for $60 box price or what you suggest should be $150. IDK how you suggest a content pack should cost more or as much an an entire brand new game concept.
You obviously have never followed financials for video games. Big Studio's profits are HUGE!!! They are able to spend 100 million on marketing, pay for development and come out with plenty of dough for share holders. Many games are still able to do this without cash shops. Then they add those in and their stock prices sky rocket.
Take some finance classes. Sure development costs are a lot higher, but your consumer base is larger. Successful games don't sell a couple hundred thousand copies like they used to. Games like Fifa sell 10 million copies, ANNUALLY! A lot of estimates put WoW, Diablo 3 and PUBG at over 20 million each. So yeah development costs are higher but they are moving significantly more product to cover those costs and of course selling at a higher price.
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
You are right games have been the same price for 30 years. Why raise them to allow a better life for the developers. smh
Do you mean the developers or the executives? I've never heard anything about any company making fancy-graphics games using profit-sharing with the people actually making the games.
Most game studios don't have executives.
They all do. That is inarguable. The word doesn't have to be in the title for someone or people to have executive responsibilities.
And can you name some examples of any game that made a big profit, or even more profit, passing that profit on to all the people who made the game? If not, please tell me how a higher box price would enrich anyone but the executives?
Two titles I worked on actually. Hellblade and City of the Shroud. It happens more than you might think.
I never understood the love for a sub and hate for the cash shop.
It's like "I'd pay more for nothing and outraged at the idea of getting something for my money"
Can someone actually explain this to me, in a way that does not sound insane?
For me, subs are the "player equalizer." Everyone has 24 hours each and every day. No more, no less. We all decide (choose on our own) how to spend those hours, be it work/career, family/friends, gaming or other entertainments/hobbies/interests.
Every month I spend for a sub, I don't get "nothing", I get a complete game that allows me to do whatever, wherever, however I desire. I can set a goal to attempt to "acquire" anything in the game and set out to do it. One payment, once every month and I don't worry about what is available to me or not, what has been shipped off to the cash shop, or where I can go, thanks to pay walls.
I undrestand why players like paying for what they play, NOT paying for what they don't. It's just a different mindset is all and neither is "insane." I do find it interesting that many times, an "anti-sub player" may spend more in a cash shop every month than a sub would cost them. NOT always, but enough to make me wonder.
It boils down to getting the credit card during the game or just once a month, for me. I prefer to pay at once and be done then not worry until the next month. There is a lot of sub games that had "areas" I never ventured into, PvP being a main one. I didn't mind and made the conscious choice to pay the sub because what I did play warranted the money in my eyes.
Hats off to @Vermillion_Raventhal for pointing out players paying to NOT play the game, thanks to cash shops. That counts as "insane" to me
PS: The way MMOs are made these days, the content doesn't last a month or two anyway. No reason to sub anymore
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I never understood the love for a sub and hate for the cash shop.
It's like "I'd pay more for nothing and outraged at the idea of getting something for my money"
Can someone actually explain this to me, in a way that does not sound insane?
Because people rather pay to play over pay to win or pay to not play.
What do you mean by this?
This is very vague and not informative, can you explain with details?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The gaming market seems flooded. People no longer have to stick to the same game and it's best and worst parts because it was the only game in town or one of a very few. Now I've moved on to treating gaming like a buffet and picking the elements from several that I enjoy the most. I don't pay a sub because none-sub or sub-optional games offer about the same amounts of enjoyment.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I'm confused as to the logic, the evidence and the facts regarding this. If it's to say, "Hey, if you get x hours from this, then it's a good deal and it's worth so much more!" Then I could see that being okay just based on numbers alone. Though if the goal of this post is to promote corporate agendas and to parrot that big money wants more money, then I also would like to (like, but not going to), look on your background, financial situation (where you're getting money from), where they were educated (I know a lot of mentors that spout rhetoric) and so on.
I say this because I had a relative once say the same thing -- who was frequently asked to go to dozens of private parties each year that companies paid for, was an ambassador for a specific console, given hundreds of free review copies by different companies and given letters of recommendation by people whose jobs are to make more money -- and trick / fool the uneducated into believing fallacies and that they're the good guys.
EA themselves put it best when they said that turning off their intended additional money scheme with Loot Boxes on Star Wars would have no planned material effect on their overall profit margins and the incredible money they were making just from the base game. Add to this that most games have elite editions, legendary editions, collectors editions, DLC up the wazoo, microtransactions and A LOT more ways to make money in addition to this, and you have a situation where you've been lied to, paid to lie or just plain fed bullshit and believed it.
Not convinced? Well, let's play hardball and go directly to probably one of the hardest and biggest single player games / genres to make -- an open world RPG -- Witcher III. A game that has amazing graphics and has obtained rave reviews. A game that didn't do a lot of the shady crap to get extra money. A game that had worthwhile expansions rather than just $5 DLC swords.
In total, The Witcher III -- again one of the longest, most in depth and graphically beautiful games to date -- cost about $80 million to make. That's including all marketing and everything already added into it. Do you understand how many copies of that game sold? Merchandise outside of the game? Things that have come from it, when marketed well (such as Gwent)?
Imagine what smaller games costs with brilliant management, use of assets and experienced teams?
Two more: Overwatch and GTA V -- both of which have made billions just from their games alone (which GTA having a lot of technical problems that increased their costs to make a lot), to speak nothing of franchise deals, professional teams (I think they're charging $60 million to register a pro team now), merchandise, cash shop items, etc. Overwatch was basically conceived from a failure to make a game and then reusing some of its assets and making a brand new one (and the estimates of making overwatch once that was over was roughly 15-25 million as they cut their Titan team in half and gave them a couple years).
This isn't even going into "remastered" editions that pop up, "complete editions", PC releases, PC ongoing sales, special deals, free advertising, etc. As well as ongoing income from adequate development planning.
Then we go into different territory: The whole "AAA" designation that is a beast in itself and totally capable of making MASSIVE amounts of money regardless of costs. Some don't cut mustard, but that's the difference between both good marketing and making a decent game. And trust me, marketing and manipulation of people who believe anything "oh, we're being the good guys here!" is as easy as ever, especially with how the populace has been trained to not think and buy into hype and promote the "I want it now" mentality. We honestly have games selling alpha and beta access for hundreds if not thousands of dollars; the same with virtual items for exclusive content or day one content. The need to pay an army of testers has gone to the wayside in a lot of cases, the cost of marketing has been from paying for spots on TV to paying individuals who don't know how to negotiate for money and, in general, the current systems have become a lot easier to make games on when compared to when the Playstation was trying to be fancy, with them adopting specific architecture.
Which leads into the "buy it when its a discount" culture, the boycotters, the pirates, used games and even people who are okay with just watch someone else play it. All have their ups and downs in their own way, with the only surpassing negative in the past that didn't also come with a huge positive being the pirates (though with the advent of steam and convenient, good deals, that has mostly gone to the wayside; it could be argued used as well, but they still get some of what is about to be mentioned).
To say nothing of the specific research on what people will pay or buy into, which leads to any and all companies to look for additional ways to make even more money. $50-60 is a tried and true "day one privileged" ownership cost for AAA games. It sets the bare to be affordable to anyone that wants to game -- to get hooked on a franchise (more money in the future), to become fans of a company (more money in the future) and, with the explosion of multiplayer games, to get your friends or make friends and want to keep them (more money in the future). Sales once again give a big boost and brings in the "maybe crowd", especially when it comes to PC and its culture. With "higher tier" copies being sold to those that can afford them with additional virtual items or just additions in general.
Taking away the base cost in a short-sighted attempt to "make money" will, in fact, do quite the opposite in most cases. Especially since that will be less people that have access or a need for additional features and things for the future of the game and content. And especially with the before-mentioned alternative routes that people have thought of or done in the past. Impulse buying goes down, the want to buy goes down even if your friends recommend it or you watch your favorite personality play it (from a variety of reasons, such as just not knowing if you'd like it). It's far more likely you'll partake in a new solution to get your fix, or just be satisfied with watching. People find different ways, just like companies do to make it "feel" like it's worth the purchase and then reel you into more purchases that feel good. Tripling prices suddenly is the opposite of this.
(post 1 of 2)
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
I distinctly remember mentioned the recent WoW expansion in this post. Which implies $50 + $360 or $410 minimum for a game is "cheap". To say nothing if you have a SO that plays or family, which could escalate into a couple thousand per head of the family. Since only one copy per account, on person per account, and multiple accounts needed to play together. In addition to needing to spend two years of fees to keep on playing the game you bought -- sure you can quit, but then you don't have access to the expansion you bought, unlike other games. So $410 is for the same access privilege. Given how WoD was in the past, this was especially bad consumer practice and a total ripoff in various ways.
Money = X hours of enjoyment just isn't a smart way to justify or think of things. It fails to look at the big picture, the context of what is going on, etc. It is lazy and doesn't use much brain power and allows people to easily be taken advantage of. But, as they say, the most successful businessman or entrepreneur knows that you need to find someone dumber than you are and sell them something. Though that's the same practice a con man uses, as well.
What about games that cost a fraction of AAA prices? Well made, hitting their research and make billions? Small games, as well? Minecraft, Stardew Valley, Fortnite, League of Legends, Terraria, Rhimworld, Prison Architect, etc. Their astronomical profits. And they're just to name a few (the flood of asset flips this led to with people looking for quick profits is a discussion for another day, but it also helps separate the exceptional from the bland). It's all about making a game that's worth playing, and knowing how to play your cards right. Not the cost of the game -- which, in accordance with supply and demand -- will likely even out if not research correctly and someone just blurts out a number like "150" for games. And for indie games that are "good" that only make okay profits, it's more so the genre at work -- they wouldn't have magically obtained a hundred thousand more people buying their game if they raised it from $20 to $100.
Imagine the insane losses and backlash that will occur from doing something so absolutely stupid?
I'd be remiss if I also didn't mention console exclusives and sale; the fees incurred for selling games for consoles and obtaining the rights to do so. They're (the console makers and developers both) are subject to a lot of this, and various whims. And have a lot of research behind them on how to manipulate people and what is the hot spot on how to do things.
If developers and console makers thought they could make a lot more money by increasing a minimal and base costs by thrice what it is now, they would have done it long ago. But they haven't, because they have intelligent people that know how to make money. In fact, they lowered prices after the first big game crash and implemented seals of quality. It's curious how we have quite a few multi-billion dollar gaming companies now, since apparently they did it wrong.
This honestly reminds me of an article I read about self-driving cars. How people were saying, "what if this happens? I bet they haven't thought of this!" To which the article replied, "trust me, if -you- thought of it, the people of multi-billion dollar companies and the scientists / pioneering engineers thought of it as well."
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
The gaming market seems flooded. People no longer have to stick to the same game and it's best and worst parts because it was the only game in town or one of a very few. Now I've moved on to treating gaming like a buffet and picking the elements from several that I enjoy the most. I don't pay a sub because none-sub or sub-optional games offer about the same amounts of enjoyment.
Aren't there "good and bad" in all aspects "play?"
Did you quit when tagged as "it" playing tag? Did you walk away when chosen to count in hide and seek? Did you enjoy being scored on in a sport? Do you ride a bike downhill only?
It seems to me we have a bad case of "spoilage." As soon as a game gets "tough" (definition varies by player), we start seeking another.
Now, there is a difference between "not as fun" and "downright maddening/boring." It seems that we gamers have many other entertainment outlets we can easily indulge in, instead of sticking with a few games or other entertainment. That's just mny observations and I'm sure there are exceptions.
I never understood the love for a sub and hate for the cash shop.
It's like "I'd pay more for nothing and outraged at the idea of getting something for my money"
Can someone actually explain this to me, in a way that does not sound insane?
Because people rather pay to play over pay to win or pay to not play.
What do you mean by this?
This is very vague and not informative, can you explain with details?
Meaning people want to pay for a whole game and actually play it. People do not like pay to win or advantages if you like. People do not like paying to not have to play the game. Usually because the game is designed to be unbearable to play.
If it weren't for microtransactions I'd say yes games are a bit too cheap these days; but as it stands even a free game can be too expensive to actually play.
Let's just take World of Warcraft as one example with 5 million subscribers. So at $15 a month x subscriber numbers you get $7.5 million a MONTH. With those earnings alone, they can afford an expansion every year.
Subscription games don't have a problem making a profit if they aren't utter crap.
With WoW's recent expansion is 50 dollars for the non-collector's edition. So lets assume at minimum, "all" of the subscribers didn't get the collector's version. That is still...
250,000,000 dollars in just the expansion alone...in terms of USD revenue
Post edited by TheScavenger on
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
Comments
you forgot one thing in your calulations:
yes, games didn't rise as much as everything else in the last 30 years
no, they don't need to, since WAY more people are buying them nowadays.
uh, and what is it that pisses you off about WoW's item shop? the cosmetic items you can buy? get over it
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
You have a distinctly developer focused take on how things should be and you have a tendency to blame the pricing reality on what gamers are willing to pay. That's backwards. The reality of the pricing is that it is determined by what the other developers are charging in an incredibly overcrowded market. Wishes that it were different are all well and good but also unrealistic.
It is a very risky and volatile industry these days. I understand that very well since my son has been in the business developing games for more than a decade. He and his boss just got back from a trip to Japan to pitch their new game to one of the gaming giants (which shall remain nameless
For the past 5 years they have been living and funding development off the proceeds of their one and only success to date, Crypt of the Necrodancer. That's an indie success story but there are 100s of failures that go along with the few that succeed.
Yeah maybe in a perfect dev-friendly world, games should be $100 or more and subs $30 considering time, effort and costs. But as long as someone else is selling something comparable for $49 and subs for $15 you're stuck with that whether you like it or not.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
MAGA
Let me introduce you to steam and steam metrics. Constantly proving that the price point of games is much too expensive to the masses. You are thinking $ amount and not quantity. They can make money on $15 with enough sales. It all has to do with the quality sold not the price point. That's why Early Access is thriving.
OP I don't feel there was any effort in your "research" before trying to prove your point.
Because thats what I do anyway. Having two such sets of characters is a huge buff in respect to useability. You can trade items between characters, you can have pure inventory characters just for storage, and you can have one character adventuring and the other character either soloing or crafting or whatever. So if theres a pause in adventuring you can play the other character.
Canadian Dollar was shittier back then too $0.69 as opposed to $0.76
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Aloha Mr Hand !
Have games been fixed at a fixed subscription point for over 20 years seemingly defying inflation? Yes. Does that mean games are too cheap now or too expensive then? Probably a bit of both. Why haven't games gone with a 'whatever the market will bear' approach? It's quite likely that they actually have, with cash shops and concept-level buy ins. Will it continue? Probably. Will it doom us all? Unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
Now, back to the squabbling. Or do something useful, like play a game.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
You mention 30 years ago, but the OP just said "in the past", the OP is also talking about "good quality games", both are very broad terms, so I asked for evidence and clarification.
WoW (as an example) is older than Allods online (as another example), both were made "in the past", yet WoW is further "in the past" and cost more to make/market, and it is anyone guess if they qualify as the "good quality games" the OP is talking about.
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
It's like "I'd pay more for nothing and outraged at the idea of getting something for my money"
Can someone actually explain this to me, in a way that does not sound insane?
I'd be curious how you justify $90 - $140 for an expansion. Does that mean the initial game should cost $200? LOL Most MMO expansions are no where near the content of many Open World console games that go for $60 box price or what you suggest should be $150. IDK how you suggest a content pack should cost more or as much an an entire brand new game concept.
You obviously have never followed financials for video games. Big Studio's profits are HUGE!!! They are able to spend 100 million on marketing, pay for development and come out with plenty of dough for share holders. Many games are still able to do this without cash shops. Then they add those in and their stock prices sky rocket.
Take some finance classes. Sure development costs are a lot higher, but your consumer base is larger. Successful games don't sell a couple hundred thousand copies like they used to. Games like Fifa sell 10 million copies, ANNUALLY! A lot of estimates put WoW, Diablo 3 and PUBG at over 20 million each. So yeah development costs are higher but they are moving significantly more product to cover those costs and of course selling at a higher price.
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
VG
Every month I spend for a sub, I don't get "nothing", I get a complete game that allows me to do whatever, wherever, however I desire. I can set a goal to attempt to "acquire" anything in the game and set out to do it. One payment, once every month and I don't worry about what is available to me or not, what has been shipped off to the cash shop, or where I can go, thanks to pay walls.
I undrestand why players like paying for what they play, NOT paying for what they don't. It's just a different mindset is all and neither is "insane." I do find it interesting that many times, an "anti-sub player" may spend more in a cash shop every month than a sub would cost them. NOT always, but enough to make me wonder.
It boils down to getting the credit card during the game or just once a month, for me. I prefer to pay at once and be done then not worry until the next month. There is a lot of sub games that had "areas" I never ventured into, PvP being a main one. I didn't mind and made the conscious choice to pay the sub because what I did play warranted the money in my eyes.
Hats off to @Vermillion_Raventhal for pointing out players paying to NOT play the game, thanks to cash shops. That counts as "insane" to me
PS: The way MMOs are made these days, the content doesn't last a month or two anyway. No reason to sub anymore
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
This is very vague and not informative, can you explain with details?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I say this because I had a relative once say the same thing -- who was frequently asked to go to dozens of private parties each year that companies paid for, was an ambassador for a specific console, given hundreds of free review copies by different companies and given letters of recommendation by people whose jobs are to make more money -- and trick / fool the uneducated into believing fallacies and that they're the good guys.
EA themselves put it best when they said that turning off their intended additional money scheme with Loot Boxes on Star Wars would have no planned material effect on their overall profit margins and the incredible money they were making just from the base game. Add to this that most games have elite editions, legendary editions, collectors editions, DLC up the wazoo, microtransactions and A LOT more ways to make money in addition to this, and you have a situation where you've been lied to, paid to lie or just plain fed bullshit and believed it.
https://www.destructoid.com/ea-expects-no-material-impact-on-financial-earnings-after-turning-off-star-wars-battlefront-ii-s-microtransactions-473855.phtml
Not convinced? Well, let's play hardball and go directly to probably one of the hardest and biggest single player games / genres to make -- an open world RPG -- Witcher III. A game that has amazing graphics and has obtained rave reviews. A game that didn't do a lot of the shady crap to get extra money. A game that had worthwhile expansions rather than just $5 DLC swords.
In total, The Witcher III -- again one of the longest, most in depth and graphically beautiful games to date -- cost about $80 million to make. That's including all marketing and everything already added into it. Do you understand how many copies of that game sold? Merchandise outside of the game? Things that have come from it, when marketed well (such as Gwent)?
Imagine what smaller games costs with brilliant management, use of assets and experienced teams?
Two more: Overwatch and GTA V -- both of which have made billions just from their games alone (which GTA having a lot of technical problems that increased their costs to make a lot), to speak nothing of franchise deals, professional teams (I think they're charging $60 million to register a pro team now), merchandise, cash shop items, etc. Overwatch was basically conceived from a failure to make a game and then reusing some of its assets and making a brand new one (and the estimates of making overwatch once that was over was roughly 15-25 million as they cut their Titan team in half and gave them a couple years).
https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-Blizzard-spend-to-make-the-video-game-Overwatch
This isn't even going into "remastered" editions that pop up, "complete editions", PC releases, PC ongoing sales, special deals, free advertising, etc. As well as ongoing income from adequate development planning.
Then we go into different territory: The whole "AAA" designation that is a beast in itself and totally capable of making MASSIVE amounts of money regardless of costs. Some don't cut mustard, but that's the difference between both good marketing and making a decent game. And trust me, marketing and manipulation of people who believe anything "oh, we're being the good guys here!" is as easy as ever, especially with how the populace has been trained to not think and buy into hype and promote the "I want it now" mentality. We honestly have games selling alpha and beta access for hundreds if not thousands of dollars; the same with virtual items for exclusive content or day one content. The need to pay an army of testers has gone to the wayside in a lot of cases, the cost of marketing has been from paying for spots on TV to paying individuals who don't know how to negotiate for money and, in general, the current systems have become a lot easier to make games on when compared to when the Playstation was trying to be fancy, with them adopting specific architecture.
http://www.redgamingtech.com/why-ps4-and-xbox-one-moved-to-x86-64/
Which leads into the "buy it when its a discount" culture, the boycotters, the pirates, used games and even people who are okay with just watch someone else play it. All have their ups and downs in their own way, with the only surpassing negative in the past that didn't also come with a huge positive being the pirates (though with the advent of steam and convenient, good deals, that has mostly gone to the wayside; it could be argued used as well, but they still get some of what is about to be mentioned).
To say nothing of the specific research on what people will pay or buy into, which leads to any and all companies to look for additional ways to make even more money. $50-60 is a tried and true "day one privileged" ownership cost for AAA games. It sets the bare to be affordable to anyone that wants to game -- to get hooked on a franchise (more money in the future), to become fans of a company (more money in the future) and, with the explosion of multiplayer games, to get your friends or make friends and want to keep them (more money in the future). Sales once again give a big boost and brings in the "maybe crowd", especially when it comes to PC and its culture. With "higher tier" copies being sold to those that can afford them with additional virtual items or just additions in general.
Taking away the base cost in a short-sighted attempt to "make money" will, in fact, do quite the opposite in most cases. Especially since that will be less people that have access or a need for additional features and things for the future of the game and content. And especially with the before-mentioned alternative routes that people have thought of or done in the past. Impulse buying goes down, the want to buy goes down even if your friends recommend it or you watch your favorite personality play it (from a variety of reasons, such as just not knowing if you'd like it). It's far more likely you'll partake in a new solution to get your fix, or just be satisfied with watching. People find different ways, just like companies do to make it "feel" like it's worth the purchase and then reel you into more purchases that feel good. Tripling prices suddenly is the opposite of this.
(post 1 of 2)
Money = X hours of enjoyment just isn't a smart way to justify or think of things. It fails to look at the big picture, the context of what is going on, etc. It is lazy and doesn't use much brain power and allows people to easily be taken advantage of. But, as they say, the most successful businessman or entrepreneur knows that you need to find someone dumber than you are and sell them something. Though that's the same practice a con man uses, as well.
What about games that cost a fraction of AAA prices? Well made, hitting their research and make billions? Small games, as well? Minecraft, Stardew Valley, Fortnite, League of Legends, Terraria, Rhimworld, Prison Architect, etc. Their astronomical profits. And they're just to name a few (the flood of asset flips this led to with people looking for quick profits is a discussion for another day, but it also helps separate the exceptional from the bland). It's all about making a game that's worth playing, and knowing how to play your cards right. Not the cost of the game -- which, in accordance with supply and demand -- will likely even out if not research correctly and someone just blurts out a number like "150" for games. And for indie games that are "good" that only make okay profits, it's more so the genre at work -- they wouldn't have magically obtained a hundred thousand more people buying their game if they raised it from $20 to $100.
Imagine the insane losses and backlash that will occur from doing something so absolutely stupid?
I'd be remiss if I also didn't mention console exclusives and sale; the fees incurred for selling games for consoles and obtaining the rights to do so. They're (the console makers and developers both) are subject to a lot of this, and various whims. And have a lot of research behind them on how to manipulate people and what is the hot spot on how to do things.
If developers and console makers thought they could make a lot more money by increasing a minimal and base costs by thrice what it is now, they would have done it long ago. But they haven't, because they have intelligent people that know how to make money. In fact, they lowered prices after the first big game crash and implemented seals of quality. It's curious how we have quite a few multi-billion dollar gaming companies now, since apparently they did it wrong.
This honestly reminds me of an article I read about self-driving cars. How people were saying, "what if this happens? I bet they haven't thought of this!" To which the article replied, "trust me, if -you- thought of it, the people of multi-billion dollar companies and the scientists / pioneering engineers thought of it as well."
Did you quit when tagged as "it" playing tag? Did you walk away when chosen to count in hide and seek? Did you enjoy being scored on in a sport? Do you ride a bike downhill only?
It seems to me we have a bad case of "spoilage." As soon as a game gets "tough" (definition varies by player), we start seeking another.
Now, there is a difference between "not as fun" and "downright maddening/boring." It seems that we gamers have many other entertainment outlets we can easily indulge in, instead of sticking with a few games or other entertainment. That's just mny observations and I'm sure there are exceptions.
VG
250,000,000 dollars in just the expansion alone...in terms of USD revenue
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul