Personally, I get both sides of the argument. I would be willing to have a starting price point of $80 for a well made game. They can add season passes and DLC as well if they like. After all, those are optional.
Personally, I get both sides of the argument. I would be willing to have a starting price point of $80 for a well made game. They can add season passes and DLC as well if they like. After all, those are optional.
Yeah, while my prices probably high...80 dollars for the base game would be a lot better than what they are now.
(rest isn't part of the quote)
For those saying costs of games are the same...
That isn't the only costs if indeed games cost the same. You have to factor in...
Price of housing has gone up. Most cities inside the US it can cost 100s of thousands just to buy a house. Rental apartments are no better inside cities, with rents (depending on the state) going for 1000s of dollars a month and that doesn't include the increase in price. In San Francisco you can have two programming jobs and STILL be homeless...new york city isn't much better. Just two examples.
So cost of living is a lot higher (at least in some states), with not just renting but all the increase in bills and utilities
Cost of gas is more than it used to be (far more expensive than it was decades ago), which adds the cost to travel time
Cost of groceries have gone up. For example, ice cream is more expensive than they used to be. Many years ago you could get a gallon sized container of icecream for the same price you now are stuck with a much smaller thing of icecream...which while yes same price, is actually more expensive in terms of how much you get.
Many things are far more expensive than they used to be. But the biggest thing is the general cost of living has gone way up. You can win a million dollars, and still not be able to afford a house in california, new york, washington state ...as some examples of very high price of living.
However I see games do cost more to make for an AA game. Advertising is more than it used to be for one, and games are MUCH bigger now than they used to be. Making bigger and bigger games add up the price of making that game. Plus all the voice acting, which games had little to none of a long time ago.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
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.
Now the eason for the thread is clear...
He didn't start the thread. He just gave some insight from someone in the industry. You make no sense.
Personally, I get both sides of the argument. I would be willing to have a starting price point of $80 for a well made game. They can add season passes and DLC as well if they like. After all, those are optional.
I would too, but I would want to see a lot of hands-on stuff to prove it's worth it. If I'm going to consider paying a higher premium up front, I want to know what I'm getting. I don't think that price point would get a lot of pre-orders, though.
Personally, I get both sides of the argument. I would be willing to have a starting price point of $80 for a well made game. They can add season passes and DLC as well if they like. After all, those are optional.
Yeah, while my prices probably high...80 dollars for the base game would be a lot better than what they are now.
(rest isn't part of the quote)
For those saying costs of games are the same...
That isn't the only costs if indeed games cost the same. You have to factor in...
Price of housing has gone up. Most cities inside the US it can cost 100s of thousands just to buy a house. Rental apartments are no better inside cities, with rents (depending on the state) going for 1000s of dollars a month and that doesn't include the increase in price. In San Francisco you can have two programming jobs and STILL be homeless...new york city isn't much better. Just two examples.
So cost of living is a lot higher (at least in some states), with not just renting but all the increase in bills and utilities
Cost of gas is more than it used to be (far more expensive than it was decades ago), which adds the cost to travel time
Cost of groceries have gone up. For example, ice cream is more expensive than they used to be. Many years ago you could get a gallon sized container of icecream for the same price you now are stuck with a much smaller thing of icecream...which while yes same price, is actually more expensive in terms of how much you get.
Many things are far more expensive than they used to be. But the biggest thing is the general cost of living has gone way up. You can win a million dollars, and still not be able to afford a house in california, new york, washington state ...as some examples of very high price of living.
However I see games do cost more to make for an AA game. Advertising is more than it used to be for one, and games are MUCH bigger now than they used to be. Making bigger and bigger games add up the price of making that game. Plus all the voice acting, which games had little to none of a long time ago.
Agreed. 120% Making games cost wayyy more than 20 years ago and we're also far from Zelda or super mario bros. As you said, the cost of living is really expensive. Those people making games.. they dont work for a few peanuts. Just for one person at $10/hour That's 22k a year. If that person works for 3 years on a game that's a 66k right there. 66K for 1 person at freaking $10/hour. Almost nobody works for $10/hour…..
On the other hand, do I want to pay $120 for a game ? Nope… So,pick your fight.
Disagree. I think $15 is too cheap. Capitalism is great. If they can swing it then swing it.
lol Really? Capitalism is great? We have the worst health care system in the first world, and employees make the least in the first world. Unfettered capitalism is a curse. Nice try though.
Personally, I get both sides of the argument. I would be willing to have a starting price point of $80 for a well made game. They can add season passes and DLC as well if they like. After all, those are optional.
Yeah, while my prices probably high...80 dollars for the base game would be a lot better than what they are now.
(rest isn't part of the quote)
For those saying costs of games are the same...
That isn't the only costs if indeed games cost the same. You have to factor in...
Price of housing has gone up. Most cities inside the US it can cost 100s of thousands just to buy a house. Rental apartments are no better inside cities, with rents (depending on the state) going for 1000s of dollars a month and that doesn't include the increase in price. In San Francisco you can have two programming jobs and STILL be homeless...new york city isn't much better. Just two examples.
So cost of living is a lot higher (at least in some states), with not just renting but all the increase in bills and utilities
Cost of gas is more than it used to be (far more expensive than it was decades ago), which adds the cost to travel time
Cost of groceries have gone up. For example, ice cream is more expensive than they used to be. Many years ago you could get a gallon sized container of icecream for the same price you now are stuck with a much smaller thing of icecream...which while yes same price, is actually more expensive in terms of how much you get.
Many things are far more expensive than they used to be. But the biggest thing is the general cost of living has gone way up. You can win a million dollars, and still not be able to afford a house in california, new york, washington state ...as some examples of very high price of living.
However I see games do cost more to make for an AA game. Advertising is more than it used to be for one, and games are MUCH bigger now than they used to be. Making bigger and bigger games add up the price of making that game. Plus all the voice acting, which games had little to none of a long time ago.
While true, those items hold true for not only every industry, but every consumer as well. Nashville is currently trying to figure out when its housing bubble will pop and how to avoid it, for example. Housing costs here are astronomical. Wages for pretty much all but the filthy rich have remained largely stagnant since we were paying $50 when I started gaming, and costs of living for everyone has went up.
When your industry isn't essential to livelihoods of consumers, you can't adjust prices solely on the basis of production costs alone.
Personally, I get both sides of the argument. I would be willing to have a starting price point of $80 for a well made game. They can add season passes and DLC as well if they like. After all, those are optional.
Yeah, while my prices probably high...80 dollars for the base game would be a lot better than what they are now.
(rest isn't part of the quote)
For those saying costs of games are the same...
That isn't the only costs if indeed games cost the same. You have to factor in...
Price of housing has gone up. Most cities inside the US it can cost 100s of thousands just to buy a house. Rental apartments are no better inside cities, with rents (depending on the state) going for 1000s of dollars a month and that doesn't include the increase in price. In San Francisco you can have two programming jobs and STILL be homeless...new york city isn't much better. Just two examples.
So cost of living is a lot higher (at least in some states), with not just renting but all the increase in bills and utilities
Cost of gas is more than it used to be (far more expensive than it was decades ago), which adds the cost to travel time
Cost of groceries have gone up. For example, ice cream is more expensive than they used to be. Many years ago you could get a gallon sized container of icecream for the same price you now are stuck with a much smaller thing of icecream...which while yes same price, is actually more expensive in terms of how much you get.
Many things are far more expensive than they used to be. But the biggest thing is the general cost of living has gone way up. You can win a million dollars, and still not be able to afford a house in california, new york, washington state ...as some examples of very high price of living.
However I see games do cost more to make for an AA game. Advertising is more than it used to be for one, and games are MUCH bigger now than they used to be. Making bigger and bigger games add up the price of making that game. Plus all the voice acting, which games had little to none of a long time ago.
When your industry isn't essential to livelihoods of consumers, you can't adjust prices solely on the basis of production costs alone.
Sure you can. look at the price of consoles and graphic cards. In fact many companies do this on purpose to preserve the perceived high quality of the brand.
Those aren't purchases you expect a consumer to make repeatedly. Not the same thing as being a single title on that console the person purchased to use for numerous titles over the next 6 years.
It certainly does. Additional to my previous point, Nvidia has no competition (when they do have the least bit from AMD, prices go down), and consoles are usually limited to two or three different options. That's vastly different than a single title.
Even so, consoles are sold at a loss early on because charging enough to make a profit at release would be untenable. The market wouldn't bear it. So I highly doubt either console makers or Nvidia blatantly disregard market factors such as these in determining pricing.
EDIT- the fact that Nvidia releases a series at a time at multiple price points is further evidence that they understand the consumers have a breaking point in terms of budget and the company can't simply ignore this.
It certainly does. Additional to my previous point, Nvidia has no competition (when they do have the least bit from AMD, prices go down), and consoles are usually limited to two or three different options. That's vastly different than a single title.
Even so, consoles are sold at a loss early on because charging enough to make a profit at release would be untenable. The market wouldn't bear it. So I highly doubt either console makers or Nvidia blatantly disregard market factors such as these in determining pricing.
No Nintendo console has ever been sold for a loss It is a dated idea that consoles are sold for a loss. The data does not support that.
Starbucks is proof that if you preserve the integrity of your brand you can charge what you want. It is a tired and dated argument that price dictates purchase habits. The numbers do not show that.
How is it tired when Sony sold their latest console for a loss?
Nintendo not selling theirs for a loss still proves the point. Nintendo has always fielded less beefy consoles than their counterparts at Sony or Microsoft. When you can undercut your only competition and still make a profit, that's a no-brainer. It does nothing to undercut the fact that Sony and Microsoft take losses on their consoles because charging what they cost for production would be too much for the market to bear, and they know this.
It certainly does. Additional to my previous point, Nvidia has no competition (when they do have the least bit from AMD, prices go down), and consoles are usually limited to two or three different options. That's vastly different than a single title.
Even so, consoles are sold at a loss early on because charging enough to make a profit at release would be untenable. The market wouldn't bear it. So I highly doubt either console makers or Nvidia blatantly disregard market factors such as these in determining pricing.
No Nintendo console has ever been sold for a loss It is a dated idea that consoles are sold for a loss. The data does not support that.
Starbucks is proof that if you preserve the integrity of your brand you can charge what you want. It is a tired and dated argument that price dictates purchase habits. The numbers do not show that.
How is it tired when Sony sold their latest console for a loss?
Nintendo not selling theirs for a loss still proves the point. Nintendo has always fielded less beefy consoles than their counterparts at Sony or Microsoft. When you can undercut your only competition and still make a profit, that's a no-brainer. It does nothing to undercut the fact that Sony and Microsoft take losses on their consoles because charging what they cost for production would be too much for the market to bear, and they know this.
It certainly does. Additional to my previous point, Nvidia has no competition (when they do have the least bit from AMD, prices go down), and consoles are usually limited to two or three different options. That's vastly different than a single title.
Even so, consoles are sold at a loss early on because charging enough to make a profit at release would be untenable. The market wouldn't bear it. So I highly doubt either console makers or Nvidia blatantly disregard market factors such as these in determining pricing.
No Nintendo console has ever been sold for a loss It is a dated idea that consoles are sold for a loss. The data does not support that.
Starbucks is proof that if you preserve the integrity of your brand you can charge what you want. It is a tired and dated argument that price dictates purchase habits. The numbers do not show that.
How is it tired when Sony sold their latest console for a loss?
Nintendo not selling theirs for a loss still proves the point. Nintendo has always fielded less beefy consoles than their counterparts at Sony or Microsoft. When you can undercut your only competition and still make a profit, that's a no-brainer. It does nothing to undercut the fact that Sony and Microsoft take losses on their consoles because charging what they cost for production would be too much for the market to bear, and they know this.
The Xbox One was not sold at a loss. Sony sild ar cost for 6 months. Many confuse the selling at a loss with selling at cost.
My point stands. You can charge what you want if you feel your ROI is not paying the bills. Otherwise Starbucks could not charge $4 or more for a cup of coffee. If what you are selling has a high value to your customers the market will bare a higher price. History is littered with examples of this. It is a fact.
As if selling at cost would refute my point; it's still a negative result for Microsoft they'd rather not have, but endured for the price point. If they made cash later on- great! Does nothing to refute that they wouldn't go with a higher price point at release because of market pressures.
You really need to stop making the Starbucks comparison, as a $4 cup of coffee is not the same as a console purchase in any way, shape, or form other than both are a cash-for-goods transaction. And what does their pricing have to do with my production costs comment anyways? Do you have anything to prove that Starbucks cost $4 because of increased production costs alone?
Not sure how your point stands (or, I should say, how it refutes my point). No one was saying brand recognition can't help sell, nor was anyone saying production costs don't affect pricing. I said they don't increase prices solely based on production costs. They factor in much more than that, including consumer market pressures. Those pressures include consumer purchasing power.
I just bought a pound of bruschetta at the local market. I paid $9.99. The ingredients for that pound probably cost 25 cents The labor was probably 5 cents the cup another 2 cents some small amount of overhead
Did they charge too much? Apparently not because I bought it and my wife loves it.
If the charged me $4.99 for a pound of random salad I would not buy it.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Really, the only cost a digital barrel or armor piece costs is the time it takes the salary or hourly paid developer to make it. Wages increase, digital assets do not. You pay the developers to create those assets. The idea that a digital tree costs more to create now than it did 30 years ago is kind of outlandish, don't you think? Digital assets cost nothing. There is no physical material within them like wood, paper, steel, or any other physical aspect that costs actual money.
I would actually think it costs less to make a digital tree today, than it did 30 years ago.
30 years ago, the dev making the digital tree was probably a rookie, had not made many (if any) digital tree's, so was learning at the same time as creating.
The hardware he was using 30 years ago was expensive compared to today (also a lot slower).
For the sake of argument, lets say it took that rookie dev two days to make the digital tree, would it still take two days today?
After 30 years of practice, all the hardware and software advances, surely it would take a lot less time to make the digital tree, meaning less wages, meaning a cheaper digital tree.
It is a funny world we live in. We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
Really, the only cost a digital barrel or armor piece costs is the time it takes the salary or hourly paid developer to make it. Wages increase, digital assets do not. You pay the developers to create those assets. The idea that a digital tree costs more to create now than it did 30 years ago is kind of outlandish, don't you think? Digital assets cost nothing. There is no physical material within them like wood, paper, steel, or any other physical aspect that costs actual money.
I would actually think it costs less to make a digital tree today, than it did 30 years ago.
30 years ago, the dev making the digital tree was probably a rookie, had not made many (if any) digital tree's, so was learning at the same time as creating.
The hardware he was using 30 years ago was expensive compared to today (also a lot slower).
For the sake of argument, lets say it took that rookie dev two days to make the digital tree, would it still take two days today?
After 30 years of practice, all the hardware and software advances, surely it would take a lot less time to make the digital tree, meaning less wages, meaning a cheaper digital tree.
You aren't factoring in the exponential increase in polygons, though. That increases the workload for the dev accordingly.
Subscription too cheap? They are becoming are even harder sell when things like EA and Microsoft pass exist. For almost the same your paying a month for an mmorpg sub you can get access to big publishers whole catalogue of games, even newly released games on day 1.
Netflix of gaming is coming and single purchases let alone single game subscriptions (each and every little mmo wanting $15 for a few perks more so) are going to be a hard sell.
It certainly does. Additional to my previous point, Nvidia has no competition (when they do have the least bit from AMD, prices go down), and consoles are usually limited to two or three different options. That's vastly different than a single title.
Even so, consoles are sold at a loss early on because charging enough to make a profit at release would be untenable. The market wouldn't bear it. So I highly doubt either console makers or Nvidia blatantly disregard market factors such as these in determining pricing.
No Nintendo console has ever been sold for a loss It is a dated idea that consoles are sold for a loss. The data does not support that.
Starbucks is proof that if you preserve the integrity of your brand you can charge what you want. It is a tired and dated argument that price dictates purchase habits. The numbers do not show that.
How is it tired when Sony sold their latest console for a loss?
Nintendo not selling theirs for a loss still proves the point. Nintendo has always fielded less beefy consoles than their counterparts at Sony or Microsoft. When you can undercut your only competition and still make a profit, that's a no-brainer. It does nothing to undercut the fact that Sony and Microsoft take losses on their consoles because charging what they cost for production would be too much for the market to bear, and they know this.
It certainly does. Additional to my previous point, Nvidia has no competition (when they do have the least bit from AMD, prices go down), and consoles are usually limited to two or three different options. That's vastly different than a single title.
Even so, consoles are sold at a loss early on because charging enough to make a profit at release would be untenable. The market wouldn't bear it. So I highly doubt either console makers or Nvidia blatantly disregard market factors such as these in determining pricing.
No Nintendo console has ever been sold for a loss It is a dated idea that consoles are sold for a loss. The data does not support that.
Starbucks is proof that if you preserve the integrity of your brand you can charge what you want. It is a tired and dated argument that price dictates purchase habits. The numbers do not show that.
How is it tired when Sony sold their latest console for a loss?
Nintendo not selling theirs for a loss still proves the point. Nintendo has always fielded less beefy consoles than their counterparts at Sony or Microsoft. When you can undercut your only competition and still make a profit, that's a no-brainer. It does nothing to undercut the fact that Sony and Microsoft take losses on their consoles because charging what they cost for production would be too much for the market to bear, and they know this.
The Xbox One was not sold at a loss. Sony sild ar cost for 6 months. Many confuse the selling at a loss with selling at cost.
My point stands. You can charge what you want if you feel your ROI is not paying the bills. Otherwise Starbucks could not charge $4 or more for a cup of coffee. If what you are selling has a high value to your customers the market will bare a higher price. History is littered with examples of this. It is a fact.
As if selling at cost would refute my point; it's still a negative result for Microsoft they'd rather not have, but endured for the price point. If they made cash later on- great! Does nothing to refute that they wouldn't go with a higher price point at release because of market pressures.
You really need to stop making the Starbucks comparison, as a $4 cup of coffee is not the same as a console purchase in any way, shape, or form other than both are a cash-for-goods transaction. And what does their pricing have to do with my production costs comment anyways? Do you have anything to prove that Starbucks cost $4 because of increased production costs alone?
Not sure how your point stands (or, I should say, how it refutes my point). No one was saying brand recognition can't help sell, nor was anyone saying production costs don't affect pricing. I said they don't increase prices solely based on production costs. They factor in much more than that, including consumer market pressures. Those pressures include consumer purchasing power.
You’ve grown a more hostile approach to your discourse lately. Hmm interesting.
It was unintentional here. Likely, my wording could have been better, but editing on the phone is a PITA, so I avoid revision where I can.
My overall point being is that we cannot simply look at higher costs of production, including cost of living, without realizing that also has an effect on other folks who would be the consumer of these products.
If salaries increased to keep pace with inflation, we'd all very likely have a very different perspective on the idea of, say, an $80 game.
It certainly does. Additional to my previous point, Nvidia has no competition (when they do have the least bit from AMD, prices go down), and consoles are usually limited to two or three different options. That's vastly different than a single title.
Even so, consoles are sold at a loss early on because charging enough to make a profit at release would be untenable. The market wouldn't bear it. So I highly doubt either console makers or Nvidia blatantly disregard market factors such as these in determining pricing.
No Nintendo console has ever been sold for a loss It is a dated idea that consoles are sold for a loss. The data does not support that.
Starbucks is proof that if you preserve the integrity of your brand you can charge what you want. It is a tired and dated argument that price dictates purchase habits. The numbers do not show that.
How is it tired when Sony sold their latest console for a loss?
Nintendo not selling theirs for a loss still proves the point. Nintendo has always fielded less beefy consoles than their counterparts at Sony or Microsoft. When you can undercut your only competition and still make a profit, that's a no-brainer. It does nothing to undercut the fact that Sony and Microsoft take losses on their consoles because charging what they cost for production would be too much for the market to bear, and they know this.
It certainly does. Additional to my previous point, Nvidia has no competition (when they do have the least bit from AMD, prices go down), and consoles are usually limited to two or three different options. That's vastly different than a single title.
Even so, consoles are sold at a loss early on because charging enough to make a profit at release would be untenable. The market wouldn't bear it. So I highly doubt either console makers or Nvidia blatantly disregard market factors such as these in determining pricing.
No Nintendo console has ever been sold for a loss It is a dated idea that consoles are sold for a loss. The data does not support that.
Starbucks is proof that if you preserve the integrity of your brand you can charge what you want. It is a tired and dated argument that price dictates purchase habits. The numbers do not show that.
How is it tired when Sony sold their latest console for a loss?
Nintendo not selling theirs for a loss still proves the point. Nintendo has always fielded less beefy consoles than their counterparts at Sony or Microsoft. When you can undercut your only competition and still make a profit, that's a no-brainer. It does nothing to undercut the fact that Sony and Microsoft take losses on their consoles because charging what they cost for production would be too much for the market to bear, and they know this.
The Xbox One was not sold at a loss. Sony sild ar cost for 6 months. Many confuse the selling at a loss with selling at cost.
My point stands. You can charge what you want if you feel your ROI is not paying the bills. Otherwise Starbucks could not charge $4 or more for a cup of coffee. If what you are selling has a high value to your customers the market will bare a higher price. History is littered with examples of this. It is a fact.
As if selling at cost would refute my point; it's still a negative result for Microsoft they'd rather not have, but endured for the price point. If they made cash later on- great! Does nothing to refute that they wouldn't go with a higher price point at release because of market pressures.
You really need to stop making the Starbucks comparison, as a $4 cup of coffee is not the same as a console purchase in any way, shape, or form other than both are a cash-for-goods transaction. And what does their pricing have to do with my production costs comment anyways? Do you have anything to prove that Starbucks cost $4 because of increased production costs alone?
Not sure how your point stands (or, I should say, how it refutes my point). No one was saying brand recognition can't help sell, nor was anyone saying production costs don't affect pricing. I said they don't increase prices solely based on production costs. They factor in much more than that, including consumer market pressures. Those pressures include consumer purchasing power.
You’ve grown a more hostile approach to your discourse lately. Hmm interesting.
It was unintentional here. Likely, my wording could have been better, but editing on the phone is a PITA, so I avoid revision where I can.
My overall point being is that we cannot simply look at higher costs of production, including cost of living, without realizing that also has an effect on other folks who would be the consumer of these products.
If salaries increased to keep pace with inflation, we'd all very likely have a very different perspective on the idea of, say, an $80 game.
You mean in America? Because games in some countries are already higher than that.
Absolutely. The $80 was an example already given (here or in another thread, I can't remember), which is why I used it. Same for the inflation comments, as I don't have a lot of information on other counties' wages.
Consumers here have less purchasing power now than they did during the previous console generation, and even less than the generation before that. As costs of living increase but salaries continue to stagnate, elective purchases such as entertainment take the hit, not things like rent or the utility bills. If you're not in real estate or utility services, you have to consider this when pricing your product.
Comments
(rest isn't part of the quote)
For those saying costs of games are the same...
That isn't the only costs if indeed games cost the same. You have to factor in...
Price of housing has gone up. Most cities inside the US it can cost 100s of thousands just to buy a house. Rental apartments are no better inside cities, with rents (depending on the state) going for 1000s of dollars a month and that doesn't include the increase in price. In San Francisco you can have two programming jobs and STILL be homeless...new york city isn't much better. Just two examples.
So cost of living is a lot higher (at least in some states), with not just renting but all the increase in bills and utilities
Cost of gas is more than it used to be (far more expensive than it was decades ago), which adds the cost to travel time
Cost of groceries have gone up. For example, ice cream is more expensive than they used to be. Many years ago you could get a gallon sized container of icecream for the same price you now are stuck with a much smaller thing of icecream...which while yes same price, is actually more expensive in terms of how much you get.
Many things are far more expensive than they used to be. But the biggest thing is the general cost of living has gone way up. You can win a million dollars, and still not be able to afford a house in california, new york, washington state ...as some examples of very high price of living.
However I see games do cost more to make for an AA game. Advertising is more than it used to be for one, and games are MUCH bigger now than they used to be. Making bigger and bigger games add up the price of making that game. Plus all the voice acting, which games had little to none of a long time ago.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Making games cost wayyy more than 20 years ago and we're also far from Zelda or super mario bros. As you said, the cost of living is really expensive. Those people making games.. they dont work for a few peanuts.
Just for one person at $10/hour That's 22k a year. If that person works for 3 years on a game that's a 66k right there. 66K for 1 person at freaking $10/hour. Almost nobody works for $10/hour…..
On the other hand, do I want to pay $120 for a game ? Nope… So,pick your fight.
When your industry isn't essential to livelihoods of consumers, you can't adjust prices solely on the basis of production costs alone.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Even so, consoles are sold at a loss early on because charging enough to make a profit at release would be untenable. The market wouldn't bear it. So I highly doubt either console makers or Nvidia blatantly disregard market factors such as these in determining pricing.
EDIT- the fact that Nvidia releases a series at a time at multiple price points is further evidence that they understand the consumers have a breaking point in terms of budget and the company can't simply ignore this.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/09/20/sony-to-take-a-loss-on-playstation-4-sales/amp/
Microsoft too with the One X:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gamesindustry.biz/amp/2017-06-15-xbox-one-x-selling-at-a-loss
Nintendo not selling theirs for a loss still proves the point. Nintendo has always fielded less beefy consoles than their counterparts at Sony or Microsoft. When you can undercut your only competition and still make a profit, that's a no-brainer. It does nothing to undercut the fact that Sony and Microsoft take losses on their consoles because charging what they cost for production would be too much for the market to bear, and they know this.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
You really need to stop making the Starbucks comparison, as a $4 cup of coffee is not the same as a console purchase in any way, shape, or form other than both are a cash-for-goods transaction. And what does their pricing have to do with my production costs comment anyways? Do you have anything to prove that Starbucks cost $4 because of increased production costs alone?
Not sure how your point stands (or, I should say, how it refutes my point). No one was saying brand recognition can't help sell, nor was anyone saying production costs don't affect pricing. I said they don't increase prices solely based on production costs. They factor in much more than that, including consumer market pressures. Those pressures include consumer purchasing power.
The ingredients for that pound probably cost 25 cents
The labor was probably 5 cents
the cup another 2 cents
some small amount of overhead
Did they charge too much? Apparently not because I bought it and my wife loves it.
If the charged me $4.99 for a pound of random salad I would not buy it.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
30 years ago, the dev making the digital tree was probably a rookie, had not made many (if any) digital tree's, so was learning at the same time as creating.
The hardware he was using 30 years ago was expensive compared to today (also a lot slower).
For the sake of argument, lets say it took that rookie dev two days to make the digital tree, would it still take two days today?
After 30 years of practice, all the hardware and software advances, surely it would take a lot less time to make the digital tree, meaning less wages, meaning a cheaper digital tree.
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Netflix of gaming is coming and single purchases let alone single game subscriptions (each and every little mmo wanting $15 for a few perks more so) are going to be a hard sell.
My overall point being is that we cannot simply look at higher costs of production, including cost of living, without realizing that also has an effect on other folks who would be the consumer of these products.
If salaries increased to keep pace with inflation, we'd all very likely have a very different perspective on the idea of, say, an $80 game.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Consumers here have less purchasing power now than they did during the previous console generation, and even less than the generation before that. As costs of living increase but salaries continue to stagnate, elective purchases such as entertainment take the hit, not things like rent or the utility bills. If you're not in real estate or utility services, you have to consider this when pricing your product.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다