Yet the industry still increased profit by over 6 billion dollars in 2017 over 2016
But not by increasing the barrier to entry for most titles, specifically not over the traditional standard. Quite the opposite. Coupled with the constantly increasing gaming population, and it's really hard to equate a general revenue growth with higher consumer purchasing power when the economic data shows it's decreasing (in the U.S.).
The beauty of the new monetization methods (for the industry) is that you can gather much more cash from the few who have abnormally higher cash resources while not turning off the majority of the population with a high barrier to entry.
Yet the industry still increased profit by over 6 billion dollars in 2017 over 2016
But not by increasing the barrier to entry for most titles, specifically not over the traditional standard. Quite the opposite. Coupled with the constantly increasing gaming population, and it's really hard to equate a general revenue growth with higher consumer purchasing power when the economic data shows it's decreasing (in the U.S.).
The beauty of the new monetization methods (for the industry) is that you can gather much more cash from the few who have abnormally higher cash resources while not turning off the majority of the population with a high barrier to entry.
I am not in that camp of that thought though. I believe game prices should be higher. Like what a deluxe edition costs typically $69.99 (in the US) that is what a new game should cost. If we add all the additional content included in the deluxe editions as standard when buying a game the value of that would increase. So could the price. If deluxe and gold editions were not big sellers already publishers would not release them. There is a huge market for them. Hence just make the deluxe editions the standard edition. The market will support it.
I can get on board with it, but pubs need to show a sign of good faith to consumers. Lifting review embargos on these titles would be a great sign. I think consumers would want to be assured they aren't falling prey to the same BS marketing tactics as before, only at a higher price point than before. That means, as you say, Day One DLC content is gone and that content absorbed into the title itself, and I would personally want to see microtransactions removed or relegated to a very small set of items or cosmetics only, at most (sorry @Torval !).
TLDR:MMORPGS were too expensive and tried to appeal to too many people all of which wanted something too specific. Every other game genre has a very focused niche, and most do well enough for developers to keep pumping out quality content at a profit. MMORPGS created their own expectations that couldn't be delivered sustainably.
Rant below.
MMORPG's are stupid expensive wastes of money from a business perspective (which is why so few are being made and almost none with AAA levels of investment)
People expect MMORPGS to have a fully voiced campaign, that they player does every thing possible to do as fast as possible. Voice actors, cut scenes, writers for the story, TONS of game world needed. This is all for something most players see once and for a very short portion of their total game experience.
Then players expect continual new and significant content, constant balancing, and a deep and multi-faceted endgame composed of several modes which could be games on their own.
Then people demanded these massive investment be free or face public trashing campaigns (anyone who was here from 2004-2008 will know what im talking about) this was before full exposure to poor cash shop tactics...
So you have an insane up front expenditure before any income is received, without mention of extremely expensive advertising. A long development period. Followed by a high cost maintenance and development of post launch content and expansions.
You had developers losing their out of work lives working their ass off, tons of debt incurred, and most of the initial investment money went to levelling something almost everyone would rather skip. All for what usually amounts to one to three months of income per player, if a subscription. If free hardly anything other than whale expenditure...which is why free to play got so awful.
Are MMORPGS too cheap or are they made in incredibly stupid manners? Want a great story driven RPG, make a single player one with co-op for a fraction of the price with less of the "unattainable expectations" mmorpgs carry. A mediocre one will be well received and make more money. Want pvp? Just make the pvp cut out the stuff pvpers dont want like a campaign progression.
Want everything and continual development? Well that question mattered like 10 years ago when investors were still thinking they could make the next WOW. Now? Doesn't matter. Star Citizen will show kickstarter people what wanting everything and paying for it in advance will bring. The same disappointment.
No one is going to pay anything when the required investors wont waste their money on funding the projects as we use to see. We get kickstarter/indy games, old mmorpgs that keep ticking, and a few asian ports where development might still make sense. Maybe a reboot or two.
Taking inflation correction into account, games have actually become cheaper over the years. I am desperately trying to find a single product of which the price wasn't raised over the last 20 years and the only thing I can find are video games...
i did a breakdown of costs a couple of months ago in another thread. Some statistics to counter a couple of "arguments" used in this thread. Sales have gone up 5X over the last 15 years, the market is growing rapidly. Production costs however have increased 10 to 15X. Marketing alone costs more money these days then a lot of games. With an oversaturated market it is impossible to get noticed EXCEPT when you have a well known brand, then consumers are on the lookout for your product, like Blizzard/ CD Projekt/Naughty Dog etc.
This oversaturated market also gives consumers the power to keep costs down, they'll just skip your product and pick one of the other 10. Now this might sound like a good thing, but it only is so short term. We have effectively destroyed the whole AA segment leaving only Indie (cheaper to develop with "little" risk) and AAA (well known brands with massive budgets). Yet we complain that there are no good looking titles with original ideas. AA companies went out of bussiness quickly when we stood out ground.
Taking inflation correction, higher costs for marketing, higher production costs etc. into account but removing the physical side of things and going fully digital a game would STILL need to cost about a 110 to a 125 dollars to make it as financially attractive as it was 15 years ago.
Games are dirty cheap, support your hobby and don't leech on it. The entitlement found here is baffling. Creating a tree now costs 10 times more then it did 15 years ago, in time, in money, in promoting it, in selling it. WE created this environment in which we want everything for nothing and even free is too expensive, yet we whine about lack of quality or originality.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
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.
What did those titles sell? The premise of this post was increasing price because games cost more to make. Without checking Steam - City of the Shroud just released (I know because I tried it), and I don't think many people would be willing to pay $140 for it, and I doubt it cost $60 million to make.
Why don't you jack the price up on Steam and for the next chapter and we'll see if sales stay the same. There is tons of evidence showing that sales (lower prices) increase units sold.
I forget the name of it, but when it comes to pricing there is a formula. Without using real examples since I forget the formula - If 100 people will by a product priced at $100, and 500 are willing to by the same product for $50, someone in finance is going to find the best price point for the company. Something like 250 will pay 85 (again, a fake example), which would yield the highest profit. A real example would have other information like cost per unit at various production outputs, etc.
The market, and market forces, are going to determine pricing. Why wasn't City of Shroud sold at $60? Because that isn't a good pricing for it. And until someone can give an example of a AAA game with the latest graphics that cost a fortune to make sharing its profits with the regular people working on the game, even if we accept the theory that games have a release price tag that is for some reason being artificially retarded and this is screwing over people working on games with low salaries - there is still no evidence that increasing the initial price of a game will increase the salaries of the employees.
So you think we undersold Hellblade? Because even at over a million copies sold we were afraid to price it higher than we did. Public backlash is a finicky thing. If just a few complain it snowballs and takes years of hard work down the drain.
I would have paid 100 bucks for Hellblade, what a beautiful and haunting game that is. Thank you.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
- 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
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
It looks like we are playing with numbers without a context.
You just bought PC for 99$. Is it: a) dirty cheap b) very expensive? Any answer is wrong if we don't know details on PC. You just spend 1 tugrik - very little or very much? What about pre-euro 1 Lithuanian litas? Polish zloty? 15$ for a game may mean little in a country where minimal salary is 1000$ and it is enough to live from it. 15$ may mean something if I get ~500 euro and that must cover everything so that at the end of the month I have too little savings. 15$ may mean very much for, say, Venezuela, if their minimum wage is some 30$. Same fifteen dollars, very different value. Very expensive for one customer, kind of cheap for another. And main thing: what do I pay these dollars for? Do I feel I am getting stuff I want, I need - or do I get daily grind with cash shop items and pay to win?
Istaria once did subscription right. Several tiers of it: 0 dollars, 5, 10 and 15 (if I remember correctly). 15$ allows to have plot of land/dragon's lair. You may choose any option if 15$ is too expensive.
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
The OP is not looking at this from a market perspective. There is a sweet spot in every market that allows things to sell at a pace that allows for continued profit. For sub MMOs it has always been $10-$15/mo and for new AAA games it's currently $60. There has been some price creep in AAA deluxe editions lately as evidenced by the various packages available for Assassin's Creed Odyssey. I think the OP's post is more of a rant resulting from his overall disatisfaction with current games and being burned out. He thinks that if games "cost more" that devs will make better games. That is simply not how a free market works.
The OP is not looking at this from a market perspective. There is a sweet spot in every market that allows things to sell at a pace that allows for continued profit. For sub MMOs it has always been $10-$15/mo and for new AAA games it's currently $60. There has been some price creep in AAA deluxe editions lately as evidenced by the various packages available for Assassin's Creed Odyssey. I think the OP's post is more of a rant resulting from his overall disatisfaction with current games and being burned out. He thinks that if games "cost more" that devs will make better games. That is simply not how a free market works.
Agreed...There is a thinking that if its more expensive it is better, and that is not the case here.
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
Although I understand what you are saying I really can't agree. Income not being able to keep up with inflation correction is not a sign of faulty pricing, its a sign of a struggling/faulty economy. It also doesn't mean that production costs haven't gone up. With forcing of cheap products you as a consumer keep wages low, its the first thing being saved on. Furthermore, the situation of income not going up since 95 is not a global phenomenon, on the contrary.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Games cost so much to make because the developers decided to spend that much money on development, and usually even more on marketing. To be honest, that's completely unnecessary. It's like saying cars are too expensive because you refuse to buy anything other than a Tesla or a Rolls Royce.
As to the massive amounts they spend on marketing, it seems to be a total waste. How many ads have you seen for new games that were of the expensive variety? The most I can remember seeing of late was a moderate amount of airtime for GTA, a game that's been out for a LONG time now. Is it effective? I doubt it. Anyone that didn't know about GTA before they started their TV ads for it, probably would never buy it in the first place.
I don't know what these people are spending their money on, but it sure doesn't show up in the results. You want a counter example? Let's go with Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. Sure, it was a lot of money to make by my standards, but only a fraction of what those so called triple A games put out. As to marketing, almost nothing from what I've heard. It did really well on sales, and is absolutely of triple A quality!
Other than the usual fare for me, this week I've been playing Bards Tale. The remake of the original 3 games, though only the 1st is available at the moment. I got it as a bonus from my backing of Bards Tale IV: Awakening. Sure, backing things like that is kind of like a preorder with no guarantee of getting your game, or when, but by sticking to people I'm more familiar with and trust more, I've had really great luck with that. I sure as heck paid a lot less than $60 for that, and when the game comes out I'll have it, and I already have the first part of the remake of the original trilogy to play with. (I think it's selling on steam and gog for about $15 right now) So that is a package that went for a lot less than $60, and is more than well worth that. EA would probably charge $60 for BT4, without any of the addon races, areas, and other things the backers have unlocked, charge $20 for each of the 3 parts of the remake, and charge another $50 for the addons that the backers unlocked that EA would cut out of the base game. That's assuming they didn't break it up into several expensive DLCs, and also have a "season pass" to get them all, except for some they still hold back for some reason. Would that be right, fair, or reasonable? Of course not. InXile has already proven that the pricing b.s. that EA and many others do is NOT necessary, it's just plain greed.
There are other companies making great games at reasonable prices, and aren't screwing over the gamers in the process. Just because you grew up not knowing a gaming industry that's not trying to nickle and dime you to death, well, more like $10 & $20 you to death, doesn't mean it's something they should be doing.
Look at the whole "loot boxes" and "games as a service" they've pushed. It's not that games need it at all. It's not that the players give a rodents donkey about having it. (Actually many gamers rather hate it.) It's for one purpose, to massively inflate profits. Those companies aren't happy with a profit, or a good profit, or a fantastic profit! No, they want the absolutely maximum amount of money they can get from the public, no matter how they get it, so long as they don't get thrown in jail for it. And that huge amount of money they can get that way is invested back in the games, right? OHN! It goes to shareholders. You know, not the gamers or even the employees. Speaking of which, as soon as the game is created, they will fire most of the development staff for that game, if not all of them.
I could rant about the bits and pieces of this entire can of worms, but I've babbled too much for this forum already, and plenty of people with much better articulation than myself have already spoken at length on this, so I'll just say this:
I disagree with the OP pretty much completely. Have a nice day, and have fun with your games
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
Although I understand what you are saying I really can't agree. Income not being able to keep up with inflation correction is not a sign of faulty pricing, its a sign of a struggling/faulty economy. It also doesn't mean that production costs haven't gone up. With forcing of cheap products you as a consumer keep wages low, its the first thing being saved on. Furthermore, the situation of income not going up since 95 is not a global phenomenon, on the contrary.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Well there has been redistribution of wealth which is why despite profit wages have not risen. No I am not talking about the peanuts going to welfare or taxes. The earnings of the top executives have drastically increased while those at the bottom have increased at a much much slower rate.
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
Although I understand what you are saying I really can't agree. Income not being able to keep up with inflation correction is not a sign of faulty pricing, its a sign of a struggling/faulty economy. It also doesn't mean that production costs haven't gone up. With forcing of cheap products you as a consumer keep wages low, its the first thing being saved on. Furthermore, the situation of income not going up since 95 is not a global phenomenon, on the contrary.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It's applicable because gaming isn't a need. Consumer purchasing power has the greatest effect on elective purchases. The less the purchasing power, the more often the consumer goes "nah, it's not worth that much."
It has nothing to do with faulty pricing, it has to do with determining the pricing in the first place. Markets take consumer purchasing power into consideration.
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
Although I understand what you are saying I really can't agree. Income not being able to keep up with inflation correction is not a sign of faulty pricing, its a sign of a struggling/faulty economy. It also doesn't mean that production costs haven't gone up. With forcing of cheap products you as a consumer keep wages low, its the first thing being saved on. Furthermore, the situation of income not going up since 95 is not a global phenomenon, on the contrary.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Well there has been redistribution of wealth which is why despite profit wages have not risen. No I am not talking about the peanuts going to welfare or taxes. The earnings of the top executives have drastically increased while those at the bottom have increased at a much much slower rate.
Yup. For all the hem-hawing about welfare distributing wealth, here in America, the richest of us have a higher percentage of the total wealth in the country than did Roman Emperors and Roman ruling class had of their own.
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
Although I understand what you are saying I really can't agree. Income not being able to keep up with inflation correction is not a sign of faulty pricing, its a sign of a struggling/faulty economy. It also doesn't mean that production costs haven't gone up. With forcing of cheap products you as a consumer keep wages low, its the first thing being saved on. Furthermore, the situation of income not going up since 95 is not a global phenomenon, on the contrary.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Well there has been redistribution of wealth which is why despite profit wages have not risen. No I am not talking about the peanuts going to welfare or taxes. The earnings of the top executives have drastically increased while those at the bottom have increased at a much much slower rate.
Yup. For all the hem-hawing about welfare destributing wealth, here in America, the richest of us have a higher percentage of the total wealth in the country than did Roman Emperors and Roman ruling class had of their own.
I totally get that ( I am not American btw) but it is not a worldwide phenomenon. Of course the richest their wealth has increased the most but in many countries average Joe has seen his wages rise too. We, as humans, have seen a rise in overall wealth and income. Stuff isn't getting more expensive, the average American is getting poorer. For me thats a sign the problem lies elsewhere. Reading here that average wages haven't gone up in 15 years is baffling to me, shocking actually, I did not know this and hard to wrap my head around.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
Although I understand what you are saying I really can't agree. Income not being able to keep up with inflation correction is not a sign of faulty pricing, its a sign of a struggling/faulty economy. It also doesn't mean that production costs haven't gone up. With forcing of cheap products you as a consumer keep wages low, its the first thing being saved on. Furthermore, the situation of income not going up since 95 is not a global phenomenon, on the contrary.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It's applicable because gaming isn't a need. Consumer purchasing power has the greatest effect on elective purchases. The less the purchasing power, the more often the consumer goes "nah, it's not worth that much."
It has nothing to do with faulty pricing, it has to do with determining the pricing in the first place. Markets take consumer purchasing power into consideration.
They definitely take it into consideration, but half of the landscape has already died out because they couldn't keep the lights on, the AA sector has effectively died. Exceptions being games like Hellblade, but the landscape is very, very barren. Somehow there is this idea that gaming should be an affordable hobby for everybody and that a rise in prices is unacceptable, I find this strange, why should it? With prices and wages rising worldwide (not for every country so I learned) games, by keeping the same price, have actually become cheaper, not the same.
Now F2P pushes prices straight to the bottom making it effectively impossible to raise prices on regular games without public outcry but I don't find it strange at all. Now we get flooded with Special Editions, P2W, day one DLC, mini expansions etc. We cry that this is because of a rise in greed but it are just new ways for companies to make up for that difference financially. And yes, they want to make a profit, but thinking that all of this is done because production costs haven't gone up and companies simply became more greedy and evil is very childish and a gross simplification.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
Although I understand what you are saying I really can't agree. Income not being able to keep up with inflation correction is not a sign of faulty pricing, its a sign of a struggling/faulty economy. It also doesn't mean that production costs haven't gone up. With forcing of cheap products you as a consumer keep wages low, its the first thing being saved on. Furthermore, the situation of income not going up since 95 is not a global phenomenon, on the contrary.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It's applicable because gaming isn't a need. Consumer purchasing power has the greatest effect on elective purchases. The less the purchasing power, the more often the consumer goes "nah, it's not worth that much."
It has nothing to do with faulty pricing, it has to do with determining the pricing in the first place. Markets take consumer purchasing power into consideration.
They definitely take it into consideration, but half of the landscape has already died out because they couldn't keep the lights on, the AA sector has effectively died. Exceptions being games like Hellblade, but the landscape is very, very barren. Somehow there is this idea that gaming should be an affordable hobby for everybody and that a rise in prices is unacceptable, I find this strange, why should it? With prices and wages rising worldwide (not for every country so I learned) games, by keeping the same price, have actually become cheaper, not the same.
Now F2P pushes prices straight to the bottom making it effectively impossible to raise prices on regular games without public outcry but I don't find it strange at all. Now we get flooded with Special Editions, P2W, day one DLC, mini expansions etc. We cry that this is because of a rise in greed but it are just new ways for companies to make up for that difference financially. And yes, they want to make a profit, but thinking that all of this is done because production costs haven't gone up and companies simply became more greedy and evil is very childish and a gross simplification.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I haven't implied that they raise prices or use microtransactions strictly out of greed. Taking either extreme position seems ignorant. But many have proposed raising prices as if they can't understand how a business would avoid it, what with productions costs!!!!!
That's because they have done market research to show that folks don't think their product (video games in general, not any specific) is worth spending more than $60 for the box itself.
Also recognize the reason the production costs have increased so much has primarily to do with the visual fidelity of these games. The behemoths graphics raced themselves right into a hole. You can't blame that lack of foresight on consumers.
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
Although I understand what you are saying I really can't agree. Income not being able to keep up with inflation correction is not a sign of faulty pricing, its a sign of a struggling/faulty economy. It also doesn't mean that production costs haven't gone up. With forcing of cheap products you as a consumer keep wages low, its the first thing being saved on. Furthermore, the situation of income not going up since 95 is not a global phenomenon, on the contrary.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It's applicable because gaming isn't a need. Consumer purchasing power has the greatest effect on elective purchases. The less the purchasing power, the more often the consumer goes "nah, it's not worth that much."
It has nothing to do with faulty pricing, it has to do with determining the pricing in the first place. Markets take consumer purchasing power into consideration.
They definitely take it into consideration, but half of the landscape has already died out because they couldn't keep the lights on, the AA sector has effectively died. Exceptions being games like Hellblade, but the landscape is very, very barren. Somehow there is this idea that gaming should be an affordable hobby for everybody and that a rise in prices is unacceptable, I find this strange, why should it? With prices and wages rising worldwide (not for every country so I learned) games, by keeping the same price, have actually become cheaper, not the same.
Now F2P pushes prices straight to the bottom making it effectively impossible to raise prices on regular games without public outcry but I don't find it strange at all. Now we get flooded with Special Editions, P2W, day one DLC, mini expansions etc. We cry that this is because of a rise in greed but it are just new ways for companies to make up for that difference financially. And yes, they want to make a profit, but thinking that all of this is done because production costs haven't gone up and companies simply became more greedy and evil is very childish and a gross simplification.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Which looks better, in your "business eyes?"
1) 60 * 1,000,000 = 60,000,000
or
2) 90 * 500,000 = 45,000,000
Raise prices and numbers sold drop. How much that number drops varies from product to service and how much the price increases. Which of those two examples makes more "business sense?"
- 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
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
Although I understand what you are saying I really can't agree. Income not being able to keep up with inflation correction is not a sign of faulty pricing, its a sign of a struggling/faulty economy. It also doesn't mean that production costs haven't gone up. With forcing of cheap products you as a consumer keep wages low, its the first thing being saved on. Furthermore, the situation of income not going up since 95 is not a global phenomenon, on the contrary.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It's applicable because gaming isn't a need. Consumer purchasing power has the greatest effect on elective purchases. The less the purchasing power, the more often the consumer goes "nah, it's not worth that much."
It has nothing to do with faulty pricing, it has to do with determining the pricing in the first place. Markets take consumer purchasing power into consideration.
They definitely take it into consideration, but half of the landscape has already died out because they couldn't keep the lights on, the AA sector has effectively died. Exceptions being games like Hellblade, but the landscape is very, very barren. Somehow there is this idea that gaming should be an affordable hobby for everybody and that a rise in prices is unacceptable, I find this strange, why should it? With prices and wages rising worldwide (not for every country so I learned) games, by keeping the same price, have actually become cheaper, not the same.
Now F2P pushes prices straight to the bottom making it effectively impossible to raise prices on regular games without public outcry but I don't find it strange at all. Now we get flooded with Special Editions, P2W, day one DLC, mini expansions etc. We cry that this is because of a rise in greed but it are just new ways for companies to make up for that difference financially. And yes, they want to make a profit, but thinking that all of this is done because production costs haven't gone up and companies simply became more greedy and evil is very childish and a gross simplification.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Which looks better, in your "business eyes?"
1) 60 * 1,000,000 = 60,000,000
or
2) 90 * 500,000 = 45,000,000
Raise prices and numbers sold drop. How much that number drops varies from product to service and how much the price increases. Which of those two examples makes more "business sense?"
Neither does, going from 60 to 90 in one go makes no sense. But increasing it slowly is just fine. Remember, prices of almost everything have gone up and people kept buying just the same.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
How about video cards? Have they "kept up with inflation?"
Thats an interesting one indeed, computers and their parts might be an exception, as are some other electronics. However, I could also easily name literally hundreds of products that have kept up with inflation correction, you pointed out another exception to the norm. Good find though, I guess I knew it but never took it into account.
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I had this debate out in another thread, but you have to remember that income hasn't increased very much since 1995 either. Not even enough to keep up with inflation.
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
Although I understand what you are saying I really can't agree. Income not being able to keep up with inflation correction is not a sign of faulty pricing, its a sign of a struggling/faulty economy. It also doesn't mean that production costs haven't gone up. With forcing of cheap products you as a consumer keep wages low, its the first thing being saved on. Furthermore, the situation of income not going up since 95 is not a global phenomenon, on the contrary.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It's applicable because gaming isn't a need. Consumer purchasing power has the greatest effect on elective purchases. The less the purchasing power, the more often the consumer goes "nah, it's not worth that much."
It has nothing to do with faulty pricing, it has to do with determining the pricing in the first place. Markets take consumer purchasing power into consideration.
They definitely take it into consideration, but half of the landscape has already died out because they couldn't keep the lights on, the AA sector has effectively died. Exceptions being games like Hellblade, but the landscape is very, very barren. Somehow there is this idea that gaming should be an affordable hobby for everybody and that a rise in prices is unacceptable, I find this strange, why should it? With prices and wages rising worldwide (not for every country so I learned) games, by keeping the same price, have actually become cheaper, not the same.
Now F2P pushes prices straight to the bottom making it effectively impossible to raise prices on regular games without public outcry but I don't find it strange at all. Now we get flooded with Special Editions, P2W, day one DLC, mini expansions etc. We cry that this is because of a rise in greed but it are just new ways for companies to make up for that difference financially. And yes, they want to make a profit, but thinking that all of this is done because production costs haven't gone up and companies simply became more greedy and evil is very childish and a gross simplification.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Which looks better, in your "business eyes?"
1) 60 * 1,000,000 = 60,000,000
or
2) 90 * 500,000 = 45,000,000
Raise prices and numbers sold drop. How much that number drops varies from product to service and how much the price increases. Which of those two examples makes more "business sense?"
Neither does, going from 60 to 90 in one go makes no sense. But increasing it slowly is just fine. Remember, prices of almost everything have gone up and people kept buying just the same.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
True, yet with every "subtle increment", they lose customers. Remember, games are NOT a necessity, no matter what gamers say
Truthfully, I don't feel that games are "worth" a higher price, so opinion doesn't really count. I don't buy many "new games", but rather spend my time with GoG and the old games I missed out on when they first released. Much better fare, in my opinion
- 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
That is the beauty of competition. Why pay $60 a game when i can wait a while and get it at $10 at steam sale? Or better yet, free if it is a MMO. Or that $1 iOS game which will entertain me too. Or $30 get me a huge catalog of games that I cannot even finish at Origin. I have not even mentioned my steam library that i will never finish playing
Sure, i can afford $60 .. but why spend it on games when i can get them at almost free. There are plenty of things i can spend $60 on. A good dry aged steak. A decent bottle of wine. Half a ticket to the symphony with my wife. Or take my son & his gf out to see the latest marvel movie.
Gaming is just not a priority to spend money on anymore.
Comments
The beauty of the new monetization methods (for the industry) is that you can gather much more cash from the few who have abnormally higher cash resources while not turning off the majority of the population with a high barrier to entry.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
TLDR:MMORPGS were too expensive and tried to appeal to too many people all of which wanted something too specific. Every other game genre has a very focused niche, and most do well enough for developers to keep pumping out quality content at a profit. MMORPGS created their own expectations that couldn't be delivered sustainably.
Rant below.
MMORPG's are stupid expensive wastes of money from a business perspective (which is why so few are being made and almost none with AAA levels of investment)
People expect MMORPGS to have a fully voiced campaign, that they player does every thing possible to do as fast as possible. Voice actors, cut scenes, writers for the story, TONS of game world needed. This is all for something most players see once and for a very short portion of their total game experience.
Then players expect continual new and significant content, constant balancing, and a deep and multi-faceted endgame composed of several modes which could be games on their own.
Then people demanded these massive investment be free or face public trashing campaigns (anyone who was here from 2004-2008 will know what im talking about) this was before full exposure to poor cash shop tactics...
So you have an insane up front expenditure before any income is received, without mention of extremely expensive advertising. A long development period. Followed by a high cost maintenance and development of post launch content and expansions.
You had developers losing their out of work lives working their ass off, tons of debt incurred, and most of the initial investment money went to levelling something almost everyone would rather skip. All for what usually amounts to one to three months of income per player, if a subscription. If free hardly anything other than whale expenditure...which is why free to play got so awful.
Are MMORPGS too cheap or are they made in incredibly stupid manners? Want a great story driven RPG, make a single player one with co-op for a fraction of the price with less of the "unattainable expectations" mmorpgs carry. A mediocre one will be well received and make more money. Want pvp? Just make the pvp cut out the stuff pvpers dont want like a campaign progression.
Want everything and continual development? Well that question mattered like 10 years ago when investors were still thinking they could make the next WOW. Now? Doesn't matter. Star Citizen will show kickstarter people what wanting everything and paying for it in advance will bring. The same disappointment.
No one is going to pay anything when the required investors wont waste their money on funding the projects as we use to see. We get kickstarter/indy games, old mmorpgs that keep ticking, and a few asian ports where development might still make sense. Maybe a reboot or two.
i did a breakdown of costs a couple of months ago in another thread. Some statistics to counter a couple of "arguments" used in this thread. Sales have gone up 5X over the last 15 years, the market is growing rapidly. Production costs however have increased 10 to 15X. Marketing alone costs more money these days then a lot of games. With an oversaturated market it is impossible to get noticed EXCEPT when you have a well known brand, then consumers are on the lookout for your product, like Blizzard/ CD Projekt/Naughty Dog etc.
This oversaturated market also gives consumers the power to keep costs down, they'll just skip your product and pick one of the other 10. Now this might sound like a good thing, but it only is so short term. We have effectively destroyed the whole AA segment leaving only Indie (cheaper to develop with "little" risk) and AAA (well known brands with massive budgets). Yet we complain that there are no good looking titles with original ideas. AA companies went out of bussiness quickly when we stood out ground.
Taking inflation correction, higher costs for marketing, higher production costs etc. into account but removing the physical side of things and going fully digital a game would STILL need to cost about a 110 to a 125 dollars to make it as financially attractive as it was 15 years ago.
Games are dirty cheap, support your hobby and don't leech on it. The entitlement found here is baffling. Creating a tree now costs 10 times more then it did 15 years ago, in time, in money, in promoting it, in selling it. WE created this environment in which we want everything for nothing and even free is too expensive, yet we whine about lack of quality or originality.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
- 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
EDIT: To save people from doing the actual math on inflation correction, here its goes: 50 bucks in 1995 should be 94,50 in 2018.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
a) dirty cheap
b) very expensive?
Any answer is wrong if we don't know details on PC.
You just spend 1 tugrik - very little or very much? What about pre-euro 1 Lithuanian litas? Polish zloty?
15$ for a game may mean little in a country where minimal salary is 1000$ and it is enough to live from it.
15$ may mean something if I get ~500 euro and that must cover everything so that at the end of the month I have too little savings.
15$ may mean very much for, say, Venezuela, if their minimum wage is some 30$.
Same fifteen dollars, very different value. Very expensive for one customer, kind of cheap for another.
And main thing: what do I pay these dollars for? Do I feel I am getting stuff I want, I need - or do I get daily grind with cash shop items and pay to win?
Istaria once did subscription right. Several tiers of it: 0 dollars, 5, 10 and 15 (if I remember correctly). 15$ allows to have plot of land/dragon's lair. You may choose any option if 15$ is too expensive.
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
What happens when products keep up with inflation, but income doesn't? Many industries have to deal with that. If video game prices had kept going up to keep up with inflation, it's going to change the entire landscape. You think people would wanna pay $40-60 for something like Foxhole? Not a chance.
And of course you can't increase game prices from 60 to 90 all of a sudden, no one will accept that. But 2 bucks a year for AAA? I don't see a problem with that.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
To be honest, that's completely unnecessary. It's like saying cars are too expensive because you refuse to buy anything other than a Tesla or a Rolls Royce.
As to the massive amounts they spend on marketing, it seems to be a total waste. How many ads have you seen for new games that were of the expensive variety? The most I can remember seeing of late was a moderate amount of airtime for GTA, a game that's been out for a LONG time now.
Is it effective? I doubt it. Anyone that didn't know about GTA before they started their TV ads for it, probably would never buy it in the first place.
I don't know what these people are spending their money on, but it sure doesn't show up in the results. You want a counter example? Let's go with Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. Sure, it was a lot of money to make by my standards, but only a fraction of what those so called triple A games put out. As to marketing, almost nothing from what I've heard. It did really well on sales, and is absolutely of triple A quality!
Other than the usual fare for me, this week I've been playing Bards Tale. The remake of the original 3 games, though only the 1st is available at the moment. I got it as a bonus from my backing of Bards Tale IV: Awakening.
Sure, backing things like that is kind of like a preorder with no guarantee of getting your game, or when, but by sticking to people I'm more familiar with and trust more, I've had really great luck with that. I sure as heck paid a lot less than $60 for that, and when the game comes out I'll have it, and I already have the first part of the remake of the original trilogy to play with.
(I think it's selling on steam and gog for about $15 right now)
So that is a package that went for a lot less than $60, and is more than well worth that. EA would probably charge $60 for BT4, without any of the addon races, areas, and other things the backers have unlocked, charge $20 for each of the 3 parts of the remake, and charge another $50 for the addons that the backers unlocked that EA would cut out of the base game. That's assuming they didn't break it up into several expensive DLCs, and also have a "season pass" to get them all, except for some they still hold back for some reason.
Would that be right, fair, or reasonable? Of course not. InXile has already proven that the pricing b.s. that EA and many others do is NOT necessary, it's just plain greed.
There are other companies making great games at reasonable prices, and aren't screwing over the gamers in the process. Just because you grew up not knowing a gaming industry that's not trying to nickle and dime you to death, well, more like $10 & $20 you to death, doesn't mean it's something they should be doing.
Look at the whole "loot boxes" and "games as a service" they've pushed. It's not that games need it at all. It's not that the players give a rodents donkey about having it. (Actually many gamers rather hate it.) It's for one purpose, to massively inflate profits. Those companies aren't happy with a profit, or a good profit, or a fantastic profit! No, they want the absolutely maximum amount of money they can get from the public, no matter how they get it, so long as they don't get thrown in jail for it. And that huge amount of money they can get that way is invested back in the games, right? OHN! It goes to shareholders. You know, not the gamers or even the employees. Speaking of which, as soon as the game is created, they will fire most of the development staff for that game, if not all of them.
I could rant about the bits and pieces of this entire can of worms, but I've babbled too much for this forum already, and plenty of people with much better articulation than myself have already spoken at length on this, so I'll just say this:
I disagree with the OP pretty much completely.
Have a nice day, and have fun with your games
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
It has nothing to do with faulty pricing, it has to do with determining the pricing in the first place. Markets take consumer purchasing power into consideration.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Now F2P pushes prices straight to the bottom making it effectively impossible to raise prices on regular games without public outcry but I don't find it strange at all. Now we get flooded with Special Editions, P2W, day one DLC, mini expansions etc. We cry that this is because of a rise in greed but it are just new ways for companies to make up for that difference financially. And yes, they want to make a profit, but thinking that all of this is done because production costs haven't gone up and companies simply became more greedy and evil is very childish and a gross simplification.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
That's because they have done market research to show that folks don't think their product (video games in general, not any specific) is worth spending more than $60 for the box itself.
Also recognize the reason the production costs have increased so much has primarily to do with the visual fidelity of these games. The behemoths graphics raced themselves right into a hole. You can't blame that lack of foresight on consumers.
1) 60 * 1,000,000 = 60,000,000
or
2) 90 * 500,000 = 45,000,000
Raise prices and numbers sold drop. How much that number drops varies from product to service and how much the price increases. Which of those two examples makes more "business sense?"
- 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
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Truthfully, I don't feel that games are "worth" a higher price, so opinion doesn't really count. I don't buy many "new games", but rather spend my time with GoG and the old games I missed out on when they first released. Much better fare, in my opinion
- 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
Sure, i can afford $60 .. but why spend it on games when i can get them at almost free. There are plenty of things i can spend $60 on. A good dry aged steak. A decent bottle of wine. Half a ticket to the symphony with my wife. Or take my son & his gf out to see the latest marvel movie.
Gaming is just not a priority to spend money on anymore.