ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT
Member
yeah ok, now piss off.
A miserable little pile of secrets.What's a Paladin?
$70 for a game like God of War Ragnarok, TotK or Elden Ring is just insane when we paid $100-130 for SNES and N64 games if adjusted for inflation. Games are multiple orders of magnitude better than in the 90s and not only that, they beat virtually all other entertainment too in terms of value for the money. Would you have considered any of these three games a bad deal at, say, $110? That seems hard to believe given the crap you bought in the 90s for those prices and higher. Box prices for games are probably among the most inflation resitant things I can think of and the nominal price increases don't even make up for inflation. Gaming's day 1 real prices have greatly decreased since the 90s and more or less stagnated for the past ~10 years. Obviously, that's just box prices and companies have varying business models these days but generally, you can just buy a game for a basically all-time low price during what is probably the all time highest quality era. It's (good) insanity.
Yep, a much bigger market, $70 just a start with all the MTX/DLC BS, but yeah, sure, games are too cheap.The gaming market is much, much bigger now than in the 90's, so economies of scale come into play. Bigger market, more unit sales, costs split over a larger number of units etc.
It's therefore simplistic to lay the argument that goes something like "games cost X amount in the 90's, they cost X amount now, take into account inflation, we must all pay far more"
Also take into account that we we no longer buy "full" games. We buy a slice of a game at retail, then by DLC's on top.
…poor quality of titles…You think that because you're rich, hardly anyone in the world could afford games costing more than $100, and given the poor quality of the titles being released today, I'd say they're mostly too expensive...
Games are substantially bigger than ever. I have no idea how the quantity of content is an issue these days. As far as I'm concerned, games might well benefit from going back to being a bit shorter.If gaming companies would only release full games on release and not cutting content off $70 games. Too cheap my ass.
Well I see preorder DLC and planned season passes for most newly released AAA games. Don't tell me they aren't doing itGames are substantially bigger than ever. I have no idea how the quantity of content is an issue these days. As far as I'm concerned, games might well benefit from going back to being a bit shorter.
I'm not saying they don't do it. I am saying that games are bigger than ever which is certainly the case and they're provided with additional content after release to continue making money. If you don't like it, don't buy the DLC, MTX and whatnot. I don't really see the issue? You have agency as a consumer, especially in a hyper competitive market like gaming. Just buy something that is tailored to your preferences rather than games with business models you dislike.Well I see preorder DLC and planned season passes for most newly released AAA games. Don't tell me they aren't doing it
If budget is the reason well perhaps make the game less, well expensive maybe?
I mean, have you ever considered how cheap a pack of cards is compared to the amount of entertainment they can provide?
Can you tell us at which point in time you found games reasonably priced in USD?
Except when devs/publishers plan in advance in how they are releasing content for it. And using the same F2P model into full $70 games is abysmal.I'm not saying they don't do it. I am saying that games are bigger than ever which is certainly the case and they're provided with additional content after release to continue making money. If you don't like it, don't buy the DLC, MTX and whatnot. I don't really see the issue? You have agency as a consumer, especially in a hyper competitive market like gaming. Just buy something that is tailored to your preferences rather than games with business models you dislike.
No. Never even touched USD.Can you tell us at which point in time you found games reasonably priced in USD?
Hell yeah, looks like it came with a demo/free month of the best MMO ever too, UO! I have my Ultima Collection still and it's a bad ass set. UO came with cloth map and pin also. PC gaming used to be so insanely awesome.
Normal edition. I think it was about 50€? Could be wrong, but it had a normal edition price IIRC.
Either don't buy that content or buy games without such business models. Not really sure what to tell you. The advantages of a competitive market is an abundance of choice and low prices. Whether or not devs have a modular approach to selling their product - the base game alone is oftentimes big. You (presumably) overspending on additional content is your choice.Except when devs/publishers plan in advance in how they are releasing content for it. And using the same F2P model into full $70 games is abysmal.
Ignoring DLC and MTX isn't doing us any favors either. Its obviously making them a lot of revenue as people are obviously spending more and more money on DLC's. Granted there are developers and publishers who aren't predatory with microtransactions and paywalling content left and right like EA games and ABK. But thats far and few in between.
Just look at MW2 and Diablo 4 for example. A large portion of the best looking skins are stuck behind a pay wall with the only means to 'unlock' are costly mtx's.
Not even sure how to respond to this. Every single sentence is wrong. You've literally just absorbed economics takes from Twitter and Reddit from 17 year olds and called it a day. Good luck with everything.You don't know how economics works. It is not "easier" to spend a spare $60 now than in 1993. Games these games are broken, less polished, lots of copy pasta or repeat mechanics, loot crates, micro transactions, and other money schemes. Companies selling high numbers of copies are also still missing goals and their finances are more mismanaged yet want to pass that to the consumer instead of fixing the problem.
There is nothing to justify the $10 increase to $70 they are pushing now for games, and anything beyond that is laughable because we are paying for schemes and company mistakes at that point. A company selling 10m at $60 would still make big profits now if the companies were run competently.
I think you can complain about the price of luxury items too but games have just gotten cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and then they roughly stagnated for a decade, while getting better and better. I think that is rarely ever acknowledged. Most gaming communities seem to be all about outrage and gloom which isn't reflective of the health of the market at all.I agree with you 100%, OP. I've always wanted to create a thread just like this, but I've been afraid to due to fear of being ridiculed or banned.
No one has the right to complain about the prices of these non-essential luxury entertainment toys. And anyone who does, should be focusing their money instead on important things like their rent or mortgage.
$70 for a game like God of War Ragnarok, TotK or Elden Ring is just insane when we paid $100-130 for SNES and N64 games if adjusted for inflation. Games are multiple orders of magnitude better than in the 90s and not only that, they beat virtually all other entertainment too in terms of value for the money. Would you have considered any of these three games a bad deal at, say, $110? That seems hard to believe given the crap you bought in the 90s for those prices and higher. Box prices for games are probably among the most inflation resitant things I can think of and the nominal price increases don't even make up for inflation. Gaming's day 1 real prices have greatly decreased since the 90s and more or less stagnated for the past ~10 years. Obviously, that's just box prices and companies have varying business models these days but generally, you can just buy a game for a basically all-time low price during what is probably the all time highest quality era. It's (good) insanity.
What's so special about $60? Would you rather pay $60 in 2007 or $70 in 2023?I consider them a bad deal when I can get over 1k hours on something like Darktide, and under 100 on games like those stated.
That said, anything over $60 =
I'd rather pay LESS. We should go back to $50, or even $40.What's so special about $60? Would you rather pay $60 in 2007 or $70 in 2023?
I'd rather pay LESS. We should go back to $50, or even $40.
When comparing prices at substantially different points in time, do you think there's value in adjusting for inflation before making a comparison? Suppose the market's willingness to pay is indeed about $60 for day 1 purchases and no more. That price remains stable for years and years. Do you think it's then fair to say that games are becoming cheaper every year by the rate of inflation in this scenario I just outlined?I'd rather pay LESS. We should go back to $50, or even $40.
When comparing prices at substantially different points in time, do you think there's value in adjusting for inflation before making a comparison? Suppose the market's willingness to pay is indeed about $60 for day 1 purchases and no more. That price remains stable for years and years. Do you think it's then fair to say that games are becoming cheaper every year by the rate of inflation in this scenario I just outlined?
you canI'd rather pay LESS.
people see those price points as a lesser quality productWe should go back to $50, or even $40.
Probably. Inflation is an exponentional function, don't forget. Just type some values like 60, 50 or 40 USD into the calculator, set the year to 2005 or whatever and see what happens. For reference, assuming a rate of 2% inflation per year, nominal prices would double in about 35 years, and increase by 50% in about 20 years.You can certainly say that, but are we there yet?