Support NeoGAF

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

yeah ok, now piss off.

 

[Fuz]

What's a Paladin?

A miserable little pile of secrets.

 

[BaldingAshCrimson]

Yakuza 0 was 16 dollars when I bought it on PSN, 2 years ago, after a friend of mine introduced me to the series. It wasn't on sale or anything, it was the average price.

And I would have paid 60 dollars for it. It has a lot of content, with substance. If you like beat em ups, the fun to be had there is infinite. Fantastic music, elaborate and occasionally convoluted story, but still really good. Mini-Games that could totally be separate fun arcade games.

I had payed more for games with barely half of what YZero offered.

 

[Trilobit]

In my country a new game costs about 5 times that of a new movie. Some games can give 100 hours of entertainment. That's about 50 times more than your standard film. It's pretty crazy.

Still won't pay full price for any game. TotK is the only game I'm considering breaking that habit for. There's no way I'd go over $100 for a videogame. The market should also be much bigger nowadays compared to the 80s/90s so I don't understand why games would be that expensive still.

 

[Barakov]

$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.

 

[Shadowstar39]

Who the hell payed $100-130 for gen 4/5 games? I sure as hell didn't. I don't remember any snes game for more than $50 and I never bought a n64, I thought it was over-rated outside of Mario64 and OOT.
PS1.. Most games I got for that were on sale. I'd go to the mom and pops game stores (there was a lot before gamestop) and get 3 games for $50. Every pay day I'd stop and pick up a few games.
Even new games were not that much.

Also we are in a inflationary nightmare. Prices on everything is still sky high and wages are stagnating. I'll just play old games or torrent if prices rise like you people want.

Point 2--- My kids are grown, but when I was a parent , no way in hell would I buy a $70 -100 game. (my parents wouldn't of done that for me either). There is a limit. Even buying games for myself, I question the $70 price point. Unless it's some RPG or something I really want, I will just wait or buy it on sale months later. I was much more likely to buy when it was $60 or less. Before the usual "its only $10", true but in my mind 60 is closer to 50 . 70 is nearing 100, which I dont' want to spend.

 

[Old_and_Slow]

The games market is priced to sustain itself just fine right now. That we are benefitting from living in modern times, where your average video game contains an amount of content unheard of 30 years ago, is a bonus for us.

Microtransactions have already increased the price for a complete game, with the industry raking in revenue in amounts unheard of 30 years ago. It's all relative.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

I never paid such high prices on those old systems, and I rarely pay full price for games these days either, with the exception of a very small few.

 

[simpatico]

I'd like to see more diversity in pricing. I'd be fine paying $100 for Elden Ring or Cyberpunk, TES VI etc, but some games that are $60/70 also need to be closer to $30/$40. Trying to make one size fits all at $60/70 is a mistake.

 

[StereoVsn]

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.

Yep, a much bigger market, $70 just a start with all the MTX/DLC BS, but yeah, sure, games are too cheap.

God, people just love to stan for giant Corporations. Senpai Phil will notice them for sure.

 

[hinch7]

If gaming companies would only release full games on release and not cutting content off $70 games. Too cheap my ass.

 

[MadPanda]

Jim Ryan, is that you?

 

[the_master]

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...

…poor quality of titles…
I am lost for words.
I love retro games, but we have had higher quality games every year since the Odyssey was released in the 70s. Every year more expensive to make. Yet some people are not ashamed of shitting over all the good AAA games we get.

 

[lh032]

games are cheap, but consumers are cheap-er skate.

Is this available on gamepass?

 

[Amory]

shh

 

[Imp the Dimp]

If gaming companies would only release full games on release and not cutting content off $70 games. Too cheap my ass.

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.

 

[TwiztidElf]

I do agree with the sentiment. I get huge value to dollar ratio with my games, particularly with games like TotK and SF6.
But the market decides the prices of games, which is where they are. Quality games and quality studios still make huge profits.

 

[Fbh]

I mean yeah, $70 for something that can keep you entertained for dozens of hours is fairly cheap compared to most other forms of entertainment. And that's before taking into account that games are fairly unique in that they tend to drop in price quickly while sometimes actually getting better in the process.

But I also think $70 is a fair price, I've always seen it more like "look how overpriced games were back then" instead of "look how cheap games are now".
Also keep in mind that due to changes in exchange rates and inflation in other countries, gaming prices haven't been as rigid in other places as in the US. Games in my country are literally twice as much as they cost during the Ps3/early Ps4 era.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

They should charge an extra 10 dollars for one week early access. If the main launch is Dec 15th, the 80 dollar purchasers would get to play it on Dec 8th.

 

[hinch7]

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.

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?

 

[ReBurn]

I don't think they're too cheap at $70. The number of people who play video games has increased substantially over the years. For the blockbuster games you mentioned there's plenty of room for those games to sell the millions of copies required to be profitable. I'm betting some of them could drop prices to $50 and end up selling more than enough additional copies to make up the difference.

But if you really feel bad about the value you're receiving you could always buy more copies until your conscience clears. I'm sure they would appreciate it.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

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'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.

 

[Puscifer]

Been rocking this funny little galaxy deck I got a
for 5 bucks since 2018, everything from solitaire to group poker and gin. Y'all wild

I mean, have you ever considered how cheap a pack of cards is compared to the amount of entertainment they can provide?

 

[Kamina]

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Can you tell us at which point in time you found games reasonably priced in USD?

 

[Klosshufvud]

To be frank, just browsing the Internet is more entertaining than 90% of those $70 games.

 

[hinch7]

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.

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. In MW2 they charge you $30 for a battle pass for some skins. Thats nearly a price of a full game.

 

[FinalBossWithTheMostPower]

 

[Kamina]

Can you tell us at which point in time you found games reasonably priced in USD?

No. Never even touched USD.
But neither in the pre-EURO currencies nor in EURO do i think that most games are reasonably priced.

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

Normal edition. I think it was about 50€? Could be wrong, but it had a normal edition price IIRC.

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.

 

[Kokoloko85]

Games are costing more and more to make. And most of them last much longer than a movie and more complicated to make than a tv series etc

 

[NecrosaroIII]

The thread title should be "quantity of entertainment". Gaming sucks now adays and is full of low effort filler bullshit.

I miss the days of a good focused 30-40 hour experience.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

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.

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.

Don't forget most of the golden era 90s JRPGs are 25-35h long and were for the most part not particularly well translated. Compare and contrast that to something like Persona 5 Royal for instance, which costs almost half of those games, if adjusted for inflation. The quality we're getting for our money these days is off the page.

 

[Brigandier]

There was also a much lower number of people buying games back in the 80s and 90s much much lower.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

I mean, paying full price for TotK or FFXVI or Hogwarts is one thing, but full price for everything? Fuck naw I'm not paying full price for an AssCreed or Far Cry game.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

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.

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.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Is this an economics board or a gaming board?

 

[Russell]

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.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

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.

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.

 

[Hibs]

$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.

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 =

 

[Imp the Dimp]

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 =

What's so special about $60? Would you rather pay $60 in 2007 or $70 in 2023?

 

[adamsapple]

 

[Tedditalk]

I mostly agree. I paid more for crap dinners at expensive restaurants that gave me indigestion. Gaming back then was also like 30 hours, tops, so the value proposition increases tremendously in scale. The only exception is the level of creativity in the triple AAA market has definitely went down overall, with games like returnal and hi fi rush being marked exceptions.... although this year has been nothing less than incredible for gaming.

 

[Hibs]

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.

 

[Tedditalk]

I'd rather pay LESS. We should go back to $50, or even $40.

For the amount of value derived from games nowadays? Does not seem reasonable at all to me. If anything, us getting scammed on everything from housing cost, college tuition to cars has only made the relative value that entertainment need to provide for us exponentially higher.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

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?

 

[Hibs]

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 can certainly say that, but are we there yet?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Consoles
PC
Mobile.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I'd rather pay LESS.

you can

We should go back to $50, or even $40.

people see those price points as a lesser quality product

 

[Imp the Dimp]

You can certainly say that, but are we there yet?

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.