• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

RoninChaos

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,331
It's not about "benefiting" the developers so much as catching up with the costs of making a game over time.

EDIT: ok, actually going to bed
These publishers are doing more than breaking even though. They're posting record profits and still raising prices. And they aren't raising those prices to recoup investment, to deal with inflation, or make their employees lives better through compensation to offset inflation. It's for the share holders and the ceos. That's it.
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,798
But are they catching up if they're posting record profits? In what way are pubs behind

A new generation means new investments into that generation. Record profits from the previous generation doesn't mean costs don't increase moving into the new one. Not to mention that you simply can't look at total profit alone. Companies don't work like that. They look at where that profit is coming from and where the shortcomings are within different divisions of the company.

It's literally MORE unattainable. No, it's not COMPLETELY unattainable, which I didn't say nor did literally anyone else in the thread lmfao. It's more unattainable than it was before and I really can't understand why you would defend it lol. Yeah people shouldn't buy AAA games day one but they're disallowed to complain about prices because………?

It's not though when more avenues of accessibility are opening up and they still can play AAA games. Maybe not all of them on day 1, but that doesn't mean they will never be able to play it. They'll have to be more selective to fit their budget. But this notion that gaming is becoming more unattainable when more accessibility has opened up is not looking at the bigger picture. AAA day 1 games is just one aspect of all of gaming, but it does not define or make up gaming.

People are free to voice what prices fit within what they perceive as a good value or not. Nobody is saying that they can't but they also are not entitled to be offered the games they want, when they want at the price they want it at. Consumers can voice their concern by also speaking with their wallet and not supporting those companies.

But ya, this notion that gaming is becoming more unattainable when it has never been more accessible all because of a subset of games being $70 on day 1 is really having tunnel vision of what the overall game market really is.
 

CaviarMeths

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,655
Western Canada
Do the people who defend the price hike actually think developers salaries have increased due to it?

Do the people who say 'but inflation!' not realize that wages have stagnated and haven't risen with inflation?

Are the people who defend the price hike unaware that due to a much bigger market and multiple other forms of monetization, the big companies complaining about this are more profitable now than they've ever been before?
They're aware. They're just hoping you aren't. The people crying loudest about being accused of "corporate apologism" in this thread are the ones calling users "greedy" and "entitled."
 

Jquail

Member
Mar 2, 2021
276
At first, I was almost religiously anti-$70, but since it's been such a thin release year, I've caved on several occasions already. Demon's Souls, Nioh Collection, Returnal and obviously Ratchet. Next year? Different story. I'm already making a list of games I'm willing to go all in for and which ones I'm willing to wait for. Can't afford to keep up as much as I have been.

However, this is all bypassing the dirty rotten truth of this whole hobby: games have always been stupid expensive. I don't quite agree with the glib "video games are toys for rich people" narrative because a lot of poor folk love gaming. But this has always been a very shitty medium in that regard. $60 was already too much. Hell, $50 was a lot. I find it ironic that Sony has become the vanguard of the $70 game when the first Ratchet and Clank was $40, a whole $10 cheaper than the going price. That was Sony's whole shtick for first party. I wanna say God of War was their first $50 game and then everything was $60 on PS3.

However, my pet theory is that this is all a conspiracy to force all of us into subscription services so that the billion dollar corporations can maintain control of all their IPs. No piracy or used games if everything is stored on a server farm in some desert.

p.s. Something a lot of people were overlooking with the news that Horizon and God of War were cross gen was the fact that there's a very good chance that means they're $60 games. Sony's already said that all first party cross gen games get a free upgrade and there's no way to justify spending 70 on a PS4 game. The only thin justification they have for that price to begin with is, "Oh, well, you see, it's Next Gen." Sackboy was 60 on both, Miles (standalone) was 50 on both. Stands to reason that every cross gen Sony game will be at most 60 dollars instead of 70.
 

Onebadlion

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,189
It's certainly discouraged impulse buys. I'm a lot more discerning about which games I pick up at these prices.
 

Puroresu_kid

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,465
Not about affordability to me. I can afford a new release for £70 I just choose not to pay that as the price increase is just Sony screwing over European gamers.
 

DongBeetle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,017
A new generation means new investments into that generation. Record profits from the previous generation doesn't mean costs don't increase moving into the new one. Not to mention that you simply can't look at total profit alone. Companies don't work like that. They look at where that profit is coming from and where the shortcomings are within different divisions of the company.



It's not though when more avenues of accessibility are opening up and they still can play AAA games. Maybe not all of them on day 1, but that doesn't mean they will never be able to play it. They'll have to be more selective to fit their budget. But this notion that gaming is becoming more unattainable when more accessibility has opened up is not looking at the bigger picture. AAA day 1 games is just one aspect of all of gaming, but it does not define or make up gaming.

People are free to voice what prices fit within what they perceive as a good value or not. Nobody is saying that they can't but they also are not entitled to be offered the games they want, when they want at the price they want it at. Consumers can voice their concern by also speaking with their wallet and not supporting those companies.

But ya, this notion that gaming is becoming more unattainable when it has never been more accessible all because of a subset of games being $70 on day 1 is really having tunnel vision of what the overall game market really is.
What new gaming opportunities are appearing in the wake of this new 70 dolllar price point? I'm not really sure what you're going on about with the profit thing lol what area do you think publishers aren't making money from
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,798
However, my pet theory is that this is all a conspiracy to force all of us into subscription services so that the billion dollar corporations can maintain control of all their IPs. No piracy or used games if everything is stored on a server farm in some desert.

Unless the games are streamed, games running natively on hardware are always going to be prone to piracy. Subscription services wouldn't stop that.
 

Kemiko

Member
Oct 5, 2018
616
It rubs me the wrong way when a publisher says that £70 games are necessary due to increasing costs, which I could believe if it wasn't for the constant barrage of MTX, Season Passes, Cosmetic Purchases, multiple collectors editions which will continue along with a £70 price tag. Companies like EA are making enormous amounts on all of this and yet trying to push the £70 narrative onto customers.

This money won't go to developers either, it'll go into bonuses for execs and CEOs.
 

plow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,640
I can't think of the last time i bought a game at full price at release. You can easily buy games for 10€ less at release and Sony games go down on price very fast after few months. Demon Souls is avaible for 60€ already. TLOU is 30€ already after under a year.
 

psynergyadept

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,581
I'm not even on one side or the other of this discussion, but if you and the others doing this ITT think this patronizing "maybe you should be better at adulting much?" spiel is anything but insulting and elitist, you're only fooling yourselves.

i really don't find what he said to be elitist or being a better adult; I would assume budgeting and prioritizing is a territory that most of us on ERA follow. We work then divide what money comes our way to rent/mortgage, bills, foods, cars gaming etc; most of my day one purchases come from a saving method I developed way back in middle school; my mom would give me like $3-5$ for lunch every other week and I'd save that until I had enough to buy a used game, trade it in wih credit to but another.

now I'm not saying "why don't y'all just save or budget your money better" but find a method that work for you whether it's; small saving here and there, waiting for a sale/price cut, buying secondhand, subbing to a subscription based service like PS+/Now or GWG/GS; whatever gives you more bang for you buck.
 

Skeff

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,628
I bought Returnal for 70€ at launch on Amazon and they gave me a 10€ PSN code.

I bought Undermine with it and traded Returnal for RE Village last week. I'll sell that for ~40€ after I finish it over this week.

So for 30€ I got to play 3 games, or 2 AAA for 20€.

So yeah...

This is a good post.

Im fortunate in that I could just go buy any game when I wanted it, but as a family man I'm aware every penny I spend on myself is something I could spend on the family (I'm very budget conscious and want to set the kids up for success, house deposits etc because I know exactly how difficult it is to save for a deposit in life, I've been through it.) So I spend as little as possible on unnecessary items and let's be honest games and consoles are unnecessary.

I buy on Offers and I trade in and use credit, wait for sales and everything else. I love when big games come out back to back, for example Ghost of Tsushima and Last of us Part 2, buy one play it sell it buy the other. Sometimes you've got to do what you can do to find the best value.

I actually see why Games would go to $70, a bit miffed that means £70 but that's the way it is apparently.

As a heads up for anyone in UK wanting this... It's 61.85 at Base and you can sell for 47 cash at CeX or around 50/55 Facebook marketplace.
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,798
What new gaming opportunities are appearing in the wake of this new 70 dolllar price point?

We're still seeing new things pop up. Game Pass is relatively new. Streaming services are being explored. Top quality games being free to play are still relatively young. There are all sorts of ways that gaming is being made more accessible to people these days and it shouldn't be overlooked that accessibility has increased significantly over time, especially within the last few years.

I'm not really sure what you're going on about with the profit thing lol what area do you think publishers aren't making money from

How do you not understand the point I'm making? You point out record profits at $60. Those were on games developed for the previous generation. Next gen games are going to have increases in costs so pointing out the profit from a previous gen business model doesn't mean that the next gen business model has the same costs. You're acting like things will be static in costs moving from one generation to another. Also how can you not understand that a company is broken down in to parts and different parts of the company generate different revenue? Looking at the total profit across all divisions doesn't tell the complete picture.
 

KyngKee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
886
I can afford $70 games, but I don't value many at that price. I did preorder Ratchet only because I love the franchise and platformers in general. We'll see if I feel the $76 total price was worth it in the end. But, I totally get concerns about the price increase overall. Luckily I have a huge backlog so this should help me to catch the games I want to play cheaper by the time I'm ready for a new game outside of a few exclusives I'll definitely buy day 1…
 

Ahti

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Nov 6, 2017
9,171
Developer salaries is a completely divorced topic from $70 games. Absolutely nothing to do with each other. Nobody is charging an extra $10 per disc and moving to GaaS models so that their employees can earn a better living or have better work conditions. Not one single goddamn publisher.

Plain and simple, this is rampant capitalism. Games are $70 now not because of inflation, but because CEOs and shareholders want more money. And they're getting it. Stop hoping that people will forget that salaries have stagnated and work conditions have barely improved in the last decade while companies brag about record profits.


"Ah, but maybe it is actually YOU who is the greedy one" is maybe the most insultingly disingenuous argument I've seen in this thread.

Same energy:

vek2erc4f1471.png
This.
 

Derfy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
104
I buy Sony products 6 month later as they are single player experience for the most part I don't loose anything of value. Patient gaming is the key . For the rest I got gamepass on Serie X so I can wait ...
 

DongBeetle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,017
We're still seeing new things pop up. Game Pass is relatively new. Streaming services are being explored. Top quality games being free to play are still relatively young. There are all sorts of ways that gaming is being made more accessible to people these days and it shouldn't be overlooked that accessibility has increased significantly over time, especially within the last few years.



How do you not understand the point I'm making? You point out record profits at $60. Those were on games developed for the previous generation. Next gen games are going to have increases in costs so pointing out the profit from a previous gen business model doesn't mean that the next gen business model has the same costs. You're acting like things will be static in costs moving from one generation to another. Also how can you not understand that a company is broken down in to parts and different parts of the company generate different revenue? Looking at the total profit across all divisions doesn't tell the complete picture.
Gamepass predates the 70 dollar price tag. Sure costs will increase marginally but with publishers pulling in literally all time record high profits it really doesn't look like AAA publishers would suffer in the slightest with the continued 60 dollar price tag (which they found record setting profits with). Just because big multimillion dollar corporations are compelled to make as much money as humanly possible while spending as little as they can get away with doesn't mean they can't be criticized foe it
 

Thorrgal

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,290
Renting is another solution. (I rented Returnal and will be doing the same with Ratchet.)

Buying at RRP and selling at a slight loss is another. (I did this with Demon's Souls and Spider-Man MM UE. The games ended up costing me £20.)

Obviously these are not solutions for people who want to own/collect and play *now*, but if you're more bothered about just playing and don't care about ownership, then they're more than viable options.

They are if you want to own/collect and play now as well, you can always do what you explain on the post (which is my tactic as well) and end up buying the game later on on a sale.

So really most of the arguments in the thread are more about why should Sony charge 70$ for a game than about customers having to pay 70$ for them, because they don't have too, really.

So at the end of the day most arguments are about why should Sony want to make more money when it's already making a lot of money, which has nothing to do with what the OP was exposing, and brings the discussion to a whole different place; capitalism, good/bad, etc

On that debate you can ask why charge 70$ when you are making a lot of money or why charge 60$ when you're making Trillions, and the answer would be the same.Just not what the OP was about (or was it?)

Edit: Case in point, posts after me in this same page lol..."Why should publishers want to earn more money??"
 
Last edited:

KENMASTERS1

Member
Apr 9, 2021
314
Haven't read through this thread but gaming is purely a luxury hobby predicated on hype and FOMO, surrounded by all things shiny and new as seen in marketing and ad campaigns. The expensive price tag is a premium that is paid by those who can't bear to wait outside the initial launch event for a discount.

Physical games depreciate exceedingly quick these days in the used market (usually in the first week/month) and if people can't bear to wait, then I can't think of any other workaround for those upset about expensive price tags really.
 

Foxnull

Alt-Account
Banned
May 30, 2019
1,651
Digital game sharing is a possible solution if you have friends who are into gaming, too. It's easy to set up both on Xbox and Playstation and you can share the cost of games.
 

hersheyfan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,747
Manila, Philippines
We're still seeing new things pop up. Game Pass is relatively new. Streaming services are being explored. Top quality games being free to play are still relatively young. There are all sorts of ways that gaming is being made more accessible to people these days and it shouldn't be overlooked that accessibility has increased significantly over time, especially within the last few years.



How do you not understand the point I'm making? You point out record profits at $60. Those were on games developed for the previous generation. Next gen games are going to have increases in costs so pointing out the profit from a previous gen business model doesn't mean that the next gen business model has the same costs. You're acting like things will be static in costs moving from one generation to another. Also how can you not understand that a company is broken down in to parts and different parts of the company generate different revenue? Looking at the total profit across all divisions doesn't tell the complete picture.
In the first paragraph, you mentioned that there are new, cheaper options for gamers looking to play on the cheap, like XGP. XGP offers many games on day one, including "next gen" Series X|S enhanced games, and presumably including Microsoft's own "next-gen" first party output.

In the second paragraph, you then say that it doesn't make sense to sell next-gen games at less than 70$ because they clearly have a different set of costs, and the large amount of data we already have about companies being perfectly profitable selling games at 60$ should not be used as reference.

Are the publishers putting stuff up on XGP not subject to the same financial realities as the publishers trying to sell stuff for 70$?
 

Naner

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,016
These publishers are doing more than breaking even though. They're posting record profits and still raising prices. And they aren't raising those prices to recoup investment, to deal with inflation, or make their employees lives better through compensation to offset inflation. It's for the share holders and the ceos. That's it.
Exactly. I love the "but inflation!" argument when the US Dollar inflation has been of 20% between 2010 and 2021, while many companies, Sony and Microsoft included, saw their stock prices more than quintuple over the past decade. Shareholders are already earning way past inflation while the people who actually make the games have stagnant salaries and continue to suffer from job insecurity.
 
Last edited:

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
Saying that if we pay more for games somehow the devs will get paid more.. hilarious. The money at the end of the month in the pockets of a dev doesn't have anything to do with whether the game costs 50€ or 80€.

The argument of "games are luxury entertainment!!!! be poor and fuck off!" doesn't work because videogames are culture (as far as everyone seems to defend it) and culture should be accessible. Calling poor people "entitled" "bad managers of money" reeks of classism.

Man, the demographics of ERA are clear, huh. People want videogames to become even more of a luxury good so that they can say "Hey, I can afford videogames". Yikes.

Video games are more financially accessible than they have ever been. With gamepass, steam sales, humble bundle, free epic games, the rise of Free2play, there are more options than ever before to experience gaming.

And a thing I think you and a lot of people are missing is that a bunch of people telling other people to not buy these 70$ games ARE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD 70$ GAMES AND HAVE ALREADY MOVED ON BECAUSE NOT BUYING GAMES AT 70$ IN NO REAL WAY LOCKS YOU OUT OF GAMING. I can't afford to pay 70 at launch except in an ultra rare occasion. That's okay. It's life. I can't afford everything.
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,798
Gamepass predates the 70 dollar price tag. Sure costs will increase marginally but with publishers pulling in literally all time record high profits it really doesn't look like AAA publishers would suffer in the slightest with the continued 60 dollar price tag (which they found record setting profits with). Just because big multimillion dollar corporations are compelled to make as much money as humanly possible while spending as little as they can get away with doesn't mean they can't be criticized foe it

Nobody is saying they can't be criticized but criticizing based on uninformed simple takes isn't the way to go either. Total profit doesn't account for different developers and divisions. Some are going to be more profitable than others so you can't just reduce it to overall profit. You also don't know what the projected increase in costs that they're planning over time either. Nor do you have the numbers that indicate what the rise in development costs are going from last gen to this gen. So a lot of what you're saying is too simplistic of a view that isn't accounting for a lot of things let alone purely accounting for a transition to a new generation. They don't set price points like these based on the here and now. They do it with a longer term in view because they don't plan to constantly change the price so declaring a new price point has to account for that long term view.

It also doesn't matter that GamePass came first, it's the overall trajectory of how these accessible options are being made available and relatively speaking a lot of these are recent developments. These things don't just pop up and stay static. They evolve. So simply looking at the hard line of release date of GamePass, Stadia, Xbox Cloud Streaming, etc and comparing them to the $70 price point is missing how things are progressing. Hell, there's one right there. Xbox Cloud Streaming was released publicly after the $70 price point so that's one way how gaming has been made more accessible if you want to use hard dates, but doing so really is putting a disservice of how accessibility has increased lately.

In the first paragraph, you mentioned that there are new, cheaper options for gamers looking to play on the cheap, like XGP. XGP offers many games on day one, including "next gen" Series X|S enhanced games, and presumably including Microsoft's own "next-gen" first party output.

In the second paragraph, you then say that it doesn't make sense to sell next-gen games at less than 70$ because they clearly have a different set of costs, and the large amount of data we already have about companies being perfectly profitable selling games at 60$ should not be used as reference.

Are the publishers putting stuff up on XGP not subject to the same financial realities as the publishers trying to sell stuff for 70$?

Different financial models have different ways of generating money. Not to mention that, things aren't in a vacuum where a game can have multiple avenues of revenue depending on what makes sense. We also can't ignore that Microsoft is giving different financial incentives to be on GamePass and we'll have to see how the long term viability of that plays out with how the financial incentives change over time which we really aren't privy to what those might be but they must be pretty good to make it worth there while. Plus, when I'm talking about new cheaper options for gamers, XGP isn't made up of only AAA games. There's indie games, older games, etc. Then outside of XGP, there's stuff like Fortnite which is F2P. There's all sorts of different structures for business models that companies are coming up with not to mention how older games can be found cheap digitally these days. Titanfall 2 Ultimate Edition was like $3 just a few weeks ago. That's a crazy price for an amazing game with a ton of content.
 

Thorrgal

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,290
This is a good post.

Im fortunate in that I could just go buy any game when I wanted it, but as a family man I'm aware every penny I spend on myself is something I could spend on the family (I'm very budget conscious and want to set the kids up for success, house deposits etc because I know exactly how difficult it is to save for a deposit in life, I've been through it.) So I spend as little as possible on unnecessary items and let's be honest games and consoles are unnecessary.

I buy on Offers and I trade in and use credit, wait for sales and everything else. I love when big games come out back to back, for example Ghost of Tsushima and Last of us Part 2, buy one play it sell it buy the other. Sometimes you've got to do what you can do to find the best value.

I actually see why Games would go to $70, a bit miffed that means £70 but that's the way it is apparently.

As a heads up for anyone in UK wanting this... It's 61.85 at Base and you can sell for 47 cash at CeX or around 50/55 Facebook marketplace.

I could actually just pay the price and keep the games as well, but it's just something I picked up back in the 80's as a kid in school when we traded Spectrum and Master System games lol

Back then prices were really outrageous...I remember paying the equivalent of 60$ for some of them, and that was 35y ago

But yes, I don't have kids but I have 2 wonderful nieces and think it also gives a good example to them
 

DongBeetle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,017
Nobody is saying they can't be criticized but criticizing based on uninformed simple takes isn't the way to go either. Total profit doesn't account for different developers and divisions. Some are going to be more profitable than others so you can't just reduce it to overall profit. You also don't know what the projected increase in costs that they're planning over time either. Nor do you have the numbers that indicate what the rise in development costs are going from last gen to this gen. So a lot of what you're saying is too simplistic of a view that isn't accounting for a lot of things let alone purely accounting for a transition to a new generation. They don't set price points like these based on the here and now. They do it with a longer term in view because they don't plan to constantly change the price so declaring a new price point has to account for that long term view.

It also doesn't matter that GamePass came first, it's the overall trajectory of how these accessible options are being made available and relatively speaking a lot of these are recent developments. These things don't just pop up and stay static. They evolve. So simply looking at the hard line of release date of GamePass, Stadia, Xbox Cloud Streaming, etc and comparing them to the $70 price point is missing how things are progressing. Hell, there's one right there. Xbox Cloud Streaming was released publicly after the $70 price point so that's one way how gaming has been made more accessible if you want to use hard dates, but doing so really is putting a disservice of how accessibility has increased lately.



Different financial models have different ways of generating money. Not to mention that, things aren't in a vacuum where a game can have multiple avenues of revenue depending on what makes sense. We also can't ignore that Microsoft is giving different financial incentives to be on GamePass and we'll have to see how the long term viability of that plays out with how the financial incentives change over time which we really aren't privy to what those might be but they must be pretty good to make it worth there while. Plus, when I'm talking about new cheaper options for gamers, XGP isn't made up of only AAA games. There's indie games, older games, etc. Then outside of XGP, there's stuff like Fortnite which is F2P. There's all sorts of different structures for business models that companies are coming up with not to mention how older games can be found cheap digitally these days. Titanfall 2 Ultimate Edition was like $3 just a few weeks ago. That's a crazy price for an amazing game with a ton of content.
But you haven't cited any numbers or sources that indicates that this is to make up for critical underperforming profits in an area we're just not aware of
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,994
Any hypothetical involving inflation or developer salaries or whatever is ignoring the fact that literally every major publisher saw record profits over the course of the generation thanks to the advent of digital, micro transactions, and AAA games in general selling better than they ever did before.

There isn't actually any justification for the bump to $70. Well I suppose the justification is reaching even higher record profits to show shareholders. But no major publisher is in dire straights that would necessitate a price hike.
 
Jan 9, 2018
4,390
Sweden
You shouldn't spend what you can't afford, regardless of how much you want it.

I agree that if you can't afford a hobby you probably shouldn't indulge in it, but I also think it's ok to not approve of the higher price tag. This affects used prices and discounted sales as well, as those will probably also be more expensive than they were before.
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,798
But you haven't cited any numbers or sources that indicates that this is to make up for critical underperforming profits in an area we're just not aware of

The point is your simplistic view of record profits at the $60 price point is missing a lot of nuance, detail, long term forecasts, etc to draw the conclusion that you're coming to.
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,798
So instead of saying repeatedly that it's more nuanced and my understanding is simplistic are you capable of explaining?

I've already pointed out details of information that you're lacking to draw the conclusions you're making. Without those details, you cannot make an informed conclusion and analysis of the financials.
 

DongBeetle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,017
I've already pointed out details of information that you're lacking to draw the conclusions you're making. Without those details, you cannot make an informed conclusion and analysis of the financials.
Your information cited no sources nor were you able to explain which area of revenue AAA publishers are critically underperforming which would be alleviated by this price hike.
 
Apr 12, 2021
58
Do the people who defend the price hike actually think developers salaries have increased due to it?

Do the people who say 'but inflation!' not realize that wages have stagnated and haven't risen with inflation?

Are the people who defend the price hike unaware that due to a much bigger market and multiple other forms of monetization, the big companies complaining about this are more profitable now than they've ever been before?
They're aware. They're just hoping you aren't. The people crying loudest about being accused of "corporate apologism" in this thread are the ones calling users "greedy" and "entitled."

I'm sorry but you keep posting these kinds of responses here and you're absolutely wrong. It's been covered multiple times in this thread and I'll try to explain it again to help illustrate why people are making the arguments there, and I am absolutely not doing it to defend a corporation.

When the price of games was $10 to $20 cheaper in the past, they also on average had much lower graphical fidelity and were less visually impressive than the games being released on the newest console releases. Games that were cheaper years ago could get by with a single developer doing things like foliage shading - or even have a single developer only handling it part time - whereas nowadays there are entire teams that ONLY work on this, because it's what most of us wanted (that's why we bought the newest consoles, right?).

Yeah, individual developers aren't getting paid enough to ball out and by themselves a yacht after each development cycle, but the cheaper games that were being developed by a team of 40 people in 2-3 years previously now require hundreds if not thousands of direct hires and outsourced labor, on top of an up to 10 year development cycle, to release. There is an added cost there, and as much as you post these incorrect takes to stir up drama it doesn't make them true.

(This is a post about the very real increase of the cost to develop games and the very real increase in the amount of money paid to developers because paying six people 50k per year each in 2010 is less than paying 30 people 60k per year in 2021. Not a corporate shill :) ).
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,798
Your information cited no sources nor were you able to explain which area of revenue AAA publishers are critically underperforming which would be alleviated by this price hike.

Unless you can give those details, the simple fact is, your analysis is very uninformed because you lack the details that goes into financial planning of these various companies. You cannot cite the data I'm asking for which means you don't have it which then means you aren't informed enough to do a proper analysis.

I have already played this game with him. You should save your energy.

Thanks for the heads up. Sounds like a good reason to call it a night now then.
 

Sir Sonic

Member
Jan 14, 2020
836
This hits extra Hard for us in Countries with General Economic Problems like Iran, Brazil etc.
It is not just extra 10$... Buying games at 60$ is already pretty Hard, and you really just cannot casually pay for Video Games. That Extra 10$ -as I said- Hits Extra Hard
 

Dreamwriter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,461
Sure, inflation blah blah…but there;s a big difference between gaming now and gaming in the past. In the past, developers were more willing to make "AA" games - games that don't look amazing, made with smaller teams, often experimental, sold For $20 less than AAA games. So consumers had choices of how to spend their money - buy the big blockbuster, save some money buying one of the many AA games, save a lot of money buying a budget title (now mostly indie games). These days, the big publishers are only willing to make the blockbuster AAA games, so there are fewer price tiers for gamers to choose from.

Any hypothetical involving inflation or developer salaries or whatever is ignoring the fact that literally every major publisher saw record profits over the course of the generation thanks to the advent of digital, micro transactions, and AAA games in general selling better than they ever did before.

There isn't actually any justification for the bump to $70. Well I suppose the justification is reaching even higher record profits to show shareholders. But no major publisher is in dire straights that would necessitate a price hike.
The justification is, people hate micro transactions, and this allows them to make the games they want at the quality they want without them.
 
Last edited:

DongBeetle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,017
Unless you can give those details, the simple fact is, your analysis is very uninformed because you lack the details that goes into financial planning of these various companies. You cannot cite the data I'm asking for which means you don't have it which then means you aren't informed enough to do a proper analysis.



Thanks for the heads up. Sounds like a good reason to call it a night now then.
Dude are you not the one saying that AAA publishers should raise the prices of their games because they're under performing in terms of profits in some area that we just don't know about. I'm asking for you to elaborate on this point so I can understand what the fuck you're talking about haha
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,994
The justification is, people hate micro transactions, and this allows them to make the games they want at the quality they want without them.
$70 price tag is not going to stop micro transactions lmao. Literally the first game to announce the price hike was NBA 2K which is MTX hell.

Again, literally every publisher is seeing record profits. Stop acting like this increase was in any way needed.
 

RedShift_

Member
Jul 24, 2018
507
I would gladly pay that 10$ increase if it meant paying for certified games with something like a "Fair Trade" mark of sorts for gaming goods, telling me developers have been paid fairly and didn't get their lives wrecked by months of crunch.

This is not the case though. What we have here is an inflated price for the benefit of CEOs and publishers, while the gaming workforce is still not unionized, grossly underpaid and exploited in a world where gaming has never been bigger and more profitable.

Publishers are capitalizing and making record profits on this "second coming" of gaming without redistributing anything to the people that actually make games, in a perfect example of why trickle down economics is a fairy tale in the context of our unregulated capitalistic system.

Also, saying "but there's lots of F2P games, just play those!" is missing the point entirely.
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,798
Dude are you not the one saying that AAA publishers should raise the prices of their games because they're under performing in terms of profits in some area that we just don't know about. I'm asking for you to elaborate on this point so I can understand what the fuck you're talking about haha

No, I'm saying your analysis and conclusion is uninformed. You drew a conclusion that companies are making record profits at $60, so this doesn't need to be done and I've shown how you lack credible info to draw that conclusion because you're missing the information needed to make such a conclusion. You are the one that needs to supply that information to back up your conclusion. Unless you can show that you have that data and information, then your analysis is based on being uninformed which means it's not a credible conclusion because you lack the information to make it credible.
 

hersheyfan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,747
Manila, Philippines
Different financial models have different ways of generating money. Not to mention that, things aren't in a vacuum where a game can have multiple avenues of revenue depending on what makes sense. We also can't ignore that Microsoft is giving different financial incentives to be on GamePass and we'll have to see how the long term viability of that plays out with how the financial incentives change over time which we really aren't privy to what those might be but they must be pretty good to make it worth there while. Plus, when I'm talking about new cheaper options for gamers, XGP isn't made up of only AAA games. There's indie games, older games, etc. Then outside of XGP, there's stuff like Fortnite which is F2P. There's all sorts of different structures for business models that companies are coming up with not to mention how older games can be found cheap digitally these days. Titanfall 2 Ultimate Edition was like $3 just a few weeks ago. That's a crazy price for an amazing game with a ton of content.
Yes, of course XGP isnt made up of only AAA games. But this doesn't directly address the earlier point I was making - surely you aren't suggesting that the "increasing development costs" of these next gen exclusives were all borne by Microsoft somehow? That Phil just threw extra sacks of money at these people to release their next-gen versions on XGP for free instead of giving people the leprous last-gen version?

I'm sure we can agree that it doesn't cost a whole lot to add minor Series X|S or PS5 "upgrades" to what is ostensibly a last gen game, yes? So why did Activision ask another 10$ for next-gen Tony Hawk, generally recieved as a tepid upgrade? Did that justify adding 10 extra dollars to the cost?

All of the current-gen games we're playing now began development years ago, with the cost of development presumably imputed into their publishers' financials for those preceding years (during which those pubs remained profitable). Even then, at PS5/Series launch, most publishers still chose not to migrate to the 70$ price point yet, opting to remain at 60$, despite releasing "next-gen" games. Somehow, I don't see Ubisoft going out of business any time soon, regardless of their games' quality. In this context, the increase looks like more of a tactical decision than one borne out of necessity.
 

Shado

Member
Oct 26, 2017
440
I would gladly pay that 10$ increase if it meant paying for certified games with something like a "Fair Trade" mark of sorts for gaming goods, telling me developers have been paid fairly and didn't get their lives wrecked by months of crunch.

This is not the case though. What we have here is an inflated price for the benefit of CEOs and publishers, while the gaming workforce is still not unionized, grossly underpaid and exploited in a world where gaming has never been bigger and more profitable.

Publishers are capitalizing and making record profits on this "second coming" of gaming without redistributing anything to the people that actually make games, in a perfect example of why trickle down economics is a fairy tale in the context of our unregulated capitalistic system.

This is one of the better arguments against the price hike. It would be great to see profits roll down to the normal devs and not just higher ups. I would like to think that it will, albeit in a much smaller way.
 

Thorrgal

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,290
This hits extra Hard for us in Countries with General Economic Problems like Iran, Brazil etc.
It is not just extra 10$... Buying games at 60$ is already pretty Hard, and you really just cannot casually pay for Video Games. That Extra 10$ -as I said- Hits Extra Hard

You don't need to buy the game at launch for 70$ you can buy it second hand a week later for 60$ or 50$, or you can buy it for 70$ at launch and sell it for 60$ a week later.

Or rent it, trade it etc. And if you want to own it buy it a year later. Or buy it after a week and sell it after. People have been going around these arguments in circles and noone is listening to one another.

I say it again, the OP's arguments have been answered and this has transformed in a "Why should publishers make more money than they are making" thread, and we all know the answer to that one.
 

calvinised

Member
May 24, 2021
410
I could be on double or triple what I make right now and still think that 80 Euro price is an absolute piss take
 

Shado

Member
Oct 26, 2017
440
No, I'm saying your analysis and conclusion is uninformed. You drew a conclusion that companies are making record profits at $60, so this doesn't need to be done and I've shown how you lack credible info to draw that conclusion because you're missing the information needed to make such a conclusion. You are the one that needs to supply that information to back up your conclusion. Unless you can show that you have that data and information, then your analysis is based on being uninformed which means it's not a credible conclusion because you lack the information to make it credible.

Trust me. Make better use of your time. I have seen him rinse and repeat this "elaborate" and "record profits" thing without caring to read anything posted explaining the same. That lol and haha should tell you that he's in the thread to troll around without adding anything meaningful.