The $70 Price Tag Is Actually Indefensible (The Jimquisition)

Sheepinator · Nov 30, 2020

Shogun said:
Are they though? Minecraft is the most popular game in the world, Among us has exploded, Fortnite an absolute machine, League Of Legends, Counter Strike GO, WoW still massive.

Are people demanding games be flashy with massive budgets or are we told and marketed to that we need the hottest latest shit?

You're talking about PC games there. What % of PC gamers have the latest most expensive GPU's etc.? Blizzard and others wisely decided long ago that being accessible to more potential gamers was more important. As for consoles, if there were only one console maker maybe we'd have that system for a decade with no replacement. But there isn't. MS or Sony offers up something that allows better looking games at higher resolutions and frame rates because they know gamers want that, and gamers do want that. It's been about four console gens since there were truly must-have launch titles exclusive to the new Xbox or PS systems, and yet we all upgrade anyway because we don't want to be playing games that look like PS2 games now.

Valcrist · Nov 30, 2020

The $70 price tag has made me a lot more selective with my game purchases. I used to just buy games that I had no plans on playing day 1, now I don't buy those specific games at all until they go on sale below retail.

Kill3r7 · Nov 30, 2020

They are just milking day 1 customers as a new revenue stream. That is all.

Deleted member 18944 · Nov 30, 2020

Shogun said:
Are they though? Minecraft is the most popular game in the world, Among us has exploded, Fortnite an absolute machine, League Of Legends, Counter Strike GO, WoW still massive.

Are people demanding games be flashy with massive budgets or are we told and marketed to that we need the hottest latest shit?

This is, quite seriously, the best post in this thread.

Ignatz Mouse · Nov 30, 2020

Tobor said:
Right. It's literally Econ 101.

I made it 6 minutes in and turned it off. It's just another excuse for Sterling to wag his finger and moan. He is more interested in playing "gotcha" with CEO quotes. It's not novel or interesting to me.

Yep.

I mean, I'm not happy about the price of games either (or nickel-and-diming for additional content) but that was the same at $60 or $70. I just buy the indie games, or wait for sales, or pay full price if I think it's a game I am going to spend a lot of time with.

A person's game consumption has to be pretty big for this difference to have a huge impact. How many full-priced games does a person need in a month, before or after this price change?

As noted, it's not even on par with inflation. If you were paying $60/game in 2010 then this shouldn't seem much different.

Bufbaf · Nov 30, 2020

Unsurprisingly, he's absolutely right. And the exact reasoning he's describing is one of the reasons I'm not getting into "NextGen" yet either.

kitler53 · Nov 30, 2020

doesn't affect me. i (almost) never buy games day-1. if you can wait ~1 year pretty much every game will have dipped below $20 during a sale and more often than not $10. the game plays just as good (if not better). even for a guy like me that plays 15-20 games a year it's pretty easy to keep the yearly games budget below $200 if you just don't give a "f#$@" about being a day-1 buyer.

crucial to my statement is that i don't really play mp. i can see the need to buy early if you are in it for the mp since the community can die out. ...but that's not my thing so it's also no my worry. if i'm going to play mp it will be rocket league, fall guys, destruction all-stars and other titles that were free or given to me for "free".

Flappy Pannus · Nov 30, 2020

Ignatz Mouse said:
As noted, it's not even on par with inflation. If you were paying $60/game in 2010 then this shouldn't seem much different.

Would have been a good argument for the video to cover, guess that's why he did

Orb · Nov 30, 2020

PaperSparrow said:
The start to any change is awareness. Sure, in the grand scheme of things, this thread will mean nothing, but it helps not to shut down the complaints by reminding everyone of the status quo. This increase does not benefit consumers, it does not benefit the developers whose wages are low and stagnant. I don't see any reason why saying "hey everyone, this is bad for you in every way and you shouldn't defend the people in charge" is a bad thing.

Yeah, again, I believe there is a difference between accepting it and defending it. It's not good. I wish it were different. But you know what, if I want that game enough, I'm spending $70 on it. Because all my believing it's bad doesn't magically make the game cheaper.

Euphoria · Nov 30, 2020

I don't buy many games per year as it is, especially at the $60 price tag. I bought a PS5 and made an exception for Demon's Souls. Since then I've purchased Doom Eternal, because it's getting a PS5 upgrade and it was only $16 or so.

I am going to approach this generation exactly how I've approached last gen for the last 2-3 years or so. Buy nothing on launch unless you need to (SaGa Frontier Remaster physical edition pls!). Always buy when games drop to $20-$40.

For some games such as Assassin'a Creed I've found it doesn't take very long.

MorshuTheTrader · Nov 30, 2020

I already only buy one or maybe two games at launch per year.

My backlog is years deep and I can comfortably wait for a deep sale on any game.

Deleted member 46948 · Nov 30, 2020

He's not wrong.
Also with the price increase for the EU market... I'm going to buy exactly zero games for the day1 price of 70 EUR this gen, fuck that noise.

Lobster Roll · Nov 30, 2020

kitler53 said:
doesn't affect me. i (almost) never buy games day-1. if you can wait ~1 year pretty much every game will have dipped below $20 during a sale and more often than not $10. the game plays just as good (if not better). even for a guy like me that plays 15-20 games a year it's pretty easy to keep the yearly games budget below $200 if you just don't give a "f#$@" about being a day-1 buyer.

crucial to my statement is that i don't really play mp. i can see the need to buy early if you are in it for the mp since the community can die out. ...but that's not my thing so it's also no my worry. if i'm going to play mp it will be rocket league, fall guys, destruction all-stars and other titles that were free or given to me for "free".

A $60 game that's 50% off is $30.
A $120 game that's 50% off is $60.

Everybody saying that it doesn't matter because they'll just wait for a sale are not taking into account that the sales will end up becoming more expensive by extension while publishers can point and say, "but it's 50% off, just like always!"

CloudsFromSpace · Nov 30, 2020

MatrixMan.exe said:
Not sure if there's much more that can be said. I don't agree with it and I'd love to see someone try and justify the fiscal necessity outside of 'moar profit', but publishers are within their right to charge what they want for the products that they sell and consumers are within their right to not pay MSRP.

I don't really have the energy to complain in earnest about a $10 increase in the price of luxury entertainment. It's not the end of the world.

I wouldn't say it's a fiscal necessity, but profit isn't always strictly the motivator behind price increases. Price can be seen as a reflection of risk as well, with riskier products needing to be put out at a higher price. You can think of price as equalling costs + margin + risk premium. Now, we know that some of these AAA games being sold at $70 are decidedly not risky. NBA 2k21 is the furthest thing from a risky project. But something like Godfall? An expensive AAA service game? That's a risky product, and might justify a risk premium, to offset the chance that it flops. So you could view the price increase as an acknowledgment of increased risk in the marketplace.

It's not cleanly applicable to every publisher because not every project is equally risky, but you also don't see every publisher jumping to the $70 price point yet. Microsoft is standing at $60 (though they have Game Pass as a backstop against risk), and so is Nintendo (though the economics of first party switch games seem to hold to different patterns).

Ignatz Mouse · Nov 30, 2020

Flappy Pannus said:
Would have been a good argument for the video to cover, guess that's why he did

Is he referring to the cost to produce the game in his counter argument? Because I am not. Cost for production doesn't enter my analysis whatsoever.

I'm not listening to 25 minutes of what started out wrongheaded to begin with. If you can give a timestamp or sum up his point I'll respond.

Rodelero · Nov 30, 2020

Border said:
It seems pretty plainly defensible.

When the $60 games first started coming out it was 2006/2007.

Inflation rate in between 2007-2020 is a little above ~25%. $60 in in 2007 is equivalent to $76 in 2020.

After 13 years of static new game pricing, prices have increased from $60 to $70, which is only a 16% increase in price. (The hike from $50 to $60 was a 20% price increase).

So game pricing is still lagging behind what you would naturally expect to come from inflation alone

Yeah but if I read out your post in a stupid voice I then don't have to contend with anything you said.

Trigonometrize · Nov 30, 2020

On the whole, mostly stupid video.

The only pro-70 argument I heard that was bullshit was that the cost of development has gone up so game prices follow. And Jim didn't even counter with "well that doesn't make economic sense. Fixed costs don't have an effect on the market equilibrium, only marginal cost and demand." Instead he went with the weird "wELl wE dIDnT aSk FoR thAt", which is pretty clearly not what the market has been saying. People like big budget games and pay a premium for them.

$70 is a lot for me. I wait till games are cheaper. Consumers in this industry clearly are willing to pay a high price for new games, and we've all done it to some extent. There's really not much to say. It's obvious why the price has gone up, and it'll stay that way.

FIX THE INDUSTRY'S PROBLEM WITH REFUND POLICY. Games can be not what you expected in so many ways, including be unplayable. This is the actual market failure, not games at launch cost $10 more than they did before.

Wolf · Nov 30, 2020

mjc said:
Bumping games up to $70 is useless. Some games journalists and most developers claim it's to recoup costs to help pay for development tools and staffing, but we all know that's bullshit. Doesn't matter how much they jack the price up to, a lot of developers still treat their employees like dogshit.

Yeah fuck those people who have the closest connection to the industry and knowledge of why it's needed??????

Raigor · Nov 30, 2020

Toriko said:
I dont get this - oh they are making big profits so they should not charge more? I mean when has that stopped price increases in any product line? Games are getting costlier and a AAA failure is getting more risky than ever before.

If you release a turd and you spend millions on the project THAT'S ON YOU, nobody asked Marvel's Avengers to be in development for 4 years, have 4 studios attached on the game and spend over $150 million for the game, if publishers are not willing to budget accordingly their own games they can't blame it on development cost.

Yes development cost has increased but at the same time you don't have to drop $100 million on every game and make only AAA blockbusters to be successful and needing 3 million units to break even.

Flappy Pannus · Nov 30, 2020

kitler53 said:
doesn't affect me. i (almost) never buy games day-1. if you can wait ~1 year pretty much every game will have dipped below $20 during a sale and more often than not $10.

Maybe, and I mean maybe if we're talking about the 'base' game with no DLC, perhaps. $10 is certainly an exaggeration from what I've seen though. Certainly though with any included DLC, a year from release you're typically still paying $40+ for those versions - you know, the ones with the 'bonus' DLC, that are suddenly resold a year later as the 'Complete Edition', as Jim points out. :)

FoolsMilky · Nov 30, 2020

PaperSparrow said:
The point people are missing is that coming in here saying "that's how it is" is completely missing what the video is about. Of course "that's how it is", what Jim is trying to do is raise awareness and let people know "that's not how it has to be". Games don't "have" to increase in price to keep the budget status quo.

Feel like this should be highlighted. People going around in circles to tell everyone that "We live in a capitalist society" (and to address another point), the implicit defense that companies can do what they want as long as its not illegal so what's the point in talking about it.

The biggest reason why I feel that this is a valid discussion is specifically because this medium and industry are not the same as those which came before it.

It's an industry where some things are highly communicated, where hype cycles happen not just be traditional marketing, but by previews and vertical slices, and different builds of in progress games.

In fact, it should tell people a lot that companies actually have messaging for things like this, and that many companies are very communicative about certain aspects of their products. Word-of-mouth is also very strong.

I think I'd like to make the case that gaming isn't just different, it's that AAA companies greatly benefit from these differences. This is why this isn't just a generic "I'm upset about capitalism" kind of issue. Value propositions are very prevalent and recurring in this medium, especially so due to microtransactions, DLCs, stability of games on release, discounts, and changing support of systems.

So while I sympathize with people who say "Luxury good, this is just capitalism at work", I think it's really valid to be criticizing many aspects of this situation when Gaming is markedly different to other mediums.

And my last two points I'll just tldr:
1. People should be educated about off-shore tax havens, effective tax rates, and the kinds of abuse that workers have suffered/are suffering at many AAA (or otherwise) companies.
2. I understand the "Gaming is a luxury good" but I'm starting to become more of the opinion that making it that way even moreso will make for ultimately worse games/experiences, and isn't a direction that I want to see gaming go.

Flappy Pannus · Nov 30, 2020

Wolf said:
Yeah fuck those people who have the closest connection to the industry and knowledge of why it's needed??????

"Closest connection to the industry" welp guess we have to take Bobby Kottick's word then! jfc

Cyclonesweep · Nov 30, 2020

I'll echo the statement of some others.
If the increased costs are going to the devs to help prevent crunch, or actually pay them properly for the stupid amount of overtime, I'm all for it. If that continues and the only people seeing the benefits are the publishers and shareholders pockets than fuck right off

Flappy Pannus · Nov 30, 2020

Ignatz Mouse said:
I'm not listening to 25 minutes of what started out wrongheaded to begin with. If you can give a timestamp or sum up his point I'll respond.

"I won't respond anymore" damn don't threaten me with a good time

Praetorpwj · Nov 30, 2020

'Never pay more than $20 for a video game' - Guybrush Threepwood 1990.

Disregard inflation and amend to UK pounds and that's generally what I plump for unless I really support a project (last one being Hitman 2). Generally means I'm a year behind but so what? Playing Control Ultimate edition and Days Gone both for around £18 each.

Digital Dinosaur · Nov 30, 2020

It's really weird when the inflation rate argument is brought out without addressing stagnant income / wages for the majority of the population, and thus, a majority of the consumer base.

And of course, base game prices going up means that the floor for discounts will probably go up as well. That makes this bad for buyers at all levels, not just "people who can afford an expensive hobby's day one purchases".

Comparing this to prices of cartridge SNES games doesn't really track either, since these new games are monetized to hell and back after initial point of sale.

Deleted member 18944 · Nov 30, 2020

What people don't understand about the point of "people are demanding more," Is that it's a point that doesn't actually start with the consumer.

The consumer isn't demanding bigger and better initially, it's the companies who tell the consumer through marketing that they can get bigger and better if they buy their product and in turn, when the next installment comes around, the consumer is demanding bigger and better because the company has created the expectation that they are owed more.

That's how this entire triple AAA industry operates. The companies create the demand, create the status quo, and use FOMO in the grossest way possible to manipulate people into these mindsets that if they don't get the latest and greatest, the bigger and better, they're missing out, so what's an extra $10 bucks if I can play the newest game? And that's the problem.

Video game companies aren't increasing the price of video games so that they can raise the wages of their workers, increase the health of their work environments, and use that money to fund innovative, long lasting titles. They want to exploit the worker and the consumer to increase profits year over year so that their stockholders get more money. So that the leadership gets more money.

And if you notice, all of these features that gaming companies are putting into their games to entice people to buy them are just novelty. They're not innovative. And that novelty is what drives people to spend their money on these games that are big and better, because its quick, easy, and in the moment very satisfying.

As a result, these games don't last as long as games that are innovative but don't look anything like these AAA titles. League of Legends, Fortnite , CSGO, World of Warcraft, Minecraft, and numerous other games that aren't graphically intensive in the slightest all have higher player counts year over year than games that get regular installments.

Ignatz Mouse · Nov 30, 2020

Flappy Pannus said:
"I won't respond anymore" damn don't threaten me with a good time

So you can't sum up his point, or it was in fact about development costs (which aren't directly pertinent to the price).

GameAddict411 · Nov 30, 2020

The promise of no micro transactions for $70 is equivalent to trickle down economics. It's a lie told to the poor so that they don't scream while they are getting fucked. Capitalism in it's current form in the United States aims at infinite growth margins every year. Nothing is enough for people up top. It's a truly an insane system IMO.

Lobster Roll · Nov 30, 2020

Ignatz Mouse said:
Is he referring to the cost to produce the game in his counter argument? Because I am not. Cost for production doesn't enter my analysis whatsoever.

I'm not listening to 25 minutes of what started out wrongheaded to begin with. If you can give a timestamp or sum up his point I'll respond.

You're in a thread that relates directly to the video posted. You're commenting in the thread currently. Why don't you bridge those two things together?

Flappy Pannus · Nov 30, 2020

Praetorpwj said:
Disregard inflation and amend to UK pounds and that's generally what I plump for unless I really support a project (last one being Hitman 2). Generally means I'm a year behind but so what? Playing Control and Days Gone both for around £18 each.

Perhaps Control might not be the best example, as you'll have to spend another $40 now if you want the PS5 patch.

Flappy Pannus · Nov 30, 2020

Ignatz Mouse said:
So you can't sum up his point, or it was in fact about development costs (which aren't directly pertinent to the price).

Yes I must admit defeat in not watching the video for the guy arguing about the video in a thread about the video

Salty Rice · Nov 30, 2020

I dont like to pay it and almost everybody else does not want to pay it but its not that hard to defend it for certain titles.

Ignatz Mouse · Nov 30, 2020

Hobbes said:
What people don't understand about the point of "people are demanding more," Is that it's a point that doesn't actually start with the consumer.

The consumer isn't demanding bigger and better initially, it's the companies who tell the consumer through marketing that they can get bigger and better if they buy their product and in turn, when the next installment comes around, the consumer is demanding bigger and better because the company has created the expectation that they are owed more.

That's how this entire triple AAA industry operates. The companies create the demand, create the status quo, and use FOMO in the grossest way possible to manipulate people into these mindsets that if they don't get the latest and greatest, the bigger and better, they're missing out, so what's an extra $10 bucks if I can play the newest game? And that's the problem.

Video game companies aren't increasing the price of video games so that they can raise the wages of their workers, increase the health of their work environments, and use that money to fund innovative, long lasting titles. They want to exploit the worker and the consumer to increase profits year over year so that their stockholders get more money. So that the leadership gets more money.

And if you notice, all of these features that gaming companies are putting into their games to entice people to buy them are just novelty. They're not innovative. And that novelty is what drives people to spend their money on these games that are big and better, because its quick, easy, and in the moment very satisfying.

As a result, these games don't last as long as games that are innovative but don't look anything like these AAA titles. League of Legends, Fortnite , CSGO, World of Warcraft, Minecraft, and numerous other games that aren't graphically intensive in the slightest all have higher player counts year over year than games that get regular installments.

While I have been dismissing the video in the OP, this is all perfectly on point.

I stopped being a hardcore gamer more than a decade ago, though I still play a fair amount. I play far more "casual" or "indie" games and guess what? They aren't sold at $60 or $70, they aren't marketed for their framerates, and they often provide just as much entertainment value is time and enjoyment as more expensive games.

I got a PS5 and I've spent more time with Valhalla, but dang if I didn't also play a lot of Hollow Knight (new to me) and thoroughly enjoyed it. Valhalla, in the meantime, is justifying its cost in how long I'll spend playing it. Though I could gave waited (like I did with Horizon: Zero Dawn) and gotten the same value for a lot less cost.

If you aren't looking for that AAA high then you can a) wait for the sale b) get into games that are smaller or less produced and c) (for our PC friends) stop chasing those insane graphics cards.

Trigonometrize · Nov 30, 2020

Cyclonesweep said:
I'll echo the statement of some others.
If the increased costs are going to the devs to help prevent crunch, or actually pay them properly for the stupid amount of overtime, I'm all for it. If that continues and the only people seeing the benefits are the publishers and shareholders pockets than fuck right off

It's not going to go toward developers. But they're entirely separate issues that Sterling has an interest in conflating because it's an emotional appeal.

Digital Dinosaur said:
It's really weird when the inflation rate argument is brought out without addressing stagnant income / wages for the majority of the population, and thus, a majority of the consumer base. Maybe those in the second group actually are hit hard by stagnant wages but those in the first are not.

And of course, base game prices going up means that the floor for discounts will probably go up as well. That makes this bad for buyers at all levels, not just "people who can afford an expensive hobby's day one purchases".

Comparing this to prices of cartridge SNES games doesn't really track either, since these new games are monetized to hell and back after initial point of sale.

If consumers of games are still buying games at higher prices, what argument can you really make to an exec that $70 is too high because of stagnant wages? Like, why would they care about this nebulous question of wages if their marginal cost of production has come up because inflation but the wage thing doesn't seem to affect their consumer base's behaviors?

And I think it still remains to be seen if the floor will rise. Consumers that buy games day 1 could be fundamentally different in their demand than consumers that wait for a great sale.

Sheepinator · Nov 30, 2020

Digital Dinosaur said:
It's really weird when the inflation rate argument is brought out without addressing stagnant income / wages for the majority of the population, and thus, a majority of the consumer base.

In the US, median household income is at an all-time high. Pre-pandemic admittedly. That's an inflation adjusted chart below btw. Minimum wage is also the highest it has ever been.

Real Median Household Income in the United States

View the inflation-adjusted value of the 50th percentile of the U.S. income distribution, as estimated by the Census Bureau.

fred.stlouisfed.org

"The effective nationwide minimum wage, the wage that the average minimum wage worker earns, is $11.80 as of May 2019. This is the highest it has been since at least 1994, the earliest year effective minimum wage data was available."

Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wolf · Nov 30, 2020

Flappy Pannus said:
"Closest connection to the industry" welp guess we have to take Bobby Kottick's word then! jfc

I didn't know "most developers" were Bobby Kotick?

Nightbird · Nov 30, 2020

Shogun said:
Are they though? Minecraft is the most popular game in the world, Among us has exploded, Fortnite an absolute machine, League Of Legends, Counter Strike GO, WoW still massive.

Are people demanding games be flashy with massive budgets or are we told and marketed to that we need the hottest latest shit?

Sheepinator said:
You're talking about PC games there. [...]

That's because those games are mostly unavailable on other devices.

Among US also exploded on phones, the trimmed down version of League of Legends is one of the most anticipated mobile games, Fortnite is a juggernaut on every device its available for.

Overwatch is a game that nearly everyone played until it got too repetitive and dropped by everyone. Just this Summer Fall Guys was a smash hit on PC and console. Nintendo dominated everyone's consciousness with Animal Crossing this Spring.

It really is not something exclusive to PC. Most videogame players want fun over graphics

Deleted member 79517 · Nov 30, 2020

Hey, if you think these prices are cool, will you buy my games for me?

Inflation has done nothing for my wages (teacher), but the way you toss that word around makes me think it has been a boon for yours.

Deleted member 16876 · Nov 30, 2020

All this shit did is turn me off Day One purchases. Fuck this shit.

Ignatz Mouse · Nov 30, 2020

Lobster Roll said:
You're in a thread that relates directly to the video posted. You're commenting in the thread currently. Why don't you bridge those two things together?

The thread is about the price hike. I'm interested in that. If somebody can post several times that "the answer's in the video" but can't repeat that answer or even point to the timestamp, then I don't think they are discussing in good faith.

Lobster Roll · Nov 30, 2020

ngpdrew said:
Hey, if you think these prices are cool, will you buy my games for me?

Inflation has done nothing for my wages (teacher), but the way you toss that word around makes me think it has been a boon for yours.

The "inflation" argument comes to a crashing halt the moment cost-of-living and purchasing power enter the conversation, so it never makes it that far.

Flappy Pannus · Nov 30, 2020

Wolf said:
I didn't know "most developers" were Bobby Kotick?

It's where the vast majority of the profits go towards relative to people who actually develop the games, that's the point.

Cyclonesweep · Nov 30, 2020

Sheepinator said:
In the US, median household income is at an all-time high. Pre-pandemic admittedly. That's an inflation adjusted chart below btw. Minimum wage is also the highest it has ever been.

Real Median Household Income in the United States

View the inflation-adjusted value of the 50th percentile of the U.S. income distribution, as estimated by the Census Bureau.

fred.stlouisfed.org

"The effective nationwide minimum wage, the wage that the average minimum wage worker earns, is $11.80 as of May 2019. This is the highest it has been since at least 1994, the earliest year effective minimum wage data was available."

Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And the costs of most things have gone above wages. That's something you have to take into account too

Redcrayon · Nov 30, 2020

I get why people are upset about the price hike. Nobody wants to pay more, especially in uncertain times. I buy very few new full price AAA games as I can rarely afford them and don't think they are worth the price in context, mainly as the price of games at online retailers here crashes quickly after launch if you just have a bit of patience and wait. Pretty much all my favourite games the last couple of years were smaller titles anyway.

However, if your hobby is being on the cutting edge of the zeitgeist, following the endless hype cycle in advance and the FOMO it generates, always needing the latest consoles at launch at the most expensive they will ever be, and every major product by massive leading dev teams that have worked on it for years, then you're going to pay through the nose on day one for all that stuff and that adds up. We pay hundreds of pounds for new consoles in advance on the premise of what exact increases in this, that or the other the games might offer. If you think the new AAA games allegedly taking advantage of that tech still aren't worth that, maybe play a few months behind the release cycle, look around at the hundreds of games released each year that aren't £70 at launch and don't get sucked into the hype for 'AAA day 1'.

I remember paying £65 for SNES games, and really don't begrudge it for studios that put out games that are ten times as long (albeit the bloat is another issue for me), have a staff 20 times the size, work for half a decade and have to bet the farm on the latest massive game with all the expected bells and whistles. AAA games always seem like they have a ludicrous standard of sheer amount of content for a studio to meet these days, which I guess is understandably so when the bar is set by teams like the leading devs whose backers can afford to fund them for years and years on putting out the best they can do. It's a huge amount of work. Still, such games are the small minority of games released, and if you don't think they are worth playing, online retailers will slash the price relatively quickly (at least here in the UK for disc versions). I'm way more bothered by being locked into platform holder stores for digital where there is no competition on day one pricing.

Cyclonesweep · Nov 30, 2020

Lobster Roll said:
The "inflation" argument comes to a crashing halt the moment cost-of-living and purchasing power enter the conversation, so it never makes it that far.

But people ignore that on purpose cause it instantly breaks their narrative.

Lobster Roll · Nov 30, 2020

Ignatz Mouse said:
The thread is about the price hike. I'm interested in that. If somebody can post several times that "the answer's in the video" but can't repeat that answer or even point to the timestamp, then I don't think they are discussing in good faith.

You've been active in this thread for 45 minutes. The video is 25 minutes. Please don't misuse words like "good faith" this badly.

FoolsMilky · Nov 30, 2020

Hobbes said:
What people don't understand about the point of "people are demanding more," Is that it's a point that doesn't actually start with the consumer.

The consumer isn't demanding bigger and better initially, it's the companies who tell the consumer through marketing that they can get bigger and better if they buy their product and in turn, when the next installment comes around, the consumer is demanding bigger and better because the company has created the expectation that they are owed more.

That's how this entire triple AAA industry operates. The companies create the demand, create the status quo, and use FOMO in the grossest way possible to manipulate people into these mindsets that if they don't get the latest and greatest, the bigger and better, they're missing out, so what's an extra $10 bucks if I can play the newest game? And that's the problem.

Video game companies aren't increasing the price of video games so that they can raise the wages of their workers, increase the health of their work environments, and use that money to fund innovative, long lasting titles. They want to exploit the worker and the consumer to increase profits year over year so that their stockholders get more money. So that the leadership gets more money.

And if you notice, all of these features that gaming companies are putting into their games to entice people to buy them are just novelty. They're not innovative. And that novelty is what drives people to spend their money on these games that are big and better, because its quick, easy, and in the moment very satisfying.

As a result, these games don't last as long as games that are innovative but don't look anything like these AAA titles. League of Legends, Fortnite , CSGO, World of Warcraft, Minecraft, and numerous other games that aren't graphically intensive in the slightest all have higher player counts year over year than games that get regular installments.

Great post, and I really appreciate that you highlighted the dynamic of companies setting expectations with their output and marketing.

Even if people feel "Well at the end of the day, they can do what they want, it's their business", then they can at least appreciate Jim's (And many other's gripes) as saying that these decisions are actively harming the medium, the workers, and gaming as a whole.

Nepenthe · Nov 30, 2020

They're upping the price just to line billionaires' pockets. That's it; that's literally it. That extra $10 ain't doing shit for the quality of games or for the developers who make 'em. I'll be damned if I pay that shit.

UltimateHigh · Nov 30, 2020

glad I share game pass with my brother, makes it so much better, economically speaking. (once first party stuff starts hitting at least).

I'm feeling more inclined to skip picking games up at launch too.

hell, I might even start buying physical again, if the price is right.

The $70 Price Tag Is Actually Indefensible (The Jimquisition)

Tic-Tac-Toe Champion

User requested account closure

Don't F5!

Account closed at user request

signature-less, now and forever

User requested account closure

signature-less, now and forever

User requested account closure

signature-less, now and forever

Patient hunter

signature-less, now and forever

When the music hits, you feel no pain.