I agree with that entirely. I've been doing everything I can to save money on games my whole life and one of the best ways is to avoid any kind of microtransactions or nonsense DLC.
-
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.
The $70 Price Tag Is Actually Indefensible (The Jimquisition)
- Thread starter Lashley
- Start date
I see this happen often when new skins are announced for Apex, Warzone, Fortnite, etc. where there's an announcement that there's going to be a new skin that has you playing as (insert superhero here) and people are like "sigh ... guess I'm giving Fortnite $20" when actual games exist with those superheroes within them. Where those superheroes do superhero stuff and have an entire game built around the character, and not just existing as a skin that fires guns, builds forts, and gathers materials.
The person is saying that Jim Sterling 'debunked' that point. What does that even mean? So just because he says it's one way then that ends the argument forever? We can't ever bring it up? That's utter nonsense. The argument that development costs are an issue in the industry is not something that one youtube video is going to just 'debunk'.
y'all ever think that the people who buy stupid cosmetic DLC and MTX don't really care what the game enthusiasts think about it or don't even know you exist? because that's probably the reality. some people think buying the $25 flaming skeleton skin in fortnite is like fun and cool as hell, i might think it's dumb but i at least understand that my fierce opinion about it doesn't actually matter lol.
Equivalent in terms of straight dollar value in currency values: not in salaries/earning potential though.
I've lived a fair wack in both the US and NZ, my salary didn't vary much at all, in dollar amount.
Obviously this would vary industry to industry, but my experience has been slightly higher pays in the US.
But the video that you're commenting does respond to that argument. If you watched the video providing a response to Jim's counter argument would be the bare minimum. There's no point in just repeating an argument that Jim responded to without explaining why Jim is wrong. Did you even watch the video?
Gaming in general is still a socially-maligned hobby. Absolutely nothing in it matters. Could disappear tomorrow and the world would keep turning. 🤷🏿♀️
I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure if I disappeared tomorrow, this mothafucka would park and all you sommbitches would float off into space.
Ya'll better keep me safe for your own sake.
Rather than seeming to come off as apathetic I'll admit to just being plain confused.
Had any other regions and their general pricing regimes been scrutinised?
No, it doesn't need to be by Jim either.
Had any other regions and their general pricing regimes been scrutinised?
No, it doesn't need to be by Jim either.
This is the sort of post that would suggest heavily you are being intentionally dishonest in this thread.
Given I just commented about how it is really frustrating when people plant themselves into a thread after not actually engaging in the material the discussion is centered around or intentionally ignoring it, and your response is to concoct a straw man about me wanting to shut down differences of opinion, which there is no honest or accurate reason for my statement that would suggest that.
hey on that much we agree lol. i also agree that people could buy less stupid cosmetics but it's clear there's a segment of the gaming market that doesn't really care about the morals of cosmetics or MTX etc. nor should they. they're just enjoying something in their way. who am i to get angry or indignant about that lol.
The upward flow of money has consequences on all of our lives. It doesn't really matter if such a transaction is done for a need or a want. In general, you should want people to stop giving billionaires money for no reason, because less money for billionaires automatically means a higher standard of living for non-billionaires. Indeed, you shouldn't even want billionaires at all, but baby steps.
Sure. But like I said; it doesn't get much more pure - if the price should at all be increased. Of course, one can rightfully argue it shouldn't be increased, but if there is to be an increase this is at least an upfront way of doing it. Personally, current gen prices already feels a bit high to me. I buy very few games at release; prob only 2 games a year. Now, that might become 1
You are so hung up on this video, but this topic/argument didn't start and wont end with this video. Jim Sterling's focus is on MTX and the profits of these companies. But those profits are made because people are willing to pay for MTX. If people are willing to pay, then it will keep being sold.
And not all games have MTX, especially the single player AAA games, not all companies can rely on that. Just like with MTX, the 70 dollar price point is another thing that the market is willing to accept. His point that games should just spend less on graphics and marketing is another one that doesn't hold water because those are proven selling strategies. Again the market responds very well to them. Jim Sterling is saying that this is wrong and it should all be done another way. But this way works perfectly fine for these companies.
And on the issue of wages, if people can't afford to buy $70 games, that isn't the end of the world. Firstly games are a luxury we can all live without. Secondly there are plenty of other more affordable ways to play games. Demon's Souls isn't the only game available out there right now. In fact it's a pretty niche one for a hardcore audience. Most people are playing Fortnite, Warzone and other such F2P games and they don't need to spend a penny on them if they choose not to. Additionally boxed game prices go down very fast these days, you just have to wait 3 months to get games sometimes at half price.People like Jim Sterling are overreacting to this issue because that's what they do for their clickbait videos but that doesn't mean everything they are saying is sacrosanct.
The fact that we are having a public argument about this is literally the definition of controversy.
But, you're right, the outcome is not in doubt. Those prices are in no danger of being rejected, at least not on the games that are already the most profitable.
This is the world we live in. We can't even win fights against corporations over life-and-death issues like affordable healthcare. There's no chance we're winning one about the price of toys. Especially not with people who hear a specious argument and mindlessly accept it. Or defend it. Or champion it.
They haven't and that's a problem since American market is the base price for the rest of the world but not everywhere the game's have remained steadily priced.
I can't talk about countries other than my own, but here in México, around 8th gen, when I started to be able to buy my own day 1 games, they were around $750 - $1000 MXN new at the biggest official store chain, nowadays a new game for PS5 is priced at $1,800 MXN new in the same store, almost double the price of 10 years ago.
Also, a big thing all these comparisons with the 90's early 2000's prices ignore is how many third world countries' markets were pretty much comprised of almost exclusively pirated games due to how expensive the games were and how those changed to official markets due to the online bans, so all those "lost" sales due to piracy were the birth of new markets for big publishers when online consoles became a thing.
Not engaging in the material or not engaging in the specific way that you want? You don't like what I'm saying, that's fine. If you think I should be banned for what I'm saying, report me. But stop calling me dishonest, I'm giving my honest opinion.
You are right, it's my fault, for having a different opinion than the majority here. Not Jim Sterling, who admits he bought the 90 dollar version of Demon's Souls.
Your still doing it. Still misrepresenting what I said and not addressing why you are planted in a thread it is either clear you haven't engaged in the central material of discussion or are intentionally ignoring it.
Now, what was Jim's counter to your comment and why did you simply repeat the already addressed talking point instead of discussing the points he brought up, or what your response to them would be?
Misrepresenting what? Planted in the thread how? I made one post, then got like 20 people quoting me and I replied to them. So I said something that has been discussed before? Oh god forbid, cause that has never happened on the internet before. Are you the forum police around here? If I'm breaking any rules, let the mods know and they'll deal with it. I'm done talking to you.
Yep. I remember buying Final Fantasy III for SNES twice at $79.99 a pop from toys r us; twice because my first copy got stolen. >:(
It's a small price increase that doesn't bother me really. Not every game gets bought day 1.
Gaming was a niche market back then and games were made on cartridges with dedicated chips in them. Much has changed since then. You're old enough to not need explanation on how economies of scale work.
People wouldn't be so hard on billionaires if they didn't act like goddamn dragons and actually used their cash like poor people do to make the rest of the economy profit from their success.
I never said it was a forced necessity either? I was stating that their inclusion in games was for the "rise in development costs" excuse that kept getting trotted out to us. The same excuse that is now being given to us to justify why $70 should be the standard.
I wanna know which bootlickers in games media he's talking about defending this shit so I can block them.
If the money flowing in our economies was used with far more efficiency and far more thought for the quality of life of others, there simply wouldn't be billionaires. Like, there wouldn't be enough money to exist in the system to flow upwards to so few people- the majority of it would be invested in the development of a modern, civil, functioning society- education, infrastructure (actual infrastructure, not fucking stadiums), healthcare, environmentalism, all that good shit.
Instead, we get fucking Bobby Kotick.
Well I think the rise of F2P games will squeeze out any game that wants to charge $70 on top of in game microtransactions. People will decide the kind of games that can get away with the top price regularly, and it will most likely be the single player blockbuster stuff from Sony and that ilk.
Jeff Bezos could personally part with $10 billion to help distribute COVID vaccines worldwide, and he'd still have $190 billion leftover. Which is an inconceivable amount of money.
I mean one can dream.
But the issue is that you end up with millionaires and billionaires who do nothing but hoard their cash while the rest are starving in the streets.
If you give cash to some poor destitute nobody, he's not gonna hoard it so that his 9th generation descendent will use that extra cash to buy a lollipop at ultra rich school.
That cash is right back in the economy and flowing to someone else.
If that someone else isn't ultra rich, he's spending that cash as well.
That makes lives for (at least) these 2 people materialisticly easier rather than add another 0 to some moron's useless bank account.
Sorry can't have that, otherwise poor people might think that not working can get you stuffs.
We can only have that for rich people.
It only becomes defensible when there's no longer an audience for Sterling's whining
There is no line, because the moral acceptability of a price cannot exist in a vacuum. Arguably, $60 became indefensible when companies started going all in on other money-making schemes.
In the PS1 days Resident Evil games used to go for NZ $110 so I only ever rented them. I remember Silent Hill was only $90 so I did buy that, but sold it as soon as I was done with it.
Will watch tomorrow but I agree with the statement, especially when you hear how many copies are sold and how much money some of these companies make.
I don't care if development costs are rising, if you're making billions every year you don't need to increase prices. Remember that most games come with their own stores so that you can be harassed with microtransactions too.
I don't care if development costs are rising, if you're making billions every year you don't need to increase prices. Remember that most games come with their own stores so that you can be harassed with microtransactions too.
Trying to make these broad statements about a price being defensible or not is kinda missing nuance. IMO the convo should be centered around why a static price for most games even exists. Not every game is worth $60/$70/whatever arbitrary price. Some are worth more, some are worth less.
The RRP has been bumped up to £70 in the UK which is around $91 USD or $130 NZD. Proper bollocks if you ask me!
Good video. I don't 100% agree with everything stated, but it's a good reminder that I am more than happy to sit out all of this day one, $70, MTX, deluxe digital diamond edition nonsense.
I mean, he says that, but people folded pretty quickly back when games sold for $60 on PS360. (Ditto when Modern Warfare 2 started the trend of PC games being $60 up from $50.)
There have also been quite a few games in the PS4/XB1 gen that weren't truly $60. You know the ones: the big Ubisoft/Activision/etc. releases where it was abundantly clear that the $80+ Special/Ultimate/etc. Editions were the actual game? Those. And people bought them in droves too. (Sterling himself has explicitly pointed this out on several occasions.)
Don't get me wrong: this is not an endorsement of the practice. I'm personally not going to buy barely any games at $70. I have a backlog and I'm more than comfortable waiting for a big sale on most things. It is, however, not too hard for me to see outside my own bubble on this issue. As the saying goes: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it", and...well, people will.
There have also been quite a few games in the PS4/XB1 gen that weren't truly $60. You know the ones: the big Ubisoft/Activision/etc. releases where it was abundantly clear that the $80+ Special/Ultimate/etc. Editions were the actual game? Those. And people bought them in droves too. (Sterling himself has explicitly pointed this out on several occasions.)
Don't get me wrong: this is not an endorsement of the practice. I'm personally not going to buy barely any games at $70. I have a backlog and I'm more than comfortable waiting for a big sale on most things. It is, however, not too hard for me to see outside my own bubble on this issue. As the saying goes: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it", and...well, people will.
You're right but I'm not sure why you're not just following up with a good defence of your position? stefanomusilli96 is outraged at the notion, that higher prices likely lead to gaming being a hobby for the privileged. You correctly point our that that is already the case (in fact, poor people get priced out of luxury products all the time. Think for example of travelling), which is true but not a defence. The question you have to answer is whether that ought to be so, or whether pricing poor people out of an unnecessary, luxury hobby/product is unethical. I don't believe limiting access to unnecessary luxury products by pricing lower income individuals out is problematic. I don't see why anyone would be entitled to playing $80 Demon's Souls. There are cheaper ways to game and cheaper ways to get other entertainment, and I think in that case it is acceptable to refer the low income individual to an alternative source of entertainment.
Please point out where I said it's your fault. Are you putting yourself into one of those 3 categories? I mean, feel free, but your post I responded to only argued for apathy, not stupidity.