yup, "a steal" is a good word for that, but not in the direction they mean
this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
82 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
31373 readers
35 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
They're referring to hours of entertainment. People pay $20 to see a 2 hour film. Games give us 50+ hours at times.
That's not to say games should cost the same as movies in terms of "entertainment hours".
Quantifying the value of your media in "hours spent consuming it" is an intrinsically poor way to do things
You guys are paying $20 to see a single film at the cinema!?
I do choose carefully, I buy half a dozen indie games on sale instead, and I have nothing to complain about.
This is the way.
Translation: The executives who don't do anything deserve to get lots of money and you should be happy to pay them for it.
Fuck you.
Oh I will be choosing very carefully.
I'll be going back and playing all the super Nintendo games I missed out on as a kid I think
You'd be better off getting an Anbernic for that.
He's not wrong, Baldur's Gate 3 is a steal for the price it is. "Really great games" do exist and they're worth their price tag, the problem is the number of AAA games of that caliber are like 1 in 30. We're lucky to get one in any given year. Meanwhile, there are consistently high quality indie games coming out for less than $40.
We know they were an exec of one of the shittest companies around by the way they talk.
80$ is a steal, yeah right…
(Screenshot from isthereanydeal just for simplicity, avoid grey market when possible)
There is an argument to be made that Expedition 33 was essentially created by a studio with 30 people (though once you add everyone that worked on it the credits do balloon to over 400) with a rather small budget, and meanwhile companies like Rockstar, Sony and Activision have thousands working for years and spending hundreds of millions creating games like GTA 6, CoD and Concord, so naturally they should be a lot more expensive to buy too.
They just shouldn't be surprised if people don't buy all the $500 Waguy steak on offer and are perfectly happy with way cheaper options.
There’s also the argument whether games really need that high of a budget. It feels like there’s little correlation between the budget of a game, and its success (or quality).
Sony could’ve invested in five or ten more Helldivers 2 scaled games, instead of wasting it all on the Concord flop.
I would be so excited if more games were made in an n64 or ps1 style. Maybe I'm just huffing nostalgia, but I still enjoy some of those classics. Games don't have to have amazing graphics or be massive to be fun.
Nobody rightfully complains when Lamborghini sells their luxury car for hundreds of thousands. Gamers have been conditioned for far too long that indie games cost less than 60 and everything else costs 60. This was the fault of the industry to be sure, but it’s clear the barrier is being broken by necessity and expensive-to-make games are going to climb the price ladder and prices for games overall will stratify like many other markets.
Interestingly, that’s all Shuhei is saying here. Pay for the games you think are worth it. Games still provide a significant amount of value for their cost, even at higher price points. This is obviously true as we’ve had a decade of base game $60 and ultimate edition $90-100 with people purchasing ultimate editions and such.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Stealing from the consumer
load more comments
(1 replies)
but like... if your entire customer base is saying you're wrong, aren't you then wrong by definition? the buyers set the prices, in a way.
If the customers still buy it in the end, the publisher was right. We will see over time. Maybe there will be a drop in sales but then GTA6 comes along and no one can resist, opening the path for other games.
Someone on lemmy recently put this into perspective for me. Even like 1% of the population of the USA is 3 million people. If you increase the cost of a product and don't care about long-term sales, the immediate gain in profit can outweigh the loss of total customers down the line.
I still think cutting off customers and burning good will isn't a good business model, but I'm not stupid wealthy, so what do I know.
If you look at inflation adjusted pricing, it really is a deal. IIRC we should be at like 90 or 100+ dollar games at this point.
As usual, the problem isn’t so much that the cost of everything is rising; It’s that wages aren’t keeping pace.
Sure, but that doesn't mean the game developers don't need to be paid. It's still a bargain for the work that's being done.
this would make sense if the game developers were being paid properly to begin with, rather than the leeches that are the c-suite taking more than they should
point to the wage increases for those developers
Developers have been underpaid for years. These increases are not going to them.
That's not inflation works. Inflation shouldn't apply to everything at the same rate.
My first computer costed the equivalent to 1000 euros. Do you think the average desktop should cost 3000?
That is how inflation works... when costs go up prices go up.
Yeah, your computer probably should cost a lot more in "today dollars" but because performance of components gets more efficient over time, you can likely get a better computer for less money.
It's the same reason you have a computer more powerful than multiple thousands of dollar super computers. The technology has improved enough you don't have to pay as much.
Do you think prices should just be locked in place for eternity at $60?
You can't just scale game prices linearly with inflation, sure costs of development have increased, not just because of inflation but also because games are much more complex now. But the gaming market has grown a lot and games are infinitely reproducible so that hugely increases profits.
I don't know how much we should pay for games, but just comparing it to inflation is useless
Games were $60 for so long everyone thinks it should be like that forever
We are already are, look at season passes, dlc etc, 90+ is the de facto price of a lot of AAA games. They'll claim going even higher is to support developers or whatever when laying people off en masse and posting even larger quarterly results, it's pure avarice.
They also tend to sell more copies vs decades ago, which is partly why the $70cad game was so normal for so long IMO.
$80? How much is that, like 4 bananas?
I'm carefully spending my money by buying less games, mostly DRM-free indie games.
This is like when the music industry said CD's should cost 40 to 50 dollars instead of 12 dollars. There was only one good song on most CD's. Look where CD's are now. I don't see how they can justify 80 dollars a game when they don't even make a physical copy anymore. It's now just an SD card with a key on it. They're still downloading the game itself from the internet.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Nintendo... not even pirated. Stop supporting their bullshit.
But every time I pirate one of their games they lose $80. So they say.
Playing Nintendo games, even when pirated, maintains their popularity.
According to Nintendo my legitimate backed up software is causing them to loose money. At this point even if the legal way is wrong, then why not go full sail.
Not wrong. You and other AAA studios are not making games worth that price tag though.
"as long as people spend less money on games overall things will be fine!" Easy to say when you're retired from the industry. I don't think anyone in the industry would appreciate the implications of that...
Does this mean less expectations for sales numbers too?
Why sell multiple games and make more money collectively when you can just sell one and alienate your loyal customers? Art of the deal.
Considering the at least 200+ hours I invested in give or take ten* games throughout my childhood / adolescence / young adult past, then even €100 would've been a steal.
I've always thought games were expensive until studying game development in college. From programming to 3D modeling, and boy can I confirm that it takes a lot of work to do well. The developers and artists that do it well, and ethically, deserve to be fairly compensated as such, provided no one becomes disproportionately rich.
*Age of Empires 2, MU Online, Unreal Tournament 1999/2004, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 1/2/3, Battlefield 1942, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, R.O.S.E. Online, Counter-Strike 1.6, Counter-Strike: Source, Battlefield 2, Insurgency.
The developers and artists absolutely need to be fairly compensated for the highly skilled work they’re doing. The question is, does a good game require 1500-2500 of them? That’s where you need to sell 9 million copies of an $80 game to break even. Particularly in an era where online sales mean you no longer need a distribution partner who will produce hundreds of thousands of discs at a time, and who has existing partnerships with big box retailers, so much of that publishing budget, relationships and supply chain are no longer needed. Even with the standard 30% cut that digital storefronts take, a team of 30 people can spend five years developing a game for $15-20 million, including marketing and localization, sell 500K copies at $50 and break even. This type of scaling back is what’s needed to keep the industry profitable and sustainable. I’m not saying there’s no place for huge budget games, but they don’t need to be the norm that bankrupts developers from one bad release.
view more: next ›