Support NeoGAF

[Bernardougf]

Yes it is ... but people are not ready for this talk... especially consoles.. 499 consoles are a joke.

 

[Bernardougf]

High quality? Shitty recycled minimum effort fast food games. Reusing the same bullshit for 15 years.

How Nintendo managed to brainwash so many people is beyond me. They're the most egregious, close minded, and ignorant company of the big 3. They single handedly stopped all of the Smash Melee tournaments.

I kind of agree with this ... but matter of fact is it worked... go figure

 

[IDKFA]

How old are you talking about, how far back do you want to take us? 20 year old games used motion capture studios and stunt coordinators.

You know what I mean. I'm not talking about simplistic shit like the original Mortal Kombat. I'm talking motion capture costing tens of millions as if the developers are making a film.

Go back to making games. 2-3 year dev times and strictly managed. None of this nonsense of hiring 30 writers etc.

 

[Generic]

Their pricing policy, high quality and not chasing after high end graphics are some of the smartest decisions Nintendo has made.
In the end it all comes down to how you manage expectations from your customers:
If you are constantly putting your games on sale a few months after they launch you are encouraging a "just wait for a sale" mentality
If your games mostly depend on increasingly better graphics to feel "new" then that's what people will expect from you studio and they'll be disappointed when you don't deliver (notice how most Nintendo fans don't give a crap if Tears of the Kingdom looks dated or most FROMSOFT fans don't give a crap if Elden Ring doesn't look as good as Demon Souls remake. But imagine if the next ND game doesn't look much better than TLOU2)
If your games launch broken and full of issues and it takes months worth of updated to fix them you are telling your customers they should wait next time.

As a random example imagine you bought Jedi Survivor on ps5 for $70.
To your disappointment you are greeted with a crappy performance mode running in the mid 40 fps and resolution that goes as low as like 680p.
6 months later you find out the game is not only on sale for $40 but also after multiple updates it has way fewer bugs and the performance mode now runs at a more acceptable 1080p and nearly locked 60fps.
Why would you buy the next Respawn game at launch if you know you can wait 3-6 months and get it for cheaper and when it's actually finished?

"If you are constantly putting your games on sale a few months after they launch you are encouraging a "just wait for a sale" mentality"

Months? Nintendo doesn't even do sales of games released years ago and when they do, it's at best a -33% discount.

Also, good for them that they are getting rich, but I'm not a shareholder.

 

[Elysium44]

You know what I mean. I'm not talking about simplistic shit like the original Mortal Kombat. I'm talking motion capture costing tens of millions as if the developers are making a film.

Go back to making games. 2-3 year dev times and strictly managed. None of this nonsense of hiring 30 writers etc.

Nor am I talking about that. Resident Evil 4 original came out in 2005 (okay 19 years), plenty of motion capture, cut scenes, top tier voice actors who all need to be paid. FWIW it seems that Capcom do still have relatively short dev times compared to some we could mention, and do put out regular high quality games, which sell well and are popular.

 

[Filben]

It's their style of running a business that is not sustainable. Ask Nintendo, who manages to increase wages and employ more people instead of laying off.

All these lay offs are part of a cynical business hype cycles to butter up investors and CEOs of game companies acting like Steve Jobs.

I'm not willing to pay for their take on running a company. If you take massive provits but still need to lay off people to signal you """reinvent""" or """restructure""" your company in anticipation of the next hype cycle and get more investors or money, that's on you.

I don't pay more for their dirty and cynical dances.

 

[Optimus Lime]

So not fun at all?
According to you. Tell that to the millions more who buy games where they hadn't before. Tell that to the increased in completion rates. Tell that to the people spending 1000s of hours in the so called ripoffs. I might not agree with their tastes, but I don't dictate what other people find fun, or what is objectively more successful.

I'm sure you've heard the point that maybe you're not talking about the games themselves but how you generally felt at the time?

That's right. According to me. And according to the OP, games should now cost $100USD. And according to you, I'm wrong. Congratulations, you now know how forums work.

Nobody's dictating anything to anyone. We are on a forum and I ventured an opinion that you happen to disagree with. That's okay. I don't care.

If you think Spider-Man 2, or God Of War Ragnarok, are better games than Super Mario Brothers 3, or Doom, or Deus Ex - you're certainly welcome to hold that view. I just disagree with it and think that it's laughable. And that's okay.

And, I don't know what your last point even means, so I won't bother responding to it.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

A major flaw with this ideology is thinking that most gamers want the same high end, flashy and cinematic, over-polished technical experience that they do, so everyone should pay more to get those things? Truth couldn't be further from that point of view for lots of gamers.

That's like the government stepping in and telling all residents of an area they have to pay school taxes even if they don't have kids.

 

[Eiknarf]

A major flaw with this ideology is thinking that most gamers want the same high end, flashy and cinematic, over-polished technical experience that they do, so everyone should pay more to get those things? Truth couldn't be further from that point of view for lots of gamers.

That's like the government stepping in and telling all residents of an area they have to pay school taxes even if they don't have kids.

They do.
Don’t know if you’re kidding or don’t live in the States, but my neighbor has 0 kids and pays the same taxes as me: $15,800 year. 60% of which goes to the school district and 20% of which goes to the police. The rest goes to miscellaneous shit

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

They do.
Don’t know if you’re kidding or don’t live in the States, but my neighbor has 0 kids and pays the same taxes as me: $15,800 year. 60% of which goes to the school district and 20% of which goes to the police. The rest goes to miscellaneous shit

Yeah, I know they do, and it's bullshit.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

A major flaw with this ideology is thinking that most gamers want the same high end, flashy and cinematic, over-polished technical experience that they do, so everyone should pay more to get those things? Truth couldn't be further from that point of view for lots of gamers.

That's like the government stepping in and telling all residents of an area they have to pay school taxes even if they don't have kids.

Yup. Problem is some studios aim for the high budget AAA kind of game with uber production values. On the other hand, you can have some low budget highly reviewed and selling indie games. When it comes to gaming, the big companies typically amp up to the big games where there's no turning back. They might churn out some single A kind of budget games like EA and Unravel or MS doing Pentimentss and Ori, but generally once a gaming production gets big and corporatey, the games get bigger and costly and they pray due to brute force employee count and marketing budgets they can rake in sales by pure piles of resources at head office.

For sake of sustainability, they should spread out the risk. Instead of doing go big or go home budget games, be more like big manufacturing companies. They got their line of high quality stuff, big sellers, low sellers etc.... Just because you are Coke or Pepsi doesn't mean you got to strive for the biggest budget expensive pop where quality and size of bottles grows every year, but it still sold for the same dirt cheap price.

You to balance what you got, your budget, and what can turn a profit. And throwing money for the sake of trying to go bigger and better isn't always the right call.

They do.
Don’t know if you’re kidding or don’t live in the States, but my neighbor has 0 kids and pays the same taxes as me: $15,800 year. 60% of which goes to the school district and 20% of which goes to the police. The rest goes to miscellaneous shit

Yeah, I know they do, and it's bullshit.

Yup. Single with no kids. Make good money and totally self sufficient. No doubt I pay more taxes than some of my neighbours and I get squat back. All the people complaining about more services and better this or that, you should consider yourselves lucky that a lot of people out there pay taxes to cover your ass.

 

[Belthazar]

No, not really. Companies just need to get better at budgeting and managing their projects to be profitable.

 

[GamesDontSuck]

Who wishes to pay more for anything? Gaming or not. Mental like.

 

[Elysium44]

Who wishes to pay more for anything? Gaming or not. Mental like.

Everyone does, or should, if the alternative is you lose the thing you want to keep. Like there is a political row in the UK about paying doctors and nurses more. They get a similar amount to their French counterparts, but they can get a lot more in the US, Canada and Australia. We could pay more to incentivise them to stay, or we could pay them as little as we can get away with, and then act dumbfounded when they leave for greener pastures. THAT is why you want to pay more - because the alternative is worse. I mean on this forum, I assume most of us do want to keep our hobby alive. I personally don't want to be left with only 2D pixel shooters and other shovelware that cost pennies to make.

 

[NahaNago]

We need complete games at the same time though if they are going to charge more money. Other issues that can be worked on is budget, scale, and release schedule of games. Plus folks are spending hundreds of hours on free to play games so why would they spend 70 or more on a 40 hour game.

On the layoff issue. We don't completely know why the layoffs are happening. Could be different approach to the their games, cutting fat, or simply corporate greed. Layoffs for Sony makes sense after these acquisitions and Jim Ryan leaving now. He and the temporary president can take the heat for the upcoming president of Sony.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Everyone does, or should, if the alternative is you lose the thing you want to keep. Like there is a political row in the UK about paying doctors and nurses more. They get a similar amount to their French counterparts, but they can get a lot more in the US, Canada and Australia. We could pay more to incentivise them to stay, or we could pay them as little as we can get away with, and then act dumbfounded when they leave for greener pastures. THAT is why you want to pay more - because the alternative is worse. I mean on this forum, I assume most of us do want to keep our hobby alive. I personally don't want to be left with only 2D pixel shooters and other shovelware that cost pennies to make.

Maybe some of us don't actually care if ridiculously overblown projects aren't made. They take too long to produce for one thing. If we're not fans of annual rehashes, cinematic games and gaas endeavors, why should we care?

I would imagine most of us who aren't in to those kinds of games probably have huge backlogs to enjoy and couldn't care less if the industry implodes on itself. Rise from the ashes and try again if it can't sustain itself.

 

[CrustyBritches]

“Pay high prices for bloated, cinematic AAA games or be left with only 2d pixel shooters” is a false dilemma.

They’re free to raise the prices, but the market will dictate whether that’s a success or not. More than likely what will happen is indie and AA games will come in and eat their lunch. Stuff like Helldivers, Palworld, Stardew Valley, and Vampire Survivors.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

Everyone does, or should, if the alternative is you lose the thing you want to keep. Like there is a political row in the UK about paying doctors and nurses more. They get a similar amount to their French counterparts, but they can get a lot more in the US, Canada and Australia. We could pay more to incentivise them to stay, or we could pay them as little as we can get away with, and then act dumbfounded when they leave for greener pastures. THAT is why you want to pay more - because the alternative is worse. I mean on this forum, I assume most of us do want to keep our hobby alive. I personally don't want to be left with only 2D pixel shooters and other shovelware that cost pennies to make.

Now this guy gets it, thank the maker someone gets it.

 

[GametimeUK]

Basically, seeing all these layoffs and hearing part of the reason is the risk and small margins...well, there's one simple solution: games need to cost more.

Over here in New Zealand, we currently pay $90-$120.00 or thereabouts a game, games have nearly always cost this much...going way, way back to at least the 90s. I don't really understand why video games are immune to going up in price (apart from the recent $10 USD bump), I mean...if it meant less lay offs, a healthier industry and people still wanting to work in the industry, surely us taking a $20-$30 bump on the chin is worth it?

I probably am not the median gamer in terms of earnings and such, but even when I was a broke Uni student in the late 90s & early 2000s, games were still $90-$120.00 a game here - and I paid it and was happy....that's like $200.00 now adjusted for inflation lol, so yeah, why do many feel SO strongly against games increasing in cost?

I've gotten $200 of value from Hell Divers 2 already, $500 of value from Cyberpunk etc etc - it just feels like it's a crazy good deal, but are we hurting our own industry by not being open to a price hike?

$80-90 USD a game, I'd go there - if it means the industry keeps on smashing it (that's mean $150.00 NZD for sure, painful, but worth it).

If you want to contribute more I fully commend you for that. If you buy 2 copies of each game to support the developer I will gladly take one copy from you for free to help you do your part.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

Kind of naïve to think that raising the price of games will mean no redundancies.

lol that's such a reductive way to look at what I said

 

[Guilty_AI]

Everyone does, or should, if the alternative is you lose the thing you want to keep. Like there is a political row in the UK about paying doctors and nurses more. They get a similar amount to their French counterparts, but they can get a lot more in the US, Canada and Australia. We could pay more to incentivise them to stay, or we could pay them as little as we can get away with, and then act dumbfounded when they leave for greener pastures. THAT is why you want to pay more - because the alternative is worse. I mean on this forum, I assume most of us do want to keep our hobby alive. I personally don't want to be left with only 2D pixel shooters and other shovelware that cost pennies to make.

Most of my favorite ones from recent years have been one-dude games with ps1/2 graphics or pixel art. Among the few AAA i enjoyed, none had top-of the line graphics either.

If anything, i feel those games have been doing a much better job keeping the hobby alive than the big shots releasing AAA games with stale formulas or their shit-poor attempts at GAAS. You will never find anything like Ctrl Alt Ego or Factorio coming out of big studios.

And you know what? If they want to charge $80, $90, $100 (they already do in some ways) for some overdone and generic game with nice graphics as the only redeeming quality, feel free to buy them. But i won't.

 

[odhiex]

We don't need to pay more (higher price).
We need companies to make "attractive games", then more gamers to buy games/contents.

If you love videogames, please consider supporting them. It's mutual beneficiaries. Money is tough right now.

 

[CSJ]

It's never been about these companies not being able to operate financially.
They just want more and getting rid of people saves tens/hundreds of millions a year.

EA is fuckin' pumping in their FY23 EOY report yet they just got rid of people.
So no, games don't need to cost more they can fuck off.

It's just going to make people like me pick and choose more because there's so much out there I want to play but with finite money.

 

[Edgelord79]

The concept of a blaming a consumer for not “wanting to pay more” is insidious.

If a company wants to raise the price there is nothing stopping them. Market dictates the price. If the market demand is not there for the 500 million dollar game you want to make and sell at $120 a pop, maybe manage the scale of the game better so it costs less to make?

Some of the holier than thou shit though I’ve been reading lol.

 

[lh032]

They are also infinitely less fun.

 

[Scotty W]

Gamers have not kept pace with inflation for the simple reason that they want young men harmless and docile while they replace you.

 

[ProtoByte]

That's right. According to me. And according to the OP, games should now cost $100USD. And according to you, I'm wrong. Congratulations, you now know how forums work.

Nobody's dictating anything to anyone. We are on a forum and I ventured an opinion that you happen to disagree with. That's okay. I don't care.

We're talking about numbers and you're talking about nebulous definitions of fun.

There's more ground to argue that games "should" be 100 usd before taxes than there is to argue that games back then were generally better or more fun. As it is, 60 in 2005 tallies about 90 now, before taking into account the production cost increases.

But "fun" is subjective and not easily measurable (though those engagement numbers would probably indicate that people are having more fun now than they were before). And you know that. People who make your argument know that. It's an easy escape hatch from having to answer questions about the objective reality.

If you think Spider-Man 2, or God Of War Ragnarok, are better games than Super Mario Brothers 3, or Doom, or Deus Ex - you're certainly welcome to hold that view. I just disagree with it and think that it's laughable. And that's okay.

You've just compared some very difficult games to each other. You'd be better off comparing Spider-Man 2 2023 to Spider-Man 2 2004. Deus Ex to Mankind Divided. Super Mario Brothers 3 to Mario Wonder. Etcetera.

And, I don't know what your last point even means, so I won't bother responding to it.

Yes you do.
When people make your type of argument, I have to imagine their claims of peerless quality of yesteryear's games has less to do with the games on their on merit, and more to do with nostalgia for the time that they played it.

 

[Laptop1991]

Thinking of games in recent times that i waited until they were out as to whether i would buy them and play them, and decided against it, that's Saint's Row, Redfall, Starfield and looks like Avowed will be on that list as well for me, so no, i don't think they are worth more money!.

 

[Edgelord79]

I'm not. These companies ballooned irresponsibly during covid, layoffs were coming sooner or later.

Correct. Over-estimation of growth. Was/is not sustainable in a world where people are no longer locked inside for a couple of years.

 

[Optimus Lime]

But "fun" is subjective and not easily measurable (though those engagement numbers would probably indicate that people are having more fun now than they were before). And you know that. People who make your argument know that. It's an easy escape hatch from having to answer questions about the objective reality.

It's really not that complicated. I think games were more fun in earlier eras. You don't. It's not an 'escape hatch', autismo. Calm down. You think games are better now?

The rest of your post is just babble and I'm not interested in responding to any of it.

 

[darrylgorn]

They can charge whatever they want.

I'll buy the thing on sale for $20.

 

[Ozzie666]

Increasing prices will reduce the customer base and the number of games people buy, it's a crazy cycle. You don't want console gaming becoming something for only the 1% of the world. More people will buy re-used or discounted games.

 

[ProtoByte]

It's really not that complicated. I think games were more fun in earlier eras. You don't. It's not an 'escape hatch', autismo. Calm down. You think games are better now?

The rest of your post is just babble and I'm not interested in responding to any of it.

Suck on rocks, d-bag. You responded to my post where I was talking about data with "but games back then were more fun" as if it was a numerical, widely agreed on data point.

The only one babbling here is you. You've got nothing of note to respond with that isn't going to come off more simple minded than your previous posts, and now you're smugposting to pretend like you haven't lost the argument. You're not fooling anyone with 2 braincells to rub together.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

No. Its not. And increasing the price would just make things worse. As it stands, that $70 price tag has all but killed the AA market. We have gone from a time where both AA and AAA games had the same price, and the AAA stuff just sold much better, to a time where people are far more frugal about what they buy because $70 is just too far removed from the impulse buy category.

Increasing that even more would just aggravate that issue.

 

[hyperbertha]

I'll say this: if niche genre fans were willing to pay extra for their hardcore experiences, there'd be a lot more of them.

Immersive Sims are such a genre that could charge US$150+ and depending on the game's design it would still be a steal.

The genre would be alive and well and fans wouldn't have to wait for the stars to align and some misguided publisher attempt to test the market yet again with a new iteration.

That's a big if. Few people buy immersive sims as it is. Raise to 150 and the whole thing will likely come crashing down.

 

[hyperbertha]

Everyone does, or should, if the alternative is you lose the thing you want to keep. Like there is a political row in the UK about paying doctors and nurses more. They get a similar amount to their French counterparts, but they can get a lot more in the US, Canada and Australia. We could pay more to incentivise them to stay, or we could pay them as little as we can get away with, and then act dumbfounded when they leave for greener pastures. THAT is why you want to pay more - because the alternative is worse. I mean on this forum, I assume most of us do want to keep our hobby alive. I personally don't want to be left with only 2D pixel shooters and other shovelware that cost pennies to make.

I suspect many will be perfectly fine with just indie games. The aaa 'experiences' are starting to get quite grating. There is no art without risks.

 

[Justin9mm]

With the state and quality of games in recent years, fuck no. Sorry to burst your bubble but the industry ain't 'smashing it'

Industry has been going downhill, from the quality of games, to the toxic journos and hidden SJW agendas. Have you been living under a rock OP?

The publishers and devs need to do better, better manage their studios and make better games in general, not release bug infested and incomplete garbage day 1. It's like you get punished for playing a game on release. It's all the people who play it later on discount that get all the fixes and QOL improvements.

People will pay for quality, the quality of good games is few and far between.

 

[Chiggs]

And I thought it was just PC gamers who were browbeaten morons ready to take it up the wazoo at whatever max price possible.

I think it’s time to take GAF’s temperature.

 

[Optimus Lime]

Suck on rocks, d-bag. You responded to my post where I was talking about data with "but games back then were more fun" as if it was a numerical, widely agreed on data point.

The only one babbling here is you. You've got nothing of note to respond with that isn't going to come off more simple minded than your previous posts, and now you're smugposting to pretend like you haven't lost the argument. You're not fooling anyone with 2 braincells to rub together.

You're just rambling like an idiot. I have no idea what's got you so triggered, but it's really, really weird, and you're projecting your paranoia onto me.

There's no 'argument' to lose. I think games were better. You don't. That's sent you into some kind of retard meltdown. Go ask the nurse to get the crayons down from the top shelf for you, it sounds like you need some time out.

 

[CZY]

You're just rambling like an idiot.

He’s wiping the floor with you.

 

[Optimus Lime]

He’s wiping the floor with you.

He's certainly wiping something - the tears from his eyes as he encounters an opinion he doesn't like.

 

[Elysium44]

“Pay high prices for bloated, cinematic AAA games or be left with only 2d pixel shooters” is a false dilemma.

They’re free to raise the prices, but the market will dictate whether that’s a success or not. More than likely what will happen is indie and AA games will come in and eat their lunch. Stuff like Helldivers, Palworld, Stardew Valley, and Vampire Survivors.

$100 is no higher than what PS1 games cost in the mid 1990s, in real terms. Yet we're getting vastly better graphics (not just because of technology; the graphics on the right don't just happen magically because you have powerful hardware. An incredible amount of time, work and cost goes into getting these complex models into games compared to the old blocky 2D tank animations of the PS1 game) as well as vastly better everything else, gameplay mechanics, voice acting, music which wouldn't be out of place in a top Hollywood movie.

I'm happy for people to argue games should be cheaper but people should be honest and not pretend $70 is some sort of diabolical liberty. As hobbies go, in terms of bang for buck entertainment value versus cost, there are few cheaper hobbies than ours. Unfortunately our hobby seems to attract a lot of cheapskates who expect a lot but aren't prepared to pay a fair price. Most people here are just repeating that $100 is vastly more expensive than it used to be, which is simply false. With how much games have improved, it's cheap.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I’d support higher prices argument more if gaming companies were broke or were small companies back in the day.

The vast majority of the well known gaming companies are at or near record sales and profits.

They are making plenty of money off you guys from selling you games, mtx, dlc, collectors editions, remakes, and multi platform sales which way back would have a higher likelihood of them just doing one platform scraping by. It’s also a digital world so all if you (me too) are buying games we don’t bother even playing but got it in backlog deals. That’s free revenue from any gamer not even bothering to play it. The farther you go back in time the fewer games people had.

Don’t fall for any trap where a big company claims their dev costs are too high. Check their financials. Every nitwit gaming employee will claim costs are high and they are struggling. We’ll can’t be true when the P/L is rocking record numbers.

Also make sure to look at the total package. Who gives a shit if a razor blade company says they lose money selling handles. What are they making when the refill blades are included.

No different than gaming. Notice how the only time you hear about juicy profits and mtx is during boring spreadsheets and chats during quarterly earnings. Yet you’ll never see one gaming dev or director talk about taking it on Twitter. Their goal is to make you feel chummy and pity if they can convince you they are struggling.

 

[ZiggyPop1991]

Hell no. We are already paying More. Subs, dlc, season passes, microtransctions ... Etc!!

$60 o $70 is just an entry fee

I think this just proves their points. Minus the online sub you don’t have to buy anything else if the base game is free. If games were able to go up in price and actually be based on a case by case pricing. I’d hope a decline in that would happen. DLC that comes out a year later I wouldn’t be against.

In the end this is a hobby. We keep begging for cheaper ways in with things like game pass. But look at Sony and Microsoft. Compared to Nintendo that stuck to the make a complete game formula. But I digress. We are a whiny spoiled bunch.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Maybe it's the quality and content of the games that is the problem.

 

[CrustyBritches]

$100 is no higher than what PS1 games cost in the mid 1990s, in real terms. Yet we're getting vastly better graphics (not just because of technology; the graphics on the right don't just happen magically because you have powerful hardware. An incredible amount of time, work and cost goes into getting these complex models into games compared to the old blocky 2D tank animations of the PS1 game) as well as vastly better everything else, gameplay mechanics, voice acting, music which wouldn't be out of place in a top Hollywood movie.

I'm happy for people to argue games should be cheaper but people should be honest and not pretend $70 is some sort of diabolical liberty. As hobbies go, in terms of bang for buck entertainment value versus cost, there are few cheaper hobbies than ours. Unfortunately our hobby seems to attract a lot of cheapskates who expect a lot but aren't prepared to pay a fair price. Most people here are just repeating that $100 is vastly more expensive than it used to be, which is simply false. With how much games have improved, it's cheap.

I can see where you're coming from. However, there are already options that make the game $100 like Deluxe versions with early access, Collector's editions with overpriced merch, and DLC. Fortnite is free, but don't underestimate how many of these kids are dropping hundreds into the game. If you want to pay more, there's options. I tend to get pulled in by early access deluxe editions. They exploit my desire to be part of the discussion early on when the hype is at it's highest levels.

As for your final point, the example I'd offer up is the cannabis market on the west coast in the US. Back in the days of prohibition, we'd pay $40-50 for an 1/8th(3.5 grams). The weed now is much better than 20-30yrs ago, thoroughly tested for quality and rated for potency. With inflation accounted for, you'd think people would be happy to pay $100 an 1/8th for such good cannabis, right? That's not how the free market played out. After legalization tons of people got into growing and processing and the market became oversaturated and highly competitive. Now you can get weed from a dispensary that's better than the vast majority of shit we used to smoke back in the 90s and early 00s for $2/gram. An ounce(28 grams) of good bud runs as little as $40-50 when we used to pay $300-400 20-30yrs ago. That's the effect of a hyper-competitive, oversaturated market.

On that note, here's my EGS account with maybe 2 purchased games and 4 additional products. 300 games, some of which are killer like GoTG, Plague Tale, and Ghost Runner...for free.

Amazon gives you free games every week. Then I have some unholy amount of Steam and GoG games from sales and bundles. Additionally I'm subbed to GP Ultimate and PS+ Extra. On PS+ they give you 2-3 games per month, and when PS5 came out you could get 20 awesome games by redeeming the PS Plus Collection.

So you see, games aren't worth more than back in the day because of greatly increased production values, they're worth much less because of market saturation and extreme competition. My time and engagement is what's valuable.

 

[Griffon]

Consumers are well on their way to accept simpler graphics instead of only realistic AAA big budgets.
Nintendo is doing great, and plenty of surprise indie megahits keep happening almost every quarter of the year. People don't care as much about raw production value as they did past decades.

I think expectations will get normalized some more. The industry will be fine.

 

[tomato shrub]

It's time devs looked at how Capcom came back, after overproduced trendchasing trash like RE6 blew up in their faces. Scaled back drastically in RE7, found cheaper smarter tech to produce, tight polished 7 hour campaign which focused on quality and fresh ideas and what made them successful in the beginning alike. Then build from there.

Sorry you paid one trillion dollars for a generic ass Spiderman game with no soul, no one really asked for it. It's Spiderman, pretty sure you could've been successful with a smaller and more inventive action game too, like these new animated features that are more popular than some generic Andrew Garfield shlock.

 

[Elysium44]

It's time devs looked at how Capcom came back, after overproduced trendchasing trash like RE6 blew up in their faces. Scaled back drastically in RE7, found cheaper smarter tech to produce, tight polished 7 hour campaign which focused on quality and fresh ideas and what made them successful in the beginning alike. Then build from there.

Resident Evil 6 nonetheless ended up being one of the most popular, best-selling and profitable Resident Evil games. It was cool to hate on it and it did have some issues no doubt, but the criticism was overdone.

btw people mention AA games, Capcom have produced a couple of great AA Resident Evil games in the Revelations series. High production values, decent length story (not short but not too long) and unlimited hours of replay value for single player in the raid modes.

 

[tomato shrub]

Resident Evil 6 nonetheless ended up being one of the most popular, best-selling and profitable Resident Evil games. It was cool to hate on it and it did have some issues no doubt, but the criticism was overdone.

It was clearly unsustainable, not meeting sales expectations and the entire formula being completely dropped for a much cheaper production afterwards.