Support NeoGAF

[Elysium44]

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

I agree they were too ambitious but I don't think that's a crime, they put an enormous amount of hard work and talent into it. Fortunately it did pay off in the end, but yes they have scaled things back a bit since which is sensible.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

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

We can see the same logic in:

- The movie bombed at the box office because toxic men didn't watch it.

- The cure for a certain disease doesn't do shit because of the people who don't want to consume it.

Good products sell. Bad ones don't. It's really that simple.

Massive F2P games with gigantic budgets are profitable because people are willing to pay for them. It's not a question of higher or lower production values, that's also a fallacious argument. Studios waste huge amounts of money in useless crap. When marketing is one-third or half the budget, something is definitely wrong.

 

[LordMuffin]

Counterpoint: the gaming audience has exploded in popularity compared to the 90s or even the early 00s. A game is able to reach bigger lifetime sales overall and this is not taking into account the revenue from DLCs, subscriptions, cosmetics or what have you. The price of digital games is also the same of their physical counterparts, so the cost that once went into packaging, shipping and the overhead for the retailers is slashed to zero. Furthermore, deep discounts and seasonal sales constitute a medium term boost in sales that can account for a sizeable additional percentage of revenue for the companies.

 

[Ozzie666]

Just wait until studios figure out ways to not release completed games for tax writeoffs, just like Hollywood.

 

[Roni]

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.

That's the whole point, publishers are trying to sell an immersive sim to a mass market that doesn't want it.

Price it so that the dedicated audience can fund a sequel and make you a profit.

 

[Ozriel]

Who's approving and funding all of these garbage gaas games that noone wants, and then when they have shitty sales and results, the devs on these teams forced to make this trash are the ones who suffer and get laid off.

The execs and leads or whoever keep pushing these games need to be rooted out and squashed like the roaches that they are.

And yet a large portion of the canceled games we hear about aren’t GaaS.

After this just happened a few months ago and it enjoyed massive success at the right price?

Seems like the problem isn't with the content or price for it, but the unrealistic expectations that all the marketing department micromanaged GAAS live service DLC microtransaction filled to the brim experience has to sell 10M units to make a profit is the problem.

They can try to raise the price. It's a fast track for shit practice publishers to collapse. The faster the better.

Most of the crazy expensive games in the past decade have been non-GaaS games, though.

 

[Guilty_AI]

That's the whole point, publishers are trying to sell an immersive sim to a mass market that doesn't want it.

Price it so that the dedicated audience can fund a sequel and make you a profit.

That dedicated audience may not necessarely buy it either though.

The thing with entertainment is that your product doesn't exist in a vacuum. You're not only competing in terms of quality and pricing with other similar games, you're also competing with movies, TV series, books, an outing with friends, art-making, social media and so forth. Rise the price too much and your audience may just move on to other cheaper or more worthwhile hobbies, especially in this economy.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

I would spend more if games were cheaper and online was free. I’m willing to go for style and substance over graphics as long as it doesn’t look like flash crap (PoP Lost Crown was pushing it, but good). Games are conceived by large corporate office teams and executed by outsourcing or temps. Why are costs so high now? Someone help me budget! Please contribute consumer.

Or maybe the behavior they seek is for me to play one game the rest of eternity, hoping I buy a $20 outfit once a week. It is just never going to happen.

I don’t enjoy a single Sony title anymore, so it’s not even a value to make those games anymore. The industry just made bad business moves for the industry, alienated buyers, and are astonished it got this bad.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I would spend more if games were cheaper and online was free. I’m willing to go for style and substance over graphics as long as it doesn’t look like flash crap (PoP Lost Crown was pushing it, but good).

I don’t enjoy a single Sony title anymore, so it’s not even a value to make those games anymore.

Sounds like you need a PC

 

[Osthyvel]

Paying more is not the best solution every time, as its also the best thing to put gas on inflation.

The more they raise prices on my hobby, the less i will spend, have no problem with that, i have games to enjoy for +10 years of now as it is

Companies needs to learn the market, make good investments, learn +- and stop being greedy, because greed is what sinks many companies today, and thats good because we dont need greedy companies.

Sorry if my English sucks.

 

[Xion_Stellar]

OP nobody is stopping YOU from paying more money for your games go buy a game twice or something like that if you want.

The industry exists for the sake of the customer not the other way around if a business model becomes unsustainable that's not the customer's problem.

 

[ComputerBlue]

OP nobody is stopping YOU from paying more money for your games go buy a game twice or something like that if you want.

The industry exists for the sake of the customer not the other way around if a business model becomes unsustainable that's not the customer's problem.

Exactly, buy two copies and throw one away. In fact I encourage everybody in this thread who is inclined to believe that games are too cheap and we should be paying more to do the same, go buy two copies, throw one away, help the industry out if you’re so charitable and think we as consumers are being greedy.

 

[GeeseGoose]

From my experience with tech companies... they generally do not run lean. They throw many many bodies at a problem and then drop them when they need to cut back. It is a frightful practice.

Now, does the games industry do the same? I don't know, but the layoffs recently show something is wrong, somewhere.

Should game prices increase? No, not with the current state of games. There are few complete games anymore (microtransactions etc) or games released in incomplete states (cut-content for the DLC, bugs) that I'm sceptical of laying down any outlay on something that may be a waste of time.

This is without mentioning how stagnant releases are starting to feel. Remasters, remakes, the same game with a different skin (everything Ubisoft... Sony games are starting to feel homogenous, any of the live service shooters are just the same thing....) then it just weeds out the interest.

Could game prices increase? Maybe, if the above is addressed, but to be honest with most major publishers this is likely never going to happen as not cutting corners affects profit.

Otherwise, what's the point? I will become really risk averse. I got a years free PS Deluxe and so far I just play whatever is on that for free, why would I spend real money on something that could be trash, broken, or just plain boring? I lose out of the latest and "greatest" releases, but that doesn't bother me.

But, since profit is god, game quality will continue to decline, and people (game developers) will be treated like shite. Prices will increase, and when they do, it won't suddenly make publishers do better, and developers won't see a penny of this (unless they have stock options, I guess).

Disclaimer: There are still some good games coming out, but generally I think there is a greater amount of trash to gold, in my opinion.

 

[IDKFA]

If nobody wants to reduce developer sizes and make development more efficient what other options are there?

Ads in paid games that pop up every 10 minutes of gameplay?

Ability to tip the developers £10 per game?

 

[Osthyvel]

Look at Helldivers 2, i encourage you all to buy this wonderful game. Arrowhead did go against the flow and released their game at a cheaper price, and its a game with a lot of content, and its not screaming at you to throw in money in mtx all the time even though it has mtx.

Results; success to say at least...

 

[Fbh]

"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.

I was talking about other publishers. That's why the Nintendo strategy is good, by not putting their games on sale a couple of months after launch they've managed to avoid the "wait for a sale" mentality on their platform.
It also helps that most of their games are pretty polished and feel finished by launch.

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.

You can dislike Nintendo games and that's fine.
But between strong reviews, very strong sales and usually very positive reception by players you are in the minority and there isn't much to back your claim besides "because I say so"

Also the reason they can recycle the same franchises again and again for decades is because instead of focusing on just making the graphics better they focus on changing up the gameplay and design.
Skyward Sword to BotW or Mario 3D world to Odyssey or Xenoblade X to Xeboblade 2 or FE 3 Houses to FE Engage feels like a bigger change than Uncharted 2 to Uncharted 4.

 

[Arachnid]

Prices literally just got kicked up to 70 you boot lickers

Also, gaming has become more widespread and profitable than movies. These "poor" gaming companies make more money than ever right now.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

Ivory Samoan

Are you f kidding me??
The normal retail prices for games in my country are 69,99€.

Mate we've been paying $100-$120 for games since the 1990s here in New Zealand.

I get money is tight at the moment, but I still find it crazy how people are SO addamant that anyting over an arbitrary dollar level is far too much and 'not worth it'. What would be fucking dope, would be an entry level price is settled on, and pending reviews and word of mouth, this price can go up 'past the threshold' if the market deems it worthy (think BG3 / FFVII Rebirth etc).

One of these games could get to earning say, an $80 USD price tag out of excellence: and people are happy to pay it, whilst shit games that were build to take peoples money with no focus on the player experience, they go straight to Steam sale prices....$9.99 2 weeks after launch. That's how you wipe a good lot of GaaS type micro $$ thinking from this awesome hobby of ours, one would think? Let the market talk , the nickel and dime robbers may exit the market.

 

[IDKFA]

Prices literally just got kicked up to 70 you boot lickers

I think GTA VI will be the first game that costs £100 for the base version. It'll be a way to get people to used to paying that much.

In a few years a majority of games will cost £100 basic, come with ads (which you can disable for an extra £10) and be as bare bones as possible in order to sell as much DLC as possible. Most games will be like Paradox games or the Sims where the full experience will cost a four figure sum.

Guaranteed.

 

[Eiknarf]

I think GTA VI will be the first game that costs £100 for the base version. It'll be a way to get people to used to paying that much.

In a few years a majority of games will cost £100 basic, come with ads (which you can disable for an extra £10) and be as bare bones as possible in order to sell as much DLC as possible. Most games will be like Paradox games or the Sims where the full experience will cost a four figure sum.

Guaranteed.

I don’t think GTA 6 will be $100 this generation

people who buy it this gen will be the same people who buy it again on the next generation console

 

[Elysium44]

Prices literally just got kicked up to 70 you boot lickers

Also, gaming has become more widespread and profitable than movies. These "poor" gaming companies make more money than ever right now.

Prices in 1996, $49.99
Prices in 2024 only recently gone up to $70 (if prices had kept up with inflation this would be $98.26)

Prices literally still 30% cheaper than 1996. Who is greedy again?

The game companies are so profitable they're making wafer thin margins and laying off people en masse? Those ones?

 

[Ivory Samoan]

I think GTA VI will be the first game that costs £100 for the base version. It'll be a way to get people to used to paying that much.

In a few years a majority of games will cost £100 basic, come with ads (which you can disable for an extra £10) and be as bare bones as possible in order to sell as much DLC as possible. Most games will be like Paradox games or the Sims where the full experience will cost a four figure sum.

Guaranteed.

If there was ever a game that could throw full caution to the wind, and set it's own price, it's GTA VI.

What's the breaking point on it you think? I reckon they could say $90 USD, and would make more in the added revenue vs the lost sales due to price. If $20 is going to stop you experiencing the once in a decade event that is now a new GTA game.....then yeah, I get it, hold the line and such, but it's $20, in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

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

People value quality. I doubt price is the only meaningful differentiator in your buying process.

If a company is confident enough in their AAA game to charge a $140 base price, that means they have a certain degree of confidence in their game due to the competitive nature of the market.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

People value quality. I doubt price is the only meaningful differentiator in your buying process.

If a company is confident enough in their AAA game to charge a $140 base price, that means they have a certain degree of confidence in their game due to the competitive nature of the market.

See I like this, games priced base on confidence (due to better testing), listening to the audience...and all the things that theoretically make a better game, and perhaps, industry.

 

[Arachnid]

I think GTA VI will be the first game that costs £100 for the base version. It'll be a way to get people to used to paying that much.

In a few years a majority of games will cost £100 basic, come with ads (which you can disable for an extra £10) and be as bare bones as possible in order to sell as much DLC as possible. Most games will be like Paradox games or the Sims where the full experience will cost a four figure sum.

Guaranteed.

It is wild to me how gamers legit go to bat and justify this chit for the companies too.

 

[Guilty_AI]

See I like this, games priced base on confidence (due to better testing), listening to the audience...and all the things that theoretically make a better game, and perhaps, industry.

Problem is 90% of the time that confidence is unfounded. If a person buys a game for $150 only to find out its crap, what are the chances they'll pay $150 again for another game? Chances are they'll either wait for sale or not buy it at all.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

I think GTA VI will be the first game that costs £100 for the base version. It'll be a way to get people to used to paying that much.

In a few years a majority of games will cost £100 basic, come with ads (which you can disable for an extra £10) and be as bare bones as possible in order to sell as much DLC as possible. Most games will be like Paradox games or the Sims where the full experience will cost a four figure sum.

Guaranteed.

This is 300% impossible.

Games from this gen have barely improved the ones from the last gen. The leap is minimal, so the price increase is artificial. 100 USD for a game is above the psychological threshold most people would pay.

If Western devs were that crazy, the Chinese and Koreans would push everyone out of business pretty fast.

 

[Three]

I don't think we need higher prices but we definitely need more positivity in the industry. We seem to make up too many small reasons to shit on decent games rather than buying and enjoying them for what they are. We continually look for reaons why this or that game completely suck instead of looking at their qualities and why they should be experienced.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

You know, I'm happy there are so many people for whom money is no concern for, but people really need to look outside of themselves and see that everyone doesn't live with an unlimited entertainment budget.

I feel like this thread is kinda selfish. " I can afford to pay more for games, so everyone should."

It is no guaranteed that throwing more money at games = better game. If fact I would probably argue the it's the other way around. The more money pumped into a game, the more fluff is added between you and the gameplay.

 

[Eiknarf]

You know, I'm happy there are so many people for whom money is no concern for, but people really need to look outside of themselves and see that everyone doesn't live with an unlimited entertainment budget.

I feel like this thread is kinda selfish. " I can afford to pay more for games, so everyone should."

It is no guaranteed that throwing more money at games = better game. If fact I would probably argue the it's the other way around. The more money pumped into a game, the more fluff is added between you and the gameplay.

If Gweneth Paltrow can afford to pay $100 for a game, so can you

 

[GeekGuyWithGlasses]

When devs and publisher will start investing into Q&A and the moment that the games sold at 70 bucks are COMPLETE without additional monetisation bullshit, I may consider.

Until then, the joke writes itself.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I don't think we need higher prices but we definitely need more positivity in the industry. We seem to make up too many small reasons to shit on decent games rather than buying and enjoying them for what they are. We continually look for reaons why this or that game completely suck instead of looking at their qualities and why they should be experienced.

I agree. It's easy and fun to rag on companies and employees on Twitter.

But to be fair, if companies put more resources and heart into making solid games best they can like yesteryear eras instead of politics, mtx, bullshots etc.... I'm pretty sure the avg gamer would be more accommodating. Thats why the more criticism is usually towards the big company games and not indies selling games for $10.

Most of the big game companies make tons of money, so they got the resources to improve things if they want to spend, as well as crack the whip on all the weird employees. But only now are they finally doing that.

 

[FStubbs]

I think GTA VI will be the first game that costs £100 for the base version. It'll be a way to get people to used to paying that much.

In a few years a majority of games will cost £100 basic, come with ads (which you can disable for an extra £10) and be as bare bones as possible in order to sell as much DLC as possible. Most games will be like Paradox games or the Sims where the full experience will cost a four figure sum.

Guaranteed.

I think they will try this, but they'll find sales will collapse.

 

[Auto_aim1]

Make 720p and 1080p games again. Idgaf. Games are already expensive as heck.

 

[FStubbs]

This is 300% impossible.

Games from this gen have barely improved the ones from the last gen. The leap is minimal, so the price increase is artificial. 100 USD for a game is above the psychological threshold most people would pay.

If Western devs were that crazy, the Chinese and Koreans would push everyone out of business pretty fast.

The Chinese and Koreans aren't making games like Fortnite (even though they did buy Epic), Baldurs Gate, GTA, or Call of Duty.

 

[Arachnid]

Prices in 1996, $49.99
Prices in 2024 only recently gone up to $70 (if prices had kept up with inflation this would be $98.26)

Prices literally still 30% cheaper than 1996. Who is greedy again?

The game companies are so profitable they're making wafer thin margins and laying off people en masse? Those ones?

And minimum wage in 1996 has only gone up 3 dollars. People en masse aren't making significantly more, while no matter how you justify it, gaming companies are making more than ever.

Them laying people off means shit distribution of profits. Are you really naïve enough to think that raising prices will mean they pay those at the bottom of the pyramid more? It'll always be the same shitty quality of life for them.

 

[Elysium44]

And minimum wage in 1996 has only gone up 3 dollars. People en masse aren't making significantly more, while no matter how you justify it, gaming companies are making more than ever.

Them laying people off means shit distribution of profits. Are you really naïve enough to think that raising prices will mean they pay those at the bottom of the pyramid more? It'll always be the same shitty quality of life for them.

Minimum wage in the UK has gone up from £3.60 in 1999 (first year of it) to £11.44 in 2024. ($14.48 USD.) Similar in other developed countries like Australia.

The US federal minimum wage is less than most people are actually paid AFAIK, but if it's too low for you, get a better job. What can I tell you.

 

[Alexios]

The US federal minimum wage is less than most people are actually paid AFAIK, but if it's too low for you, get a better job. What can I tell you.

Oh fuck off, on the one hand we have "make a wish" threads and on the other bozos like you making it personal like this insulting others as too poor when they run out of arguments, as if anyone's discussing just their own means and buying habits in such topics. Sod off you stupid fucking clown.

If shit cost more people would buy less of it and the issues would be even more exaggerated as you'd have even bigger yet even fewer success stories, thus more flops. Duh. If everything costs more, from lattes to video games, something's gonna have to give, this isn't exactly a solution, or smart.

In many countries, most households have to reduce even basic necessity spending to counter inflating prices to products, goods, services, electricity, obviously they reduce video games too even before you increase the prices further. That you'd still buy the same wouldn't counter them buying less.

Yeah, my circle is dirt poor, it's not a widespread phenomenon at all, folks are just being lazy/don't have the bright idea to get better jobs. Learn to use the internet if you're gonna be that ignorant about the world you're attempting to discuss, then can't, then insult others personally, you little shit.

Cost of living insights - Office for National Statistics

The latest data and trends about the cost of living. Explore changes in how much people are spending and what people are spending their money on.

www.ons.gov.uk

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/french-consumers-massively-cutting-essential-purchases-carrefour-ceo-warns-2023-08-29/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/opinion/consumer-spending-savings-recession.html

 

[darrylgorn]

 

[Elysium44]

Oh fuck off, on the one hand we have "make a wish" threads and on the other bozos like you making it personal like this insulting others as too poor when they run out of arguments, as if anyone's discussing just their own means and buying habits in such topics. Sod off you stupid fucking clown.

If shit cost more people would buy less of it and the issues would be even more exaggerated as you'd have even bigger yet even fewer success stories, thus more flops. Duh. If everything costs more, from lattes to video games, something's gonna have to give, this isn't exactly a solution, or smart.

Heaven forbid people insult others and make it personal like calling them bozos or telling them to fuck off I guess.

The person I replied to was saying most people are poor, which is rubbish. If someone is poor then buy fewer games or get a better job. That's not being personal, it's good advice.

Saw your edit.

In many countries, most households have to reduce even basic necessity spending to counter inflating prices to products, good, services, electricity, so obviously they reduce video games too even before you increase their prices further. That you'd still buy the same wouldn't counter them buying 0.

This just comes across as assuming everyone is dirt poor because people in your circle are.

 

[IDKFA]

I think they will try this, but they'll find sales will collapse.

I don't think they well.

They'll spin it as being a worthy price considering you're getting "thousands" of hours of content.

People will lap it up. They'll pay the £100 and beg Strauss Zelnick to pay more.

 

[Arachnid]

Minimum wage in the UK has gone up from £3.60 in 1999 (first year of it) to £11.44 in 2024. ($14.48 USD.) Similar in other developed countries like Australia.

The US federal minimum wage is less than most people are actually paid AFAIK, but if it's too low for you, get a better job. What can I tell you.

I'm pretty well off, but I'm mindful enough to not assume others are (or that they'd want to funnel their money into gaming). No matter how you slice it, 100 dollars for a video game is flat out stupid.

I also genuinely cant fathom someone going to bat for billion dollar corporations raking in billions over other consumers. What's the mindset? What do you get out of that? Are you also one of those people that defends microtransactions and lootboxes (yet more ridiculous money flow for the corps)?

 

[Elysium44]

I'm pretty well off, but I'm mindful enough to not assume others are (or that they'd want to funnel their money into gaming). No matter how you slice it, 100 dollars for a video game is flat out stupid.

I also genuinely cant fathom someone going to bat for billion dollar corporations raking in billions over other consumers. What's the mindset? What do you get out of that? Are you also one of those people that defends microtransactions and lootboxes (yet more ridiculous money flow for the corps)?

Games are the same price in real terms they were 30 years ago despite being orders of magnitude more complex to make and superior, so complaining about that seems pretty stupid to me.

 

[Arachnid]

Games are the same price in real terms they were 30 years ago despite being orders of magnitude more complex to make and superior, so complaining about that seems pretty stupid to me.

And yet they make more money now than they ever have. Defending and advocating for these companies taking more money from you seems even dumber to me.

 

[BbMajor7th]

The industry lay-offs have very little to do with the price of games and a whole lot to do with corporate zealotry. Most of these big tech companies enjoyed a breathtaking windfall during the pandemic (the benefit of having a literal captive audience). Sane people knew that this was an anomaly - a short-term boon - but corporate executives could not bring themselves to admit that the graph line would fall the following year. They told shareholders they were determined to turn the anomaly it into a permanent growth trend. They set their budgets astronomically beyond reach and have been under-delivering ever since. The figures were so unrealistically inflated and delusional that even a company like PlayStation, who seem to post record profits every single quarter, is laying off staff in the hundreds.

It's like winning $50,000 on a scratch-off ticket, telling yourself that going forward your salary will be fifty grand higher permanently and then taking out a mortgage based on that. Two years down the line you'll be selling shit off left right and center just to make payments. That's what all these companies did.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm pretty well off, but I'm mindful enough to not assume others are (or that they'd want to funnel their money into gaming). No matter how you slice it, 100 dollars for a video game is flat out stupid.

I also genuinely cant fathom someone going to bat for billion dollar corporations raking in billions over other consumers. What's the mindset? What do you get out of that? Are you also one of those people that defends microtransactions and lootboxes (yet more ridiculous money flow for the corps)?

Yup. Companies make plenty.

I can afford $100 CDN games too ($90-95 + tax). It's about the principal. I can also afford to buy loaves of bread for $20. Why would I? To me it's worth $3.

Do Marvel movie BR discs cost $80 because the movie has a giant budget and flopped at theatres so they need to make the money back on Amazon and Best Buy disc sales? Nope. The disc will be around $20. They have every right to change it to $50 or $100, but it gets to a point of stupidity where companies crying foul (assuming they are broke and not making billions of profit) where it's not about selling a product for market value and working backwards on costs to make it sustainable. But instead they go ape shit on budgets and then hoping to jack up a price at the end to make money that way after they overshot their budget and time.

What also doesn't help is good 'ol competition. Too bad. What hurts a lot of game companies who are struggling (not solely budget) is that their high budget game goes for $70. it might be good, it might be shit. Who knows.

But guess what also is the same $70? GTA, FIFA, COD etc.... Legacy franchises people like playing with good production values, lots of content and replayability. They are getting squeezed out by popular brands people trend to. No different than buying juice. Someone can make an awesome jug of juice for $5. Straight from a tree. Problem is it's a small jug and a no name brand. Their stiffest competition isnt just budget. It's tropicana selling juice for the same $5, but it's got brand power and the jug has 50% more juice.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

I get the impression this is all part of a bigger agenda. A call for a reset as it were but not one that entirely benefits the consumer.

You bloat the market with deliberately long winded “experiences” labelled as a service , bloat the market with copy and paste releases , bloat the market with the same IPs year after year.

What do you expect? People in general have only got so much money and time to invest in gaming. Not every game can be an overwhelming success.

It’s shit to see job losses, having been laid off myself I can understand the grief . I can’t help but feel something is going on that will be slowly pushed in time.

Along with this I expect an even bigger push for digital too.

Admittedly I have my conspiracy hat on and could be way off

 

[Roni]

That dedicated audience may not necessarely buy it either though.

The thing with entertainment is that your product doesn't exist in a vacuum. You're not only competing in terms of quality and pricing with other similar games, you're also competing with movies, TV series, books, an outing with friends, art-making, social media and so forth. Rise the price too much and your audience may just move on to other cheaper or more worthwhile hobbies, especially in this economy.

If the player is looking for an immersive sim, there's nothing like it out there other than older immersive sims. Music, movies, tv shows, books and other options are nothing like it. The person that would give up the game for something else is not a niche audience member, it's a mass market member. The whole point of what I'm saying is designing and selling the product to turn a profit using the niche audience. Whoever from the mass market audience buys the product is a nice plus and pure profit.

 

[StereoVsn]

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

It’s not though. The reason that house is worth a lot is partially due to nice schools. Compare a house to another in generally similar area but in a shitty school district. Price will be significantly higher.

It’s the same as paying for roads even if you usually take metro or for medicine for the elderly, and so on. Social services are important to society’s structure.

Anyways, now let’s discuss games, lol.

 

[Guilty_AI]

If the player is looking for an immersive sim, there's nothing like it out there other than older immersive sims.

Music, movies, tv shows, books and other options are nothing like it. The person that would give up the game for something else is not a niche audience member, it's a mass market member. The whole point of what I'm saying is designing and selling the product to turn a profit using the niche audience. Whoever from the mass market audience buys the product is a nice plus and pure profit.

Niche's aren't fanatic groups that refuse to do anything else, its just individuals with particular interests. People can be fickle when it comes to entertainment, that's just how we are. I can one day be in the mood to play a boomer shooter, then in the other i just want to read a book. If all new boomer shooters suddenly cost $100 you can be sure as hell i'll be choosing books more frequently.