Support NeoGAF

[Akuza89]

Considering the cost of getting into gaming on a PC vs a console, it's not hard to understand.

If you want to keep your PC up to date it needs upgrading alot with more expensive parts.

Cheaper games are also easier as the developers are getting the money directly majority of the time and don't need to worry about the 20% console tax!

 

[ScHlAuChi]

And what happens if they're forced to allow it? *poof*, regional prices are gone.
Consumer loses, publishers lose, store owner also loses but they'll be the least affected ironically. Sometimes laws need to be revised too.

And yet, Regional Pricing still exists here even after the ruling!
The consumer wins by still being able to buy games cheaper!

If they somehow rule that valve has to allow developers to set whatever price they want for keys, they'll just start charging fees for selling these keys, since developers can issue them for free without requiring to give any sales cut for valve whatsoever as of now.
Consumer loses, publishers lose, key retailers lose, and steam will still be the dominant marketplace everyone goes to.

Oh Valve can charge for keys of course - but then they will suddenly have market forces kicking in that they dont want to deal with.
They offer the free keys to lock people into their ecosystem, but if companies were able to sell their games without the 30% tax on their own store, that would make Steam less attractive.
Consumer wins if they can get a game cheaper without Valve Tax.
Publisher wins if they can keep more of the profits to themselves instead of giving it to Valve.
Steam loses costumers, but that will force them to stop being lazy and get their shit together - so consumer wins again!

 

[lukilladog]

Hogwarts and Atomic Heart are actually $50 and $40 usd respectively on my regional steam store, but dead space remake is $70?... EA being EA. As for consoles, that shit of not allowing independent digital stores is hurting consumers beyond the console space, intervention is required ASAP.

 

[Neff]

I mean you're not wrong. It was thinly-disguised 'next gen' tax to offset the discrepancy between sales of young, growing user bases and huge, established ones.

But we're two years in now and little has changed. The vast majority of developers are currently making PS4/XB1 games then bumping up the resolution and improving the load times to the tune of an extra tenner. I'd happily pay more (like, a lot more) for a true next gen title that I genuinely want. Back in the '90s a couple of new games would bleed my weekly payslip dry. We're earning more than ever, and games cost little relatively speaking for the amount of enjoyment we get out of them.

It might not be a popular idea, but I say bring on the price hikes. The industry will struggle to evolve without them, and they're inevitable. We need to abandon the idea that anything over the $60 pricing model is a rip-off on principle, because for a true gaming fan, it's really not. But publishers should also be making the effort to justify our sexy new hardware beyond adding a few shiny reflections and charging a 16% markup on each title. I think one day we can establish a happy equilibrium where the economics of gaming benefit everyone, but we need to change ancient perceptions of value first.

 

[64bitmodels]

We're earning more than ever

The cash we earn now is way less than it was in the 90s thanks to inflation, we make less and less each year. Prices are going up all the time.

 

[RoboFu]

 

[Guilty_AI]

And yet, Regional Pricing still exists here even after the ruling!
The consumer wins by still being able to buy games cheaper!

For now!

Oh Valve can charge for keys of course - but then they will suddenly have market forces kicking in that they dont want to deal with. They offer the free keys to lock people into their ecosystem, but if companies were able to sell their games without the 30% tax on their own store, that would make Steam less attractive.

They're 100% able to do that, many do. Steam still leads the market.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Considering the cost of getting into gaming on a PC vs a console, it's not hard to understand.

If you want to keep your PC up to date it needs upgrading alot with more expensive parts.

That’s simply false if you aim for console equivalent settings. A low range CPU with even an Intel arc A770 has Xbox series X settings for $700. Digital foundry made a video on it.

Add the online subscription fees and higher costs per game and its at a loss that you picked a console.

 

[Nintendo's Witch]

In PC gaming the investment is made up-front in HW is not rocket-science.

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

Well, just don't pay it. If enough people do that they will backtrack, if not, you have a decision to make.

 

[Marvel14]

Yes, I am talking about next-gen games priced at $69.99 on consoles vs. the same games priced $59.99 on PC platform. Noticed that and complained about it when The Quarry came out, but this nonsense is getting worse.

To begin with, tell me why the next-gen version is 10 bucks more expensive than last-gen version? Because you get better graphics, higher frame rate, new features on next-gen version.
If this is indeed the justification, now let's talk about the PC then. If better graphics, higher frame rate and additional features are worth more money, then a player with RTX4090 with all graphic bells and whistles should be charged 10 more dollars for the same game than a player with a 1060 card. You get the most advanced graphic techs!

That's utter bullshit, if they really did this to PC, they would be pushed back to hell.

Then how come those shady pricing strategies get away on consoles? The graphic advancements comes from the more powerful consoles, I already spent the money to upgrade it to get a better experience of games, much like a PC player upgrade their graphic card.

Of course, someone is bond to bring up that price increases because the development cost increases, I get it. For the record, I am not bitching about games' increased price tag overall. It is what it is. I have huge backlog that I can comfortably play and wait the games I am interested in go on sale.
The issue here is the still the disparity. If PC and last-gen versions are priced lower, does that mean PC version uses the last-gen build? Does that mean a PS4 version development cost is effectively 15% cheaper than the PS5 version? Those publishers are just disingenuous and anti-consumer.

I have way less problems with a consistent price overall platform. Forspoken, for instance, is $69.99 on both console and PC. The game is probably gonna flop but I don't hate it in this regard, at least SE is not taking you an idiot.

Anyone want to tell Op that to make economic comparisons you have to use like with like?

Consoles and PCs are very different....

 

[SmokedMeat]

PC’s not a walled garden, that’s why. You think it’s bad now - wait and see when physical dies.

 

[Black_Stride]

In PC gaming the investment is made up-front in HW is not rocket-science.

You make it seem like the 1060, 2060 and 3060 arent the most popular GPUs out there right now.
Also note 6 and 4 cores are the most popular CPUs, so clearly people arent spending thousands of dollars on PC gaming.

Looking at current popular hardware, people arent spending much more on PC hardware than they are on console hardware.

 

[X-Wing]

PC is also only digital and with DRM crap. Distribution costs are lower.