I highly doubt that dev costs are the real problem, the big budget games are targeted at big audiences and the most derivative ones never fail to make bank. I think it's just a problem born of so many of this companies being publicly owned, investors get greedy with time and it's not enough that they are making a return, they want a bigger return as that other company that is more successful, thus the pressure trickles down.Never happening.
And honestly, they are going to get the money they want one way or another.
I told people whinging about season passes over a decade ago what would happen if they want away, they'd just change tack to get the same revenue by other means.
Same right now with loot boxes, you think minimizing them is going to magically get a better deal? LOL.
You don't fix a problem by dealing with the symptom. And right here, right now, the problem is that games cost a fortune to make.
So unless some mega-genius out there wants to provide a method of making modern games for the same sort of outlay that they were made 20-30 years ago, you need to get used to the idea of paying more as production costs increase.
Playstation owners are
I might have spent $40What about $59.99?
they will be though, and their buys won't complain and continue to dump hundreds of millions into virtual currencyGames like Fifa and NBA should definitely not be 70
The sheep are ready.
Porsche makes a better car than Ford.
They also charge (a lot) more than Ford.
If you don't want to spend 80k on a Porsche, buy a Ford.
Gamers are tied to "It's always been this way therefore any change is evil" thing.
That's the stupidest argument I've ever read on this forum.Porsche makes a better car than Ford.
They also charge (a lot) more than Ford.
If you don't want to spend 80k on a Porsche, buy a Ford.
Gamers are tied to "It's always been this way therefore any change is evil" thing.
So we're not gonna talk about GAAS, DLCs, season passes, seasons of DLCs, and in general leaving out content to drip-feed afterwards?
You can't raise prices and sell tons of pieces for an extra and still expect people to be happy.
Also, they try this stunt every generation change and the market is still thriving without it. If they succeed now, it's because of our stupidity, certainly not out of market necessity.
There shouldn't be a ceiling price on games.
Charge what your product can get.
If everything is priced like a Toyota Camry we're not going to get a Ferrari.
I'll admit I agree developers who go the extra mile to make luxury experiences should be rewarded.
In the rare event a game has extraordinary production values, above and beyond everybody else, it's not right for the market to force chopping it up to permit a $60 base release.
I'm not concerned about production values.
My singular concern is fun.
I valued this:
More than this:
Production values exist in service of finding the fun. Pay for the fun.
We're not going to talk about trim models on cars? Gas? Upkeep? Insurance?
The car market is more interesting because Ferrari, Porsche, Tesla etc are in it.
Consumers need to look at products, look at the cost of said product, and make a valuation.
Melting down over 10 extra dollars is lame. Games today are exponentially better than games from 20-30 years ago. A slight price hike is fine.
While i understand your car comparison, I still believe it's not very appropriate. We're always talking about a piece of entertainment here , not a car nor another "useful" good.
Not to mention a car has costs mainly to keep it running in perfect working order (and avoiding it becoming a dangerous metal killing machine), whereas a game it's... well, it's a game.
10$/€ increase is dangerous because publishers are not good nor considerate, and a price hike could only lead to more price increases, as it has been the case with dlc and all other funny online content.
Also, I repeat, the market has never been in a better shape. There are more gamers than ever, there are more GAMES than ever, and a price increase will only be out of gluttony, not as a necessity from multi-billion worth companies.
Publishers think people are "ready for it" simply because they think, or they know, they can now get away with it.
I'm not really sure how or why policies must go towards billionaire companies, who really want to increase prices because "you're ready for it" even while registering record-breaking profits for years now (and avoiding paying taxes in USA using tax heavens and legislative loopholes, but that's another problem)Ok, then ice cream.
There's Ben and Jerry's and a whole bunch of cheap, inferior stuff.
Ice cream isn't "useful" either.
Build something and charge what you think you can get for it. Forcing a $60 dollar limit on entertainment is un-American.