What is your opinion on cost of games?

[CiriusBlack]

Time to time I tend to check how long the game is (supposed to be). It is never the only criteria, or even then main one, but if I'm puzzling between buying a game or not buying a game, it _might_ give me some pointers. What pointers? Even I can't say. It always depends of the overall situation: How much money I can spend? What game it is? Would it be worth it? Do I have time to play and how much I have that time? If the game feels pricey, can it be forgiven because it seems to be a decent enough game with good amount of content? Am I looking for something short as a "snack" while waiting for other games? Or whatever else?

We all have our different reasons to like or not to like specific games. For someone the playtime matters, for someone it doesn't. They are both right.

 

[akaddk]

movie of 15 minutes long

Making a ridiculous argument does not help your argument.

There is no equivalent of a 15 minute movie in this debate. There is no world in which a 15 minute movie would make it big box cinemas at full ticket price.

There are, however, numerous examples of sub 90 minute movies, roughly considered to be the minimum to qualify for wide release, that are amazing movies that drew large audiences. Which, sorry to say, actually works against your argument.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Making a ridiculous argument does not help your argument.

There is no equivalent of a 15 minute movie in this debate. There is no world in which a 15 minute movie would make it big box cinemas at full ticket price.

There are, however, numerous examples of sub 90 minute movies, roughly considered to be the minimum to qualify for wide release, that are amazing movies that drew large audiences. Which, sorry to say, actually works against your argument.

Just an example about "how long games are"...
But the initial question doesn't make sense either...
Would you even consider buying a boring/bad game no matter how long it is? I assume you wouldn't.
It's the same as asking : Do you prefer a big size meal which taste like shit or an average size meal which taste delicious? Make no sense! Everybody will likley choose the tasty meal.

So again, the playing time of games is not the most important, but something I check, among many other things. In the same way someone who can play games for a (very) limited amount of time will likely prefer or look shorter games (if you can play two or three hours per weeks, you will see the end of a game like TW3 after months, if not a year...)

Edit: so I repeat if it's not clear... if I have 60E to buy a game, I won't buy a 10-15 hours high quality content game while there is another high quality content game too which offer hundred of hours...

 

[Netrunner2go]

„Quality over quantity, V“

 

[Toonen1988]

„Quality over quantity, V“

That's right, quality always over quantity.

I would rather have a expensive delicious steak once per week that makes lick your fingers, than having cheap meat eachday that taste like sh*t. I had once a discussion with my ex-girlfriend, why I always buy expensive leather shoes. I said to her, "I go for the quality, I polish and maintain my shoes, I keep care of them and quess what, i'm walking 1,5 year to 2 years on the same shoes. You buy new shoes every month, because you go for quantity, they break faster, you don't take care of it, because you will simply buy new once. In the end you will spend way more on yearly bases than me."

It's the same with alcohol, you will only find special beers and good bottles of whiskey and cognac in my house. People always ask me if i'm insane buying such expensive drinks and bottles. I said to them, "well, I drink for the taste, not for getting drunk. I bet you spend way more on yearly bases, because you want quantity, you don't drink for the taste, you just want to get drunk. You would rather buy 24 bottles of cheap beer for 1 evening and get drunk. I prefer to have a nice glass, that taste nice on my tongue and enjoy it." And besides the beers I drink, you can't drink 24 bottles on one evening. Many of them are heavy, most people won't get to 6 a 7 bottles.


But anyway, in the end I was right. I spend way less on yearly bases then people who complained that I was spending to much on alcohol and leather shoes. Not only did I spend less money, I also enjoyed it way more then they do.

 

[Netrunner2go]

The steak example made me smile cause my dad was the type of „I can get 5 burger or 3 kebab instead of a steak“ guy - never got it, we always argued bout this mindset x‘D (luv u dad <3)

 

[Toonen1988]

The steak example made me smile cause my dad was the type of „I can get 5 burger or 3 kebab instead of a steak“ guy - never got it, we always argued bout this mindset x‘D (luv u dad <3)

Yeah, some people just don't care about the taste nor enjoy what they put in their mouth. And this goes for everything, not only food, drinks but also hardware and games.

And you know what the bad part is, we live in a throwaway society. That makes it even worse, and this is also how games nowadays are being made. Look for example Call of Duty. Each year a new Call of Duty and they even throw Warzone 1 offline which wasn't even 3 years old or something?

Welcome to a world where most people choose quantity over quality, which also creates a throwaway society, which results also in more garbage. We don't value anything anymore, we don't love anything like we did before. And this goes for everything, even for gaming.

So, I go further eating my expensive delicious steak that I can only eat once per week and while I lick my fingers, I also do enjoy life, and not getting some cheap food from mcdonalds with meat that just got out of a chemical factory and complain how awful it taste, but yet I want to have a second one even though it taste bad, just because of the chemical garbage that they put inside which makes it addictive.

 

[akaddk]

Sigh, this is how we get miniscule dishes on gargantuan plates for elite prices.

Capitalism. Capitalism never changes...

 

[Toonen1988]

Sigh, this is how we get miniscule dishes on gargantuan plates for elite prices.

Capitalism. Capitalism never changes...

Oh yeah? Then why do we get less and less for the same price or even a higher price while we live in a throwaway society where people prefer quantity over quality?

The prices increases and the content is getting smaller, no matter what. This is caused by so many factors, packaging getting smaller for the same or even higher prices.

So, if my way of thinking creates what you say, then why is this happening right now while most people choose quantity over quality?

But I think we should leave this discussion for what it is. I choose rather quality over quantity.

 

[0248991]

Oh yeah? Then why do we get less and less for the same price or even a higher price while we live in a throwaway society where people prefer quantity over quality?

The prices increases and the content is getting smaller, no matter what. This is caused by so many factors, packaging getting smaller for the same or even higher prices.

So, if my way of thinking creates what you say, then why is this happening right now while most people choose quantity over quality?

But I think we should leave this discussion for what it is. I choose rather quality over quantity.

Hey,
I think it's not like that at all - players want quality, but there are more factors.

To quote Judy: "People buy shit not because they are lazy, but because they are poor."
I believe that's one of the possible views.

I think that the lifecycle of a game, and why it may become (feel) smaller and more expensive is like this:

1. a small company with a small dedicated team makes a small game
2. it's a big success, they get a lot of money
3. management decides to grow bigger, add new content like patches, DLCs,... - support the game in the long run
4. some devs leave because they are tired or don't see a value in that
5. the company hires new people, grows bigger, the initial idea gets partially lost or changed
6. players are unhappy with the changes (they aren't happy with any changes), call it a drop in quality and not worth their money

So, some games grow much greater technically (more players, more (multiplayer) features, better graphics, better performance,...), but don't survive well in other aspects - on the dev side (switch of too many developers, change of vision,..) or player side (change of HW/SW, cultural change, expectations based on other games,...)

I think that's pretty much the case for like:
- Starcraft 2 (bad balance, not enough interesting content)
- Assassin's Creed (devs may still find it cool, milked to eternity)
- Hearthstone (uninspired, bad balance, milked to eternity),
- WoW (devs may still find it cool, uninspired, milked to eternity),
- LoL (uninspired, bad balance, milked to eternity)

So, I don't think it's 100% about capitalism, greed, inflation, etc...

As mentioned, e.g.: big AAA RPGs are too expensive and so need to succeed, otherwise it's a big problem - that's why I believe Ubisoft continues with Assassin's Creed - because it has its loyal player base, it generates money they need to survive, and new players come in for the modern features like customization, PoIs, cool explosive projectiles, new stealth mechanics, etc...

I think that devs want to make great games, but there are many BUTs in the way, including new colleagues who eat their lunches

 

[GrimReaper801]

This thread took a weird "my way of going about life is better than yours" turn.

So, I don't think it's 100% about capitalism, greed, inflation, etc...

You are 100% correct but people like to reduce issues to the simplest explanation that also happens to fit with their own personal belief. There is just so much that goes into the issues the industry has/faces but it's always easier to just blame it on one thing and leave it at that than to actually face the reality that it's a deeply complex situation with no simple easy way out/to fix things.

 

[Rachelprotomryr94]

Really depends on the game. I think spiderman 2 is overpriced atm. Playstation still have the original full price almost too. Same with grand turismo.

With cyberpunk and witcher 3 constantly on sale like capcoms games ie resident evil, street fighter I think that's fair consumer price. Pay full if you wanna experience at the time or wait and get it on discount.

Post automatically merged: Jan 1, 2024

Been reading through this thread all morning

 

[boristhedork]

I think the cost of triple A games ($60-$70) no longer reflects their quality.

 

[zzzfrofzzz]

reminds the time mid 80's , all game on Atari 2600 above 50/60 $ at launch ^^
mid 90's on Amiga , IBM , Atati ste , PS1 , xbox , all game above 50/60$ at launch
same for the early 2010 , its only with after the PS4 , xbox one gen , game get their price around 60/70$

to be honest my concern its nt about to see the AAA games at launch around 70/80$ , but what we get for the price

 

[Kennythes]

Just wanted to chime in on the discussion about game prices. It's a hot topic for sure, and I think there's no one-size-fits-all answer. For me, it's like flipping a heads or tails coin – sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

I get that game development is super expensive these days with all the crazy graphics, big worlds, and top-notch storytelling. When you think about all the hard work that goes into making these games, paying $60-$70 can feel worth it, especially if the game gives you hours and hours of entertainment. It's like paying for a movie ticket but getting way more time out of it.

On the flip side, not every game lives up to the hype. It stings to drop that much cash on a game that ends up being a dud or doesn't have much replay value. That's where I think things like sales, bundles, or subscription services like Game Pass come in handy. They give us a chance to try more games without breaking the bank.

 

[MegaErnstX]

I spent 186 hours (so far) playing Cyberpunk so money well invested for me
Can't wait for Orion

 

[EricHVela]

I remember people complaining up to high heavens when games became $20, then $30, then $40, etc. Back then, they were tiny little teams doing their own thing overwhelmingly in-house with minimal outflow.

Dislike it however you wish but it's going to keep going up. Costs of making games (and surviving) keeps going up. Small teams still have to pay distributors. Distribution still costs money even when done in-house with larger distributions costing more. Large teams also often outsource to other teams, which costs money. There is a lot of outflow that players seem unaware exist, and the industry keeps getting more volatile where the next source of individual income cannot be anticipated at all anymore (which aligns with the rest of the entertainment industry where the crews scatter to the wind back to the audition rooms after projects are done, unlike the tiny teams that stuck together decades ago).

$70? Meh. I complained about costs going up to $40. Then, I started looking at things from a different perspective than my own pocketbook. Since $50, I've let it go and been more about what I anticipate to being worth it to my wallet than wishing for something I can't (nor should) control.

 

[Endealon]

Honestly?

They're too cheap. People don't really realize how expensive it is to make a game.

Post automatically merged: Jul 5, 2024

"WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON COST OF GAMES?"​

One time fee of €60.00 for a AAA game is fair, suppose.

Are you really saying yes?

Who says so? Based on what production costs? $60 is it right in 2018 or in 2028? Is that amount suitable when the study has spent $200 million in production or when it's a small indie studio with 12 developers? Is $60 enough when 10 million copies have been sold or when only 100,000 have been sold?

The nonsense one has to read. I'm not a video game developer, but if I worked in the industry, I'd be absolutely fed up with this market.

 

[Bartinga2077]

Honestly?

They're too cheap. People don't really realize how expensive it is to make a game.

Post automatically merged: Jul 5, 2024

Are you really saying yes?

Who says so? Based on what production costs? $60 is it right in 2018 or in 2028? Is that amount suitable when the study has spent $200 million in production or when it's a small indie studio with 12 developers? Is $60 enough when 10 million copies have been sold or when only 100,000 have been sold?

The nonsense one has to read. I'm not a video game developer, but if I worked in the industry, I'd be absolutely fed up with this market.

Games cannot be made for free. Game companies invest millions in the development of them. Every investment must earn itself back and deliver revenue. Just like the game itself. it's how the game is played.

If you find a game too expensive, simply don't buy it. If you're absolutely fed up with the gaming industry, simply abandon it and never look back.

 

[Tarille]

Who says so? Based on what production costs? $60 is it right in 2018 or in 2028? Is that amount suitable when the study has spent $200 million in production or when it's a small indie studio with 12 developers? Is $60 enough when 10 million copies have been sold or when only 100,000 have been sold?

The nonsense one has to read. I'm not a video game developer, but if I worked in the industry, I'd be absolutely fed up with this market.

Firstly "A small indie studio" isn't making AAA games by definition.

Secondly, even "Only" 100,000 copies being sold for $60 a piece is $6 million...

From an industry standpoint, there's a LOT of money being made. It's why it's so corporate these days. Businessmen acquired publishing companies because of the obscene amounts of money being produced.

This is how we can get things like GTA6 with it's projected $2 billion development costs. Since that will not only be recouped, but will generate far more money (If we take GTA5's sales figures of 200 million copies, at $60 each that's $12 billion revenue)

The sheer amount of money made from video games makes it even more sickening that companies keep trying to implement shady practices like Lootboxes, MTX and day 1 DLC to make EVEN MORE money.

The industry is not devoid of money. Even with the increasing costs of development, there's far more money being generated than is necessary to fund productions (Hence why every studio keeps getting new record profits year after year)

Thirdly, the cost of games doesn't impact developers, outside of indie studios. The vast majority of the money is taken by executives/publishers and developers get a basic salary independent of how much money a particular game makes. It's only really indies that rely directly on sales performances (And also create games with more limited resources available).