Congratulations, you've identified the concept that corporations cannot grasp.
£60-70 for Games just do not make sense in 2020...
- Thread starter fonejacker
- Start date
I'll admit to Mother 3, which is a shame because I'd legit pay for it. Unfortunately, Nintendo still doesn't' want to legally release the game outside of Japan, so the only way to play it is to get the translated rom and play it.
We NeEd MoRe MoNaH, ArtHuR!
I never get buyer's remorse. I think in this day and age it's super easy to look into a game and figure out if you'd like it or not. I guess if you buy something on impulse it's possible but I never do that either.
But yeah there's so many sales out there that discount things very significantly so there definitely are some games that are in that "if it's super cheap I'd give it a shot" too, though I kinda try to not get too many of those cause I'm super busy just playing the "must have at any price" types of games.
Some games you can also just wait on because you know they'll get more content down the line. Like those Fallout game of the year editions with all the dlc included. Those I'd always wait on too.
They been sneaking up the prices for who knows how long now anyway. Even digital sales for something like Jedi Fallen order "complete edition" costed like 53 quid with 40-50% off or some shit. That didn't even have any DLC as far as am aware either! They're just pushing boundaries as greed obsessed corporations are want to do. Lets not forget all the tax avoidance, tax relief, constant boasting about bigger profits followed by regular layoffs, keeping staff turnover high to dismantle any unionisation while maintaining a desperately competitive overworked workforce, and that's not even going into how large companies don't need startup costs or their growing use of sponserships and in-game advertisement. None of it's out of necessity, it's only in service of the religious fervour towards the perpetual growth illusion. They will always take whatever they think they can get away with, and more to test the boundaries of 'consumers.'
Aye, but most video game producers (who set the prices) don't actually develop their games, either.
Granted, a V.G. producer is more involved in the process than an A.V. platform holder like Netflix, but they're both still middlemen devising the price to the consumer and then siphoning off a cut for themselves.
I'd pay £70 for a GOOD High Quality game if it comes without the typical AAA (now AAAA thanks Ubisoft) trappings of microtransactions etc.
Problem is we're in a stage where the apparent investors glommed onto the Games industry aren't the kind who are fine sitting and waiting years on stuff they're the kind who get in quick and want the biggest quickest returns so there's a push to perpetually expand and grow not just a bit but as much as possible. With CEOs trying to rake in as much money as possible too.
The industry could deserve £70 for a game. It most likely won't though. Just like this generation if a game has microtransactions bullshit I won't pay full price for it and may avoid it entirely in the end depending on what else is coming out around the same time.
Problem is we're in a stage where the apparent investors glommed onto the Games industry aren't the kind who are fine sitting and waiting years on stuff they're the kind who get in quick and want the biggest quickest returns so there's a push to perpetually expand and grow not just a bit but as much as possible. With CEOs trying to rake in as much money as possible too.
The industry could deserve £70 for a game. It most likely won't though. Just like this generation if a game has microtransactions bullshit I won't pay full price for it and may avoid it entirely in the end depending on what else is coming out around the same time.
They do generally fund development though, so they technically have more immediate, personal reason to see a healthy return on investment.
Nintendo games are the worst. They just never seem to come down in price. Part of the reason I haven't bought a switch. I just don't want to pay more than $30 for a game.
Skyrim for me. The first time it came out.
Nintendo is the video game equivalent of Disney. Disney almost never price drops their stuff, unless it's a movie they're not exactly proud of. And even then, to get their good stuff on sale it's just best to wait on Black Friday sometimes.
Last edited:
I don't get people bitching about game prices as video gaming is like the cheapest hobby one can have. I go to bar every week to have a few drinks (like 3 Redds/Angry Orchards), dinner, and a game darts and the whole night costs about $40 for 3-4 hours. I spend far far less money on video games than I do on that.
I rent most Disney animated movies from Netflix or buy them used, even though I seldom buy any movies used. Some of them are priced nicely, though. You can buy The Little Mermaid in 4K for 15 dollars on Amazon, one of the movies they are proud of.
Becomes more expensive when you're not having fun. Thirty dollars for a formulaic Ubisoft or Rockstar open world game is more expensive to me than sixty dollars for a good Nintendo game. Also, twenty hours in a boring twenty dollar game are more expensive to me than two hours with a really good twenty dollar movie.
Definitely, I don't get why people say such and such game is only worth $20. I want to know if it's worth my time, price is pretty irreverent.
I think it's more of the problem of a lot of games treat $40-$70 as the entry fee while then wanting you to invest more money through DLC/MTX/Subscriptions/ETC.
It's basically "Free to Play"(kept going by in-game purchases) but with a AAA price tag to even begin, which is the worst of both worlds for the player.
Last edited:
A publisher is generally gonna do a lot more work, mainly in the advertising and manufacturing department. Netflix is just the bigger platform for broadcast out there but it's not doing something that the studio of a show can't do by themselves by merely uploading their content on their own website or even youtube or something (youtube does have some things you can only watch if you pay for, as well)
Southpark had basically every episode up on their own website before they put em up exclusively on other bigger ones like Hulu but that's just something they did to put it where more people were likely to run into it, not just to get it out there in the first place.
But if you just have a random game studio and you ask them to handle things like manufacturing disks and advertising their game, so on and so forth, they'll be forced to hire a bunch of employees to do all that. It'd cut on the game budgets they have. It's way better to just let published get a chunk of the sales after the game has already been made because that way the game is not compromised.
Also, a good way of supporting the devs is buying games either digitally or from their official sites as opposed to places like gamestop or amazon, which also take a cut and are actual middlemen. You pay the same price more or less but they get a bigger cut out of it.
Last edited:
Depends on the game: I could have justified £70 for RDR2 -- I've got loads of hours of enjoyment from it; I couldn't justify it for, say, Crusader Kings 3 because I've barely got past the tutorial for CK2 without giving up. I don't play any of the annual-release games like FIFA or CoD though, so I'm not getting beaten with the money-stick very often.
Bear in mind, I paid £30 for Monkey Island 2 in 1992 or so. For cost comparison, going to the cinema then would have cost me maybe £2.50 (if I'd been an adult, which I wasn't); to go today would be about £10.
I'm certainly not in favour of high prices, but I'm more bothered by the standardization of prices in the industry regardless of size or quality of game, and that standardization seems to follow the price of the most expensive games. Once one company does it, so does the next (boring note: the same happened in the mortgage industry with the introduction of spurious fees for paying off your mortgage on time -- when a few banks started doing it the others said it was an abusive practice; now they all do it).
Bear in mind, I paid £30 for Monkey Island 2 in 1992 or so. For cost comparison, going to the cinema then would have cost me maybe £2.50 (if I'd been an adult, which I wasn't); to go today would be about £10.
I'm certainly not in favour of high prices, but I'm more bothered by the standardization of prices in the industry regardless of size or quality of game, and that standardization seems to follow the price of the most expensive games. Once one company does it, so does the next (boring note: the same happened in the mortgage industry with the introduction of spurious fees for paying off your mortgage on time -- when a few banks started doing it the others said it was an abusive practice; now they all do it).
Time is finite, money isn't.
I've found none of those games to have compelling enough gameplay to even want to play for free let alone paying money to play them. I was bored with stuff like Destiny an hour into the beta and uninstalled it. Those type of games have Skinner boxes to keep you playing instead of just good old fashioned great gameplay, which is why people played those games for 100s/1,000s of hours back in the day; there was no next level or gear or what-have-you to get, you just kept playing because it was fun. Pubs/Devs seem to have forgot that.
Not when I want to support the developers. I always try to buy Inti Creates games as soon as they come out because damnit, that company makes good shit.