Do You Feel That Modern Games Deserve The High Price Tag?

[BinaryMessiah]

No. These ultra-high production games can go die for all I care, they don't even look good, so the graphics argument that publishers have been pushing for decades can't even be applied here. I like my modern games looking decently well at least if I'm dropping 60€ on 'em, and they want 70€ for half ass bullshit.

The fact that I could buy 2 ddr mats with extendion cords for 70€ or a shitty "triple A" (literally worse than triple A titles from the ps2) game for 70€ is absurd and honestly, it goes to show how these games are not worth it.

I also want to elaborate on one thing, I do not think that "cinematic" games are triple A in the slightest, these are interactive movies with actual gameplay spliced inbetween like it's an slightly better FMV game. Sony especially is guilty of that, despite having some of the most creative games on the ps1, basically making the first mainstream rhythm game before beatmania solidified what a rhythm game even is.

Do I even need to speak about how overblown budgets are? Games should not cost more than 200 million dollars to develop. Period. I do not need uncompressed audio or 4k textures or the ultimate sin of online texture streaming. If you can't optimise your game to fit on a Blue-Ray, you did something wrong.

I'm not even going to begin on microtransactions, keep your fifa's away. Also, where are the arcade racers? The lightgun shooters? Seriously, two of my favorite genres are extinct in the modern landscape looking at triple A or for lightgun shooters even double A.

Overall, 60€ was already too much and 70€ is a fucking insult. (do not get me started on the GTA VI 100€ speculated price point)

What you're saying is a preference. It doesn't mean those things need to go away. Yes, the industry is in a terrible state and it needs to have another collapse. However, there will always be AAA titles with large budges because, I hate to say it, but games are more complicated than ever to make at those levels. I enjoy AAA titles quite a bit if they are done right.

Do you want these people to work for free? You have to understand games have evolved beyond a team of 20 or 30 doing a full AAA budget game. Games are cheaper than ever compared to what they used to cost. I think companies need to be happy making a lot of money and not ALL of the money forever. Chasing the next live service lightning in a bottle is making the industry collapse along with CEOs thinking 5 million units of a game isn't selling well enough when 10 years ago that would have been considered a smash runaway hit.

All those games you mentioned exist. Arcade racers exist everywhere and lightgun games exist in arcades still. They are still being made, but you can't make home light gun games as TVs don't work that way anymore. Unless you use motion tracking like with the Wii Zapper or something similar.

There will always be a space for AAA games. Yes, the cinematic games you don't like are AAA in scope and design. Sorry, but they just are.

Post automatically merged: Mar 3, 2025

My man, nobody even mentioned one hour per $1, also games got cheaper because the cost to make the actual carts and then discs got cheaper, as well as the gaming market just plain growing in size.

I would also like to argue that we should not have these hollywood style budgets in the first place once again, so we could actually recoup our money without slamming a 70€ price tag on it. Not to mention how we've regressed back to the NES where buying a triple A game was a major gamble in quality, except back then the odds were pretty even, now, the odds are in the house's favor.

And no, inflation isn't an arguement when we see literal shrinkflation of quality in gaming.

Hollywood style budgets will always be there. They will never go away especially with how technology has advanced. You can't expect video games with the quality that they are now like Silent Hill 2 to cost what? $20? It's just not feasible. We'd have to stop making more advanced consoles and make indie games only at that rate. AAA titles have been around forever. I just don't understand this argument. What's the answer then? Everyone complains but has no solution.

Games like Vampire Survivors were smash hits and it was $5. But that games cost little to make compared to the next Zelda game. Games need to be priced based on what they offer in value. I miss the days of $20 new releases like Katamari Damacy or when Greatest Hits released at $20 for those who missed out the first time.

 

[goregoregoregoregoregore]

There's something wrong with the fact that it costs so much to produce AAA games when most of them run on off the shelf engines and making videogames has literally never been easier.

This shit's not even that expensive to do anymore with the software and tools available these days. I can't even get behind that being a valid excuse for stupidly high budgets.

Basically what BinaryMessiah said. Most studios have big teams that need to spend too much time in the production of the game and you need to pay salaries, a place to work, the hardware to use, etc.

 

[BinaryMessiah]

Basically what BinaryMessiah said. Most studios have big teams that need to spend too much time in the production of the game and you need to pay salaries, a place to work, the hardware to use, etc.

I think a lot of people, especially younger games, just don't understand what goes into all of this. There are licensing costs for engine and technology, QA testers, marketing, various core development staff. A AAA title might need 20 artists and 10 concept artists. Then there are the store front fees, disc printing, you have to pay people who design the box art, there are people who spell check subtitles in the game for example. That doesn't change ever. It just scales down the smaller your budget gets. You just have more people wearing more hats to save money.

People want to have their cheap cake and eat it too. If you pay less money you will get either no big budget games or only indie games.

On top of that, the indie industry is thriving. IT's literally taken over the gaming industry since the early 2010's. That includes smaller AA titles as well. The games are there. You're just not looking hard enough.

 

[Opapete]

I think a lot of people, especially younger games, just don't understand what goes into all of this. There are licensing costs for engine and technology, QA testers, marketing, various core development staff. A AAA title might need 20 artists and 10 concept artists. Then there are the store front fees, disc printing, you have to pay people who design the box art, there are people who spell check subtitles in the game for example. That doesn't change ever. It just scales down the smaller your budget gets. You just have more people wearing more hats to save money.

People want to have their cheap cake and eat it too. If you pay less money you will get either no big budget games or only indie games.

On top of that, the indie industry is thriving. IT's literally taken over the gaming industry since the early 2010's. That includes smaller AA titles as well. The games are there. You're just not looking hard enough.

Pretty sure no major studio is making smaller double A titles at double A prices anymore. Nintendo does make double A games, but for triple A price, i.e. adding the nintendo tax.

Disc printing doesn't apply to triple A for the most part anymore by the way, digital purchases even existing should get game publishers to shut up about disc printing prices since digital isn't actually cheaper than physical.

Indies would be good if they were up to double A standards from the 2000s, I do not want another melodramatic game, I just want your attempt at making Ridge Racer 8, because that's what Project Wingman did for Ace Combat back when AC7 was still a pipedream for many, and it's one of the best indie games.

I will give you one thing, triple A takes a lot of resources, but if the end product that most triple A games are stays similarly crap, then I do not think that triple A should exist quite frankly. Also not to mention how many triple A games aren't even actually 70€, but more so 120€, because day 1 dlc is quite frankly absurd and goes to show the lack of respect triple A publishers have for their customers.

Post automatically merged: Mar 3, 2025

Also I just kind of want to add a sidenote I totally forgot, I do not want triple A to fully die, I just want triple A to be scaled back to say, 8th gen or 7th gen days, perhaps if we're feeling daring, 6th gen.

 

[BinaryMessiah]

Pretty sure no major studio is making smaller double A titles at double A prices anymore. Nintendo does make double A games, but for triple A price, i.e. adding the nintendo tax.

Disc printing doesn't apply to triple A for the most part anymore by the way, digital purchases even existing should get game publishers to shut up about disc printing prices since digital isn't actually cheaper than physical.

Indies would be good if they were up to double A standards from the 2000s, I do not want another melodramatic game, I just want your attempt at making Ridge Racer 8, because that's what Project Wingman did for Ace Combat back when AC7 was still a pipedream for many, and it's one of the best indie games.

I will give you one thing, triple A takes a lot of resources, but if the end product that most triple A games are stays similarly crap, then I do not think that triple A should exist quite frankly. Also not to mention how many triple A games aren't even actually 70€, but more so 120€, because day 1 dlc is quite frankly absurd and goes to show the lack of respect triple A publishers have for their customers.

Post automatically merged: Mar 3, 2025

Also I just kind of want to add a sidenote I totally forgot, I do not want triple A to fully die, I just want triple A to be scaled back to say, 8th gen or 7th gen days, perhaps if we're feeling daring, 6th gen.

Thanks for clearing more of that up. A lot of your points are correct and valid, however, AAA development will NEVER scale back as long as tech keeps advancing. It's just the way it is and always will be. It's been that way forever. I remember when people thought $60 was insane for games when the Xbox 360 launched. Yet, here we are. There are a lot of good AAA titles out there like God of War, Silent Hill 2, Gran Turismo 7, Astrobot etc. that deserve the full price. Let's not punish the good developers using their large budget to their advantage because a lot of others abuse it and waste the money on making a half made shitty title.

I think a lot of people are taking their generalized hatred for live service games and those with microtrascations and broadly blaming the entire AAA game scene as most of those games have AAA budgets. I also blame the yearly releases like the sports titles and Call of Duty for the drop in quality over the years. Thirdly, we need to blame the people buying them. Year after year these games face the same problems yet still make millions.

 

[goregoregoregoregoregore]

Pretty sure no major studio is making smaller double A titles at double A prices anymore. Nintendo does make double A games, but for triple A price, i.e. adding the nintendo tax.

Disc printing doesn't apply to triple A for the most part anymore by the way, digital purchases even existing should get game publishers to shut up about disc printing prices since digital isn't actually cheaper than physical.

Indies would be good if they were up to double A standards from the 2000s, I do not want another melodramatic game, I just want your attempt at making Ridge Racer 8, because that's what Project Wingman did for Ace Combat back when AC7 was still a pipedream for many, and it's one of the best indie games.

I will give you one thing, triple A takes a lot of resources, but if the end product that most triple A games are stays similarly crap, then I do not think that triple A should exist quite frankly. Also not to mention how many triple A games aren't even actually 70€, but more so 120€, because day 1 dlc is quite frankly absurd and goes to show the lack of respect triple A publishers have for their customers.

Post automatically merged: Mar 3, 2025

Also I just kind of want to add a sidenote I totally forgot, I do not want triple A to fully die, I just want triple A to be scaled back to say, 8th gen or 7th gen days, perhaps if we're feeling daring, 6th gen.

Well, then that's basically it that i have been saying too. I believe that games indeed take a lot more money to make, but what i believe makes them expensive is that you pay this big amount of money for less game length, less quality of gameplay, and shady unethical decisions by the studios.
Also, i think Nintendo just realized a long time ago they can get always with anything, Nintendo fans will just buy it, no questioning, simple as that.

 

[skagskagskag]

I will give you one thing, triple A takes a lot of resources, but if the end product that most triple A games are stays similarly crap, then I do not think that triple A should exist quite frankly.

This exactly. These ballooning budgets come from not paying workers fair wages (let alone the insanely underpaid overseas workers every major game dev makes use of), mismanaging projects, manipulative microtransactions, etc etc. It's the same for any major media industry today. Even if the AAA games industry regularly made the absolute best games ever (which it simply does not), just being as inefficient and exploitative is enough for me to say the AAA does not need to and honestly shouldn't exist. These games are luxury and don't even feel like it. Indie and properly managed/compensated AA is what gamers should be asking for, avoiding spending their money on obvious AAA slop.

 

[Somnia]

If we say the games of today don't then we're more or less saying games have never been worth the MSRP. Obviously that isn't the full picture given a different material reality for low and middle class people today, but its still somewhat relevant.

Its a long, tedious rant to complain about the problem and everything related to it but in a vacuum I'd say yea, games tend to be qworth the $60-70 they're asking for today. Truthfully we never should have ballooned projects and production values to require the disgusting budgets that many AAA/AAAA projects currently demand, but again its a whole tedious rant to go down.

At the end of the day I see games costing $20 more than they did 20-30 years ago despite having far larger budgets and in many cases having more content.

 

[Opapete]

Thanks for clearing more of that up. A lot of your points are correct and valid, however, AAA development will NEVER scale back as long as tech keeps advancing. It's just the way it is and always will be. It's been that way forever. I remember when people thought $60 was insane for games when the Xbox 360 launched. Yet, here we are. There are a lot of good AAA titles out there like God of War, Silent Hill 2, Gran Turismo 7, Astrobot etc. that deserve the full price. Let's not punish the good developers using their large budget to their advantage because a lot of others abuse it and waste the money on making a half made shitty title.

I think a lot of people are taking their generalized hatred for live service games and those with microtrascations and broadly blaming the entire AAA game scene as most of those games have AAA budgets. I also blame the yearly releases like the sports titles and Call of Duty for the drop in quality over the years. Thirdly, we need to blame the people buying them. Year after year these games face the same problems yet still make millions.

Gran Turismo 7 is a gameplay downgrade to Gran Turismo 6.
Silent Hill 2 is a literal PS2 game.
God of War is also a literal PS2 game, and the 2016 reboot is well, I'll hand you that one.
Astrobot is also fair.

I can genuinely not think of any recent triple A game that does deserve the 60€ price, let alone 70€. If anyone actually has any good ones, please tell me so, but I can genuinely not think of any. Also it's not microtransactions in live services, it's microtransactions in triple A games that make people fume at the mouth like rabid dogs.

Post automatically merged: Mar 3, 2025

If we say the games of today don't then we're more or less saying games have never been worth the MSRP. Obviously that isn't the full picture given a different material reality for low and middle class people today, but its still somewhat relevant.

Its a long, tedious rant to complain about the problem and everything related to it but in a vacuum I'd say yea, games tend to be qworth the $60-70 they're asking for today. Truthfully we never should have ballooned projects and production values to require the disgusting budgets that many AAA/AAAA projects currently demand, but again its a whole tedious rant to go down.

At the end of the day I see games costing $20 more than they did 20-30 years ago despite having far larger budgets and in many cases having more content.

If triple A games weren't as buggy, generally crap and filled with bafflingly stupid game design decisions, this argument would be valid. Unfortunately for your argument, triple A is on a dirt path. And the price points are only so high because they need to make their money back, somehow.

 

[BinaryMessiah]

Gran Turismo 7 is a gameplay downgrade to Gran Turismo 6.
Silent Hill 2 is a literal PS2 game.
God of War is also a literal PS2 game, and the 2016 reboot is well, I'll hand you that one.
Astrobot is also fair.

I can genuinely not think of any recent triple A game that does deserve the 60€ price, let alone 70€. If anyone actually has any good ones, please tell me so, but I can genuinely not think of any. Also it's not microtransactions in live services, it's microtransactions in triple A games that make people fume at the mouth like rabid dogs.

That's an unfair broad generalization that makes no sense. Astrobot is a reskinned Super Mario Galaxy then with that logic. This type of logic is not the answer. They are not "literal PS2 games" they are full remakes. Resident Evil 4 and the Dead Space remake also deserved the $60 price tag. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean someone else doesn't. I don't care for the Souls-like games. However, just because I don't like them doesn't mean I think they don't deserve the full price tag or the fanbase they have. They just aren't for me. The games are widely praised for a reason. I feel like you need to look elsewhere for your gaming needs if you are that jaded about larger titles. I feel there are plenty of games that deserve a $60 price that didn't charge that as well on the opposite side. I would have gladly paid more.

Again, as long as it's good quality and the developers come with love and respect with what they are doing and value the gamer's dollar and time than they deserve the money they are asking for. I don't think the price tag is the main villain here.

Also, live service games period are a cancer in the industry that need to die. Microtransactions or not.

 

[Opapete]

That's an unfair broad generalization that makes no sense. Astrobot is a reskinned Super Mario Galaxy then with that logic. This type of logic is not the answer. They are not "literal PS2 games" they are full remakes. Resident Evil 4 and the Dead Space remake also deserved the $60 price tag. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean someone else doesn't. I don't care for the Souls-like games. However, just because I don't like them doesn't mean I think they don't deserve the full price tag or the fanbase they have. They just aren't for me. The games are widely praised for a reason. I feel like you need to look elsewhere for your gaming needs if you are that jaded about larger titles. I feel there are plenty of games that deserve a $60 price that didn't charge that as well on the opposite side. I would have gladly paid more.

Again, as long as it's good quality and the developers come with love and respect with what they are doing and value the gamer's dollar and time than they deserve the money they are asking for. I don't think the price tag is the main villain here.

Also, live service games period are a cancer in the industry that need to die. Microtransactions or not.

You ment the Silent Hill 2 remake? Sorry.

 

[BinaryMessiah]

You ment the Silent Hill 2 remake? Sorry.

Lol yes! Sorry, now that you say that what you said make perfect sense. ?‍

 

[Opapete]

Lol yes! Sorry, now that you say that what you said make perfect sense. ?‍

Yeah, I was thinking about the original game, probably because that's what I always knew as THE Silent Hill 2. (alongsides the shitty hd collection version using fucking comic sans lmao)

Post automatically merged: Mar 3, 2025

But honestly, this might shock considering all that I've said already, if there's truly a game that is up to snuff, I am infact willing to pay 60€, during the launch window at least. 70€ is still a little too steep and would require either bundling up some previous games in a series (i.e. bundling Ridge Racer 8 with a Ridge Racer collection) or something that has a special controller (i.e. Dance Dance Revolution or beatmania) in my eyes.

 

[BinaryMessiah]

Yeah, I was thinking about the original game, probably because that's what I always knew as THE Silent Hill 2. (alongsides the shitty hd collection version using fucking comic sans lmao)

Post automatically merged: Mar 3, 2025

But honestly, this might shock considering all that I've said already, if there's truly a game that is up to snuff, I am infact willing to pay 60€, during the launch window at least. 70€ is still a little too steep and would require either bundling up some previous games in a series (i.e. bundling Ridge Racer 8 with a Ridge Racer collection) or something that has a special controller (i.e. Dance Dance Revolution or beatmania) in my eyes.

That would make the cost go higher than $70 if it included physical hardware. I would hate to see what a new Guitar Hero or Rock Band would cost today if the entire guitar and drum set was $200 10 years ago. Even for a compilation to be offered with a new title there could be a cost increase or the game couldn't happen without cuts. For example, a racing game with licensed music would need to have those licenses renewed. Each game would need to be play tested and maybe ported to a new engine or an emulator code would have to be written and that costs time and money.

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 + 2 was well worth the $50 at launch, but it still couldn't feature every single song from the original games. It's not as cut and dry as you would think. Now if an indie rhythm game was released physically it could maybe keep this under $70, but you wouldn't be able to expect licensed songs or very few of them. I remember DJ Max Technika Tune for Vita was a digital only release and it was still $50. Those music licenses are expensive.

It would require a lot of cleverness from the developers to keep costs down. A lot of remakes are being made these days to see if there is interest in these old franchises. Same for collection compilations. The Final Fantasy Pixel Remaster collection is $80 both digitally and physically, but that six FF games that all had rework done to the. Does that justify $80? If you love FF probably. Maybe to a new player who wants to discover these for the first time.

The question isn't what worth $60 these days as there are none. It's what's worth $60 to ME? That's the beauty of gaming. We have options! I'm sure there's something out there.

Also, the SH HD Collection was shitty, but it wasn't the developer's fault. That's a long sad story. That was Konami's fault.

 

[Opapete]

At least for rhythm games, you can make your own music on the cheap, it's been done countless times in the genre.

Post automatically merged: Mar 4, 2025

That would make the cost go higher than $70 if it included physical hardware. I would hate to see what a new Guitar Hero or Rock Band would cost today if the entire guitar and drum set was $200 10 years ago. Even for a compilation to be offered with a new title there could be a cost increase or the game couldn't happen without cuts. For example, a racing game with licensed music would need to have those licenses renewed. Each game would need to be play tested and maybe ported to a new engine or an emulator code would have to be written and that costs time and money.

And to comment on this, no. I'm not asking for a full set of keyboard, drums, guitar and a microphone as if it's a quadruple pack of Keyboardmania, Guitarfreaks, Drummania and some random karaoke game. I literally ment DDR pad as a literal singular DDR softpad like it's the ps2 days. (and considering that we're behind on console versions since x2, they honestly could just bundle up all the konami original content into one package and again save on licencing fees and perhaps actually justify a 80€ pricetag but noooo, instead we have to milk customers with DDR Grand Prix)

 

[DecentVoid]

i think only physical sales should have high price tag and digital should be half
cause they only pay for data server and they dont lose a peny on boxart/plastics/discs/transits and middle-mans...

(there is another thing we need to talk about and its graphics the higher graphic demands the lower the audience and indiana jones is a example)

 

[Opapete]

For example, a racing game with licensed music would need to have those licenses renewed. Each game would need to be play tested and maybe ported to a new engine or an emulator code would have to be written and that costs time and money.

Additionally, pretty sure at least Ridge Racer doesn't have licenced music, except for 7, which has music from King Street Sounds afaik. Actually some pretty neat stuff on there but then again, the most sensible choice for a collection bundled with a new installment would be the first four games so there's that.

Also pretty sure the emulator already exists, at least on Playstation, again, going with the sensible assumption, we already have a PS1 emulator on Playstation 3, 4 and 5 and the PS2 natively runs PS1 titles. As for Xbox Series consoles and Nintendo Switch/Switch 2, honestly, I doubt that they couldn't licence it out and then adapt it for those consoles. (if it isn't a PS exclusive like most Ridge Racer games are) PC would be similar although to be fair, Sony probably would probably end up making their PS Classics program onto PC soon anyways like everything else they do now.

Post automatically merged: Mar 4, 2025

(there is another thing we need to talk about and its graphics the higher graphic demands the lower the audience and indiana jones is a example)

Yes. So much yes. This is kind of what I'm getting at by my previous points, we've come to a point where every game is Crysis and takes top of the line hardware of the time to function at a solid 60 fps. (also down due to horrendous optimisation now)

It's not like modern games look or run good either, they look like a blurry toilet bowl and run worse than Daytona on the Saturn! It's down to Unreal Engine 5 mostly though, so not every developer's games are affected by the UE5 house of blurry horrors. Unity is basically off the table since their download fee fiasco that never actually happened but scared literally everyone away from Unity and making a inhouse engine is kind of out of the question for a mostly double A studio.

It's not even that prebuilt engines are bad, Renderware basically defined the 6th gen of gaming, but Unreal Engine 4 and now 5 were never ment to be Renderware's successor, but EA killed Renderware off, leaving us in the prebuilt engine market we are in now, Unity is avoided like the plague, UE5 (and to a much, much lesser extent UE4) are unoptimised pieces of shit only good for tech demos that still look like a blurry toilet bowl but at least don't have to run well and there's not much more in options for triple and double A other than making an inhouse engine.

It's not graphics, it's the engine, but as modern graphics are associated with the modern engine, they are also an issue that needs correction. I'd say we take our engines back to say, whenever Yakuza 0 came out, that game looks and runs great, even for today's standards, either that or we get another superengine like Renderware that is just that great.

Also would have the side effect of triple A games being cheaper to make once again, you don't need a massive budget anymore, just a big budget.

 

[BinaryMessiah]

Additionally, pretty sure at least Ridge Racer doesn't have licenced music, except for 7, which has music from King Street Sounds afaik. Actually some pretty neat stuff on there but then again, the most sensible choice for a collection bundled with a new installment would be the first four games so there's that.

Also pretty sure the emulator already exists, at least on Playstation, again, going with the sensible assumption, we already have a PS1 emulator on Playstation 3, 4 and 5 and the PS2 natively runs PS1 titles. As for Xbox Series consoles and Nintendo Switch/Switch 2, honestly, I doubt that they couldn't licence it out and then adapt it for those consoles. (if it isn't a PS exclusive like most Ridge Racer games are) PC would be similar although to be fair, Sony probably would probably end up making their PS Classics program onto PC soon anyways like everything else they do now.

Post automatically merged: Mar 4, 2025

The emulator code belongs to Sony. They would have to pay a license fee to Sony to use their emulator code. If they make a multi-platform game they are better off making their own emulator code and then it can be distributed on every console and run within the game environment. That's just how these things work. No company is going to let a third-party use their stuff for free. The only time this would be an exception is if the game ends up being Sony exclusive then they might let them use the emulator code for free.

Post automatically merged: Mar 4, 2025

It's not even that prebuilt engines are bad, Renderware basically defined the 6th gen of gaming, but Unreal Engine 4 and now 5 were never ment to be Renderware's successor, but EA killed Renderware off, leaving us in the prebuilt engine market we are in now, Unity is avoided like the plague, UE5 (and to a much, much lesser extent UE4) are unoptimised pieces of shit only good for tech demos that still look like a blurry toilet bowl but at least don't have to run well and there's not much more in options for triple and double A other than making an inhouse engine.

It's not graphics, it's the engine, but as modern graphics are associated with the modern engine, they are also an issue that needs correction. I'd say we take our engines back to say, whenever Yakuza 0 came out, that game looks and runs great, even for today's standards, either that or we get another superengine like Renderware that is just that great.

Also would have the side effect of triple A games being cheaper to make once again, you don't need a massive budget anymore, just a big budget.

This is really a problem right now. UE5 runs like shit on everything and with graphics card struggling to do raytracing without AI upscaling and frame generation we're in a position where our software is years ahead of the hardware, but instead of slowing down everything is crowbarred in. It's why there are so many AAA titles with messy launches like Monster Hunter Wilds and Star Wars Outlaws. They all used engines that either don't fit that genre (the RE Engine isn't meant for games like Monster Hunter) and Indiana Jones runs so well because it's using id Tech 7 which MachineGames have mastered. They have been using that engine for over 10 years now. A lot of publishers will also force developers to switch engines mid cycle.

Another good example is when EA forced Bioware to use the Frostbite engine for Dragon Age Inquisition instead of their own engine. That engine was designed for an FPS. Not an open-world RPG. It's one of the reasons why Inquisition was so linear and ran like garbage.

 

[SolemnlyDoc]

I was fine with a $60 price tag in the early 2010s. The pricing structure made sense to me back then, $60 for a top of the line game from an established company and $40 for a game from a relatively underground/new company you take a chance on. But that was back when AAA games came with the certainty of quality. Now it feels like a crap shoot as to whether the game will even be playable. Now with live service games we're paying full price for half of a game or less, and I just can't abide that. I think game prices should stay about the same; yes working wages have come up and production budgets have grown, but the tech to make games has become cheaper and the game companies who want to charge the most are the ones with billions of dollars in the bank. If anything games should be cheaper right now as consumers are in a cost of living crisis.

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

No, not when they are essentially rentals.

 

[BinaryMessiah]

If anything games should be cheaper right now as consumers are in a cost of living crisis.

Games aren't a charity. They're a business. Games haven't gone up in price much in the last 20 years. I don't understand why gamers think developers should make games for practically free. If the living crisis is going up so are the cost of games. They need to pay developers more as they are living through this as well. Let's not punish the devs. It's usually the greedy publishers, and specifically, a small group who are in charge of the finances. We are demonizing the wrong people here.

Yes, there are some bad developers out there, but in a lot of cases they are just doing the best they can with what they have. That's either a small budget, time limit, restrictions of all sorts, or all of the above. A lot of games are released in terrible states due to time crunches that are forced onto the developers. The developers also don't set the price point unless they are self publishing.

 

[SolemnlyDoc]

Games aren't a charity. They're a business. Games haven't gone up in price much in the last 20 years. I don't understand why gamers think developers should make games for practically free. If the living crisis is going up so are the cost of games. They need to pay developers more as they are living through this as well. Let's not punish the devs. It's usually the greedy publishers, and specifically, a small group who are in charge of the finances. We are demonizing the wrong people here.

Yes, there are some bad developers out there, but in a lot of cases they are just doing the best they can with what they have. That's either a small budget, time limit, restrictions of all sorts, or all of the above. A lot of games are released in terrible states due to time crunches that are forced onto the developers. The developers also don't set the price point unless they are self publishing.

I never mentioned devs at all. Nobody needs a billion dollars, nobody. Charging $75 for a game would be somewhat tolerable if the people making the game were being paid that money, but they make $80k a year while the CEO pockets millions. So no, there is no reason for games to be sold that high. Besides, there are more people buying games now than ever before, so it offsets any other cost easily.

 

[King Koopa's iconKing Koopa]

Maybe for bigger games that you can easily put in 100+ hours otherwise no.

 

[Opapete]

No, not when they are essentially rentals.

I totally forgot this as well, you don't actually buy games anymore, you rent them for an indefinite period until the publisher decides to revoke access to it, we actually have seen this before (The Crew being the standout example here) and it is completly intransperant that you aren't actually buying anything.

Even physical games are affected due to always online drm or due to them not having the game on the disc anymore. (Which is supposed to be the reason why you buy physical by the way)

 

[Opapete]

Games aren't a charity. They're a business. Games haven't gone up in price much in the last 20 years. I don't understand why gamers think developers should make games for practically free. If the living crisis is going up so are the cost of games. They need to pay developers more as they are living through this as well. Let's not punish the devs. It's usually the greedy publishers, and specifically, a small group who are in charge of the finances. We are demonizing the wrong people here.

Yes, there are some bad developers out there, but in a lot of cases they are just doing the best they can with what they have. That's either a small budget, time limit, restrictions of all sorts, or all of the above. A lot of games are released in terrible states due to time crunches that are forced onto the developers. The developers also don't set the price point unless they are self publishing.

Just a small note, the 8th gen had far less of the budget and time problems, they still had them, sure, but not every game was some kind of Driv3r situation where it straight up has to sell multiple million to break even.

I blame 9th gen gaming for that as a whole, we as the players didn't recieve much in terms of better gameplay or even better graphics (graphics got worse even, but that's more a UE5 and optimisation issue), but we are expected to shell out more money for new hardware, more money for the games and more storage space than ever before, all for a very marginally better product. (that typically isn't even better)

Of course these issues aren't exclusive to the 9th gen, but only now do we really see them this prominently. Also, most of the times, the budget isn't going to the developers but to the corporate suits and the marketing, just as an fyi.

Post automatically merged: Mar 5, 2025

No AAA modern game does not deserve 60-70 euro price tag I mean first off they are always a buggy mess and I mean almost 0 quality control, Or they are broken.

If I do a shitty job i´m not getting paid for it that´s life yet we are suppose to pay companies shit load of money for an unfinished product that´s pure insanity.

Also lets talk fighting games your asking me to pay 60+ euro for your game plus another 20-30 euro to get all the charters. Man back in the day you unlocked new charter by beating the game today you pay for it ..... fucking hell so to get a full game you need to pay 100-120 euro.

My rent is 600 euro a month that would be about 5 games.

Also also, very true. You used to be able to actually unlock things in games by playing the game like a normal person, now, it's all microtransactions and dlc. I mean really, if SSF2T was made today, Akuma would be a 5€ dlc instead of an secret character.

And the point about the actual full game being more so 100-120€ is valid and this is very much a big plague on triple A right now, again, day 1 dlc is fucking absurd and locking 20% of the game behind an extra purchase at launch is stupid.