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

[Lee__Kanker]

 

[Krazy Kat]

why don't y'all just subscribe microsoft gamepass if the price is too high just wait until the price become affordable

Post automatically merged: Mar 19, 2025

As always it depends on the game as far as the "is it worth x amount of my work hours to buy it“-factor is concerned. That’s basically just a matter of personal preference.

As far as man-hours that go into creating games these days are concerned the price tag is comparatively moderate. Additionally when adjusting for inflation we’re actually paying a lot less for games than several years to decades ago.

I also think a lot of people completely underestimate the cost of maintaining digital distribution networks.

Having said that there are definitely some predatory pricing practices at play today.

baldur gate, skyrim, dungeon and dragon is worth every penny

 

[Opapete]

why don't y'all just subscribe microsoft gamepass if the price is too high just wait until the price become affordable

Because most of the games worth the money on there are games people probably already played, if not, then typically those are older modern titles, they should be around the 20€ mark, affordable in comparison.

baldur gate, skyrim, dungeon and dragon is worth every penny

Which Baldur's Gate do you mean exactly, I presume 3 but I could be wrong and with D&D, I'm guessing you do mean the aforementioned Baldur's Gate but still I could be wrong.

As for Skyrim, that game should NOT be 60€ anymore, even for rereleases, it's older than GTA V and that's only 30€ on the most recent pc "enhanced" release. I do not need to get into why that is a big deal, we all know just how major GTA is as a triple A game ever since GTA 3.

 

[PrismRed]

Yeah they do, I'm an idiot so I can't give out full blown explanation, Ima put this way, AAA games costs $70 now, adjusted for inflation, it's $40 in the nineties.
And you guess it, that's how much game costs in 90s, $40, if you count labor and stuff now, technically speaking video games are CHEAPER now.

 

[Opapete]

Yeah they do, I'm an idiot so I can't give out full blown explanation, Ima put this way, AAA games costs $70 now, adjusted for inflation, it's $40 in the nineties.
And you guess it, that's how much game costs in 90s, $40, if you count labor and stuff now, technically speaking video games are CHEAPER now.

Thing is, you do not need anywhere near as much labor anymore to make a game, for example, you don't need to make an engine anymore, some developers still make them but you do not have to. It has gotten easier to make games in general, small indie teams can put out games that would have been considered double a standard back during the ps2 era. Fact is also that triple a titles didn't increase too much in scope since GTA V, the only thing that has gotten "better" are graphics, which is useless when trying to determine the price of a videogame unless a game looks horrible.

 

[Moth_Lobster]

Thing is, you do not need anywhere near as much labor anymore to make a game, for example, you don't need to make an engine anymore, some developers still make them but you do not have to. It has gotten easier to make games in general, small indie teams can put out games that would have been considered double a standard back during the ps2 era. Fact is also that triple a titles didn't increase too much in scope since GTA V, the only thing that has gotten "better" are graphics, which is useless when trying to determine the price of a videogame unless a game looks horrible.

I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that game development costs and time have also skyrocketed. Most studios can't make a sequel in a year with only a handful of people anymore. It costs more to make a videogame and takes longer than it ever has, all while also having far more people work on it than ever.
And this isn't because workplaces suddenly stopped being awful to their workers either. I'd be fine waiting longer for games to come out if it meant that the poor people making the games didn't need to work 60+ hour weeks, but unfortunately that still happens as well. Everything is just getting bigger and more complex and taking longer because the baseline for quality is going up (for the most part. There are some people who release subpar trash regularly and still stay afloat).

 

[DeadVoivod]

I think it's fine, considering development.

In the early 80s games were more expensive, commercial computer games around 45€ and console games even more, like between 35-70€. And that's over 40 years ago, so compared to today, when I pay 60-70€ and get 100 hours of gameplay, I think I'm fine.

 

[Opapete]

I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that game development costs and time have also skyrocketed. Most studios can't make a sequel in a year with only a handful of people anymore. It costs more to make a videogame and takes longer than it ever has, all while also having far more people work on it than ever.
And this isn't because workplaces suddenly stopped being awful to their workers either. I'd be fine waiting longer for games to come out if it meant that the poor people making the games didn't need to work 60+ hour weeks, but unfortunately that still happens as well. Everything is just getting bigger and more complex and taking longer because the baseline for quality is going up (for the most part. There are some people who release subpar trash regularly and still stay afloat).

If the baseline of quality is going up then I'm the king of England.

Yes, game development time and costs have increased, however, the quality of the average triple a title has gone down drastically. It has gotten to the point that people are scared that GTA VI is going to be a literal bug filled mess with it's online being filled with even worse microtransactions and grinding than GTA V's had. I would also like to mention that game design seems to be getting neglected more and more. Take GT7's excuse of a singleplayer career, with it's railroading, lack of care about concepts established in previous entries (the IB, IA and S licences are useless in the game and technically aren't even licences, because they don't licence you to do anything, the final championship in this game only requires the A licence), the AI (exception for the clubman cup plus races), the entire roulette system, the legend cars dealership, probably some more I forgot.

These are only two examples, but one demostrates how triple a games are getting low in quality, as demostrated by consumer reaction to a series that has been praised for it's quality games and the other demostrates my point about game design. It is safe to say the quality argument is moot.

What else takes up time, money and requires additional staff when making a triple a game? Graphics. Not art style, but graphics. Triple a games have not evolved visibly in terms of gameplay and have actually devolved in terms of game design. Story doesn't apply to all triple a games, so I will leave it out here to simplify the process. That really only leaves graphics and audio, and while we clown on goofs like "Uncompressed Audio", audio generally doesn't take up nearly as much resources or prioity as graphics do.

While I could argue about the technical details about graphics nowadays and how they've gotten visibly worse, that has more things to do with the tools devs use nowadays and isn't as relevant for responding to this.

My point is that graphics are being overprioritized for less and less positive returns, comparing older 10 year old triple a titles to triple a titles from this year and last year, it honestly seems like barely any improvements were made. Despite that, they require much more powerful hardware and in extreme cases even things such as texture streaming.

Games are also becoming not really becoming much bigger or more complex. Perhaps complex as in computations that require the aforementioned powerful hardware, but not more complex as in terms of gameplay, at least not to an extent that a player can actually feel the difference. A lot of this added size in newer games is also simple bloat. Empty areas, vast oceans of pure nothing, these maps are spread very thin.

I'm not gonna comment very much on crunch culture here but, suffice it to say, that only devalues a game further.

Looking at it objectively, triple a games have gotten worse in quality, worse in game design, worse in graphics and only stayed on the same level in audio, yet the system requirements are getting higher and higher, alongside prices.

Subjectively, you can still have fun with these new triple a titles, no question about it. My point isn't to take away anyone's fun, my point is that these games are not worth the money they are charging. They do not deserve these price tags, no amount of arguing about costs or time will change that.

 

[Tbest25]

 

[snes9x]

It sucks but has the small benefit of guilting me out of buying more games when my backlog is already so stacked. Mostly I just wait for sales.

 

[Moth_Lobster]

If the baseline of quality is going up then I'm the king of England.

Yes, game development time and costs have increased, however, the quality of the average triple a title has gone down drastically. It has gotten to the point that people are scared that GTA VI is going to be a literal bug filled mess with it's online being filled with even worse microtransactions and grinding than GTA V's had. I would also like to mention that game design seems to be getting neglected more and more. Take GT7's excuse of a singleplayer career, with it's railroading, lack of care about concepts established in previous entries (the IB, IA and S licences are useless in the game and technically aren't even licences, because they don't licence you to do anything, the final championship in this game only requires the A licence), the AI (exception for the clubman cup plus races), the entire roulette system, the legend cars dealership, probably some more I forgot.

These are only two examples, but one demostrates how triple a games are getting low in quality, as demostrated by consumer reaction to a series that has been praised for it's quality games and the other demostrates my point about game design. It is safe to say the quality argument is moot.

What else takes up time, money and requires additional staff when making a triple a game? Graphics. Not art style, but graphics. Triple a games have not evolved visibly in terms of gameplay and have actually devolved in terms of game design. Story doesn't apply to all triple a games, so I will leave it out here to simplify the process. That really only leaves graphics and audio, and while we clown on goofs like "Uncompressed Audio", audio generally doesn't take up nearly as much resources or prioity as graphics do.

While I could argue about the technical details about graphics nowadays and how they've gotten visibly worse, that has more things to do with the tools devs use nowadays and isn't as relevant for responding to this.

My point is that graphics are being overprioritized for less and less positive returns, comparing older 10 year old triple a titles to triple a titles from this year and last year, it honestly seems like barely any improvements were made. Despite that, they require much more powerful hardware and in extreme cases even things such as texture streaming.

Games are also becoming not really becoming much bigger or more complex. Perhaps complex as in computations that require the aforementioned powerful hardware, but not more complex as in terms of gameplay, at least not to an extent that a player can actually feel the difference. A lot of this added size in newer games is also simple bloat. Empty areas, vast oceans of pure nothing, these maps are spread very thin.

I'm not gonna comment very much on crunch culture here but, suffice it to say, that only devalues a game further.

Looking at it objectively, triple a games have gotten worse in quality, worse in game design, worse in graphics and only stayed on the same level in audio, yet the system requirements are getting higher and higher, alongside prices.

Subjectively, you can still have fun with these new triple a titles, no question about it. My point isn't to take away anyone's fun, my point is that these games are not worth the money they are charging. They do not deserve these price tags, no amount of arguing about costs or time will change that.

for complex I meant the computations and stuff yeah. Looking at something like an open world rpg, the stuff necessary to have a party member follow behind your main character without stumbling all over the place, getting stuck on geometry or falling through the floor because there's a 2cm crack between a rock and the ground alone probably takes up more effort than most games from the ps2 era just because worlds get larger and more detailed so we have a billion more things to worry about. Factor in all the other stuff going on and we'll be here for a long while making sure the game doesn't collapse in on itself. As funny as it is and as much as we make jokes about Bethesda having an NPC throw a temper tantrum because he can't find a way to sit in a chair directly in front of him, we kinda don't want this to happen in most games. We especially wouldn't want anything game breaking or irritating to happen as a result.
Graphically I feel like we did hit a plateau yeah. Not saying we don't have some absolutely masterful things still coming out in that regard, but we've kind of hit the point where almost every game coming out looks great. Games that actually shock people with how beautiful they look nowadays are more and more rare since every game looks pretty good by default unless its a lower budget title.

I want to argue the other points though, because I would argue that most games coming out nowadays (or at least the ones I play) are held to a certain standard of quality. There are younger gamers who have an issue going back to Xbox 360/PS3 games because to them, those games play clunkily, or are hard to control (yeah I know, makes me feel old too and i'm only in my mid 20s). Go back even farther to the ps2, ps1, gamecube and so on and some newer gamers act like they are literally unplayable because controls might not be as tight or the game might be prone to very visible technical issues compared to their newer counterparts.
I want to specify that I am not talking about conscious game design choices when I say this. I don't want a repeat of the early to mid 2000's where people threw pissy fits over turn based RPGs and stuff like that. I am specifically referring to technical issues or mechanics in games that have progressively gotten smoother or more refined over the years. A game coming out nowadays without these refinements would likely get ripped to shreds by basically any gamer or reviewer.

The whole battle pass microtransaction thing is annoying but not every game has these. I'd actually argue the majority of singleplayer games coming out do not have these. Look at the AAA games that have come out within the past few years. Monster Hunter Wilds, God of War Ragnarok, Literally every Nintendo game, FF7 Rebirth, FF16, Spider-Man 2, Dragon's Dogma 2, Elden Ring and its expansion, Like a Dragon Infinite Wealth and more, the past few years are FILLED with big budget, major studio published games that don't have this stuff. Most of the ones I listed are even good!

 

[Mini_Man.XW]

Nar, new games usually be ass.

 

[Jeanfranc]

Wait, you guys actually pay for shit?

 

[Dyne]

Games are actually cheaper now than they were when I was a kid, adjusted for inflation etc. But I almost never buy them at full price anyway. The way games frequently go on sale nowadays is amazing and if you have a backlog (you know you do) then you can play your backlog until the new game goes on sale.

 

[Leon]

Wait, you guys actually pay for shit?

When the game i feel deserves my money like most falcom games, though that's getting less and less common these days.

Games are actually cheaper now than they were when I was a kid, adjusted for inflation etc. But I almost never buy them at full price anyway. The way games frequently go on sale nowadays is amazing and if you have a backlog (you know you do) then you can play your backlog until the new game goes on sale.

I remember buying a cartridge copy of phantasy star 4 for like 90$ USD, the thing is games back then felt like they put more love in them for the good ones, hence why modern gaming feels so stale, chrono trigger is a all time classic that can be played 3 decades after it's release and feel like it is still fresh, but final fantasy 13 feels boring to me.

 

[micheI]

No.

 

[Jeanfranc]

falcom games

Oh boy

Haha... I guess it's time to not hold back.

>What was that?
>Instructor Rean! quick, this way!
>are those... [placeholder]!?
*Rean pulls sword out of thin air*
>Class Seven, our duty is to stop [placeholder]
*kills enemies*
>wew, they're unconscious for now, lets move!
>Reans students yell: RIGHT!!!!
*make it to destination*
>It's it's [characters name]... No it's [Characters Title]!
>Well if it isn't Class Seven!
>What are you doing here!?
>We're here for a special mission of sorts. Information I can't share with you.
>Well we'll just beat it out of you!
>CLASS SEVEN, MOVE OUT!
>RIGHT!
>Que: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APhiVB7ipfc

INFORMATION: REMOVE 40% OF ENEMIES HEALTH

*battle Over*
*Rean kneeling and panting with his students*
>No... They're too strong... I'm going to have to use... THAT.
>No Instructor Rean you can't!
>HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>Que: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r_tEhzh5X0
>Wait... is that..! [Old Class Seven name placeholder]!!!!!!
*is able to drive back the enemy like it was nothing, the same enemy Rean and kids couldn't stop*
>Well that's enough fun for today
>!?
>WAIT! WHAT IS OUROBOROS AFTER!?
>Haha... wouldn't you like to know.

 

[Leon]

Oh boy

Haha... I guess it's time to not hold back.

>What was that?
>Instructor Rean! quick, this way!
>are those... [placeholder]!?
*Rean pulls sword out of thin air*
>Class Seven, our duty is to stop [placeholder]
*kills enemies*
>wew, they're unconscious for now, lets move!
>Reans students yell: RIGHT!!!!
*make it to destination*
>It's it's [characters name]... No it's [Characters Title]!
>Well if it isn't Class Seven!
>What are you doing here!?
>We're here for a special mission of sorts. Information I can't share with you.
>Well we'll just beat it out of you!
>CLASS SEVEN, MOVE OUT!
>RIGHT!
>Que: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APhiVB7ipfc

INFORMATION: REMOVE 40% OF ENEMIES HEALTH

*battle Over*
*Rean kneeling and panting with his students*
>No... They're too strong... I'm going to have to use... THAT.
>No Instructor Rean you can't!
>HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>Que: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r_tEhzh5X0
>Wait... is that..! [Old Class Seven name placeholder]!!!!!!
*is able to drive back the enemy like it was nothing, the same enemy Rean and kids couldn't stop*
>Well that's enough fun for today
>!?
>WAIT! WHAT IS OUROBOROS AFTER!?
>Haha... wouldn't you like to know.

Tbh when i first played it i felt the same way, but it's still a far better game than most jrpg's these days (i include the daybreak games in that btw, as i think daybreak is inferior to all of the cold steel games and reverie).

 

[Jeanfranc]

I include the daybreak games in that btw, as i think daybreak is inferior to all of the cold steel games and reverie).

Really? How so? Kuro seems way more popular than the Cold Steel games.

As for me I stopped after finishing Cold Steel IV, I was too tired of falcom's writing and just didn't like the series anymore. Honestly I don't like any of the games that came after The Third, and the only one I genuinely love is First Chapter: I do like SC's story but 90% of it is padding, FC and SC should've been a single game as intented and I am extremely disappointed they didn't do that for the Remake

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Games are actually cheaper now than they were when I was a kid, adjusted for inflation etc. But I almost never buy them at full price anyway. The way games frequently go on sale nowadays is amazing and if you have a backlog (you know you do) then you can play your backlog until the new game goes on sale.

Eh, true but still doesn't excuse DLCs.

 

[thanonyx thanonyx]

No, make them cheaper or tell my boss to give me more money.

 

[TamagotchiTamaHero24's icon TamagotchiTamaHero24 TamagotchiTamaHero24]

It HEAVILY depends, because the question is so broad.

It feels like a cop out answer, but it’s very dependent on you. Most people on the forum will say “no” because they’re devout Retro gamers or pirates. Not a judge, just how it is. Most people here won’t pay those prices typically. Lord knows I don’t.

Gaming is a hobby. Hobby does not mean “buy every game”. Hobby does not mean “buy every game at retail price”. It may if you go digital, but that’s the price you pay for going digital, on console anyway (we speak not of what horrors the Steam Summer Sale has done to my wallet + backlog). Does a game interest you? Does it seem like a good deal? Would you buy it at $70? Or $60? Or $50? If the answer is no, then don’t buy it at those prices. Wait. And, if you’re afraid of spoilers, there are methods you can take to mitigate that. Methods that are probably healthy in order to mediate your internet usage to healthy levels.

As we stand, at this moment, everything is expensive. Do I want to spend the amount I see for eggs? No. And they’re not important to my current diet, so I don’t buy them. For current games, I don’t need to play every game. There’s many I’ve been like “I’d like to play that!” But then balked at the price in comparison to other games I wanted more and decided to wait or skip. Temptation is a powerful thing, but mediating your own temptations is an expected part of adulthood. There is no list that works for everyone of “this is what this game is worth!”, but you know what you like and what your own expectations are. You need to make the hard decisions. You can’t have it all, so only go for the games you yourself feel are truly worth it to get at their price.



(I should note, this is not covering other extenuating issues such as company policies and nonsense regarding that. There are so many extraneous things that make this more difficult. This is to say nothing of the grey market that exists for retro games, which I do have issues mediating and controlling myself with, so I have to acknowledge my own failings there. But, I feel like this answer is the closest you can get to a general response to the topic.)

Post automatically merged: Mar 29, 2025

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

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.

And this is one of the most frustrating things in the space that I couldn’t put in my initial response. I feel continually frustrated at how content is sectioned off to be a fee and not simply an unlockable part of the package. It hurts everyone at the end of the day when it’s done poorly.

Character DLC is a different story, and probably a better story (you don’t need to buy every character. Choose the ones you want and then go). It’s costume related content that irks me. That stuff could easily either be in the base package or be unlocked in the base package. It’s sectioned out as a purchase because they can. It could be given out as an update to the game, but it’s sectioned out anyway. Because people want costumes, no matter the game, and these things always seem to sell. It sucks, but it won’t change, and that makes me sad. I pine to find cool unlockables in modern games, because so few games have any at all, and I think that’s a darn shame.

 

[Leon]

Really? How so? Kuro seems way more popular than the Cold Steel games.

As for me I stopped after finishing Cold Steel IV, I was too tired of falcom's writing and just didn't like the series anymore. Honestly I don't like any of the games that came after The Third, and the only one I genuinely love is First Chapter: I do like SC's story but 90% of it is padding, FC and SC should've been a single game as intented and I am extremely disappointed they didn't do that for the Remake

Kuro has more vocal fans, but fan polling tends to put the favorite saga as a war between sky and cold steel, especially among japanese fans, kuro 1 is the best saga beginning game, but that's not saying much as fc has first game syndrome, cold steel 1 was trying something new and zero was....ok i'm gonna say it, zero sucked.
The problems with daybreak could be for me a short story on their own, but if you want the basics of it, the storytelling feels like a massive tonal and whiplash due to how the story is structured, while yes daybreak 1 is more mature than older games (excluding star door 15 ), it tends to lack alot of the urgency and well, emotion of the older games, calvard is by far the most boring area in the series and a good deal of the areas feel lifeless, while i'd say the cast of daybreak is probably the weakest in the entire series sans a couple of characters like Elaine.
Then there's the combat and orbment system, which imo are the worst in the series (like quartz or lines giving you arts? let's change that into a single equippable item where you don't get to choose which arts it has except maybe 1 or 2 open slots which will usually go to support arts).

As for trails series i'm gonna be honest, they need to end the trails series and finally make a legend of heroes 7 completely separate from zemuria, we're getting deep in the fatigue here when it comes to the series because so many loose ends are still up in the air after all the this time (trails is old enough to drink at this point, hell trails is probably older than some members of this website), to be blunt, trails needs to end and tie up some loose ends finally, at the rate it's going i'll die of old age before the series finishes.

I'm partial to the cold steel games as i just have a fondness for cold steel 4 and reverie, but i will admit if your not able to adapt the changes as well as i am the game feels entirely different than the sky trilogy.

You might like reverie if you like the gameplay of cold steel 4, it's more gameplay than story, similar to the third, but if your getting burnout after cold steel, avoid daybreak like the plague.

 

[MegaHiro91]

To me it depends on how much honest work has gone into them. I am not one of those who just flat out rage at price´s over $60 just because it's expensive. If your game is worth it, the price is just.

 

[Leon]

To me it depends on how much honest work has gone into them. I am not one of those who just flat out rage at price´s over $60 just because it's expensive. If your game is worth it, the price is just.

The problem is graphics could be real to life, as much as people love "purdy graphics", what makes a game have value isn't graphics, it's gameplay and story, depending on the genre.