What your thoughts on $80 & $100+ Games

[Yowane]

If the industry wants to turn more people towards the high seas, they're doing a fine job of it.

Nintendo attack rom sites makes even more sense now.

 

[IHeartRetro]

We can make an argument about what makes a game worth its price til the cows come home. Length, graphics, developer, and so on. Nintendo knows however that there are people who struggle. 60$ can be a lot of money for some and they keep their eyes open for deals.

So, what's the justification? Why are we being charged just 20$ shy of 100$? 80$ can buy groceries. They can buy water. They can buy soap, toothpaste and so on. Gaming is a luxury. It's not a nessessity. This is clear greed on their part and I think the switch 2 era is gonna really bite Nintendo if they stay on the path they are currently on.

 

[Johnathan Smikey]

I'd say it's good... helps direct gamers to support indie devs instead.

 

[TruxtonTatsujin]

$60 was already pushing it. Anything more is ludicrous. Just wait for sales or hit the 7 seas.

 

[diapered]

An interesting question because it involves a lot of economics. When you look at prices of new NES/SNES games, adjusted for inflation, those WERE +$100 games on release. There was a drop in manufacturing cost with psx/ps2 discs, but even with that, a new ps2 game adjusted for inflation would be ~$80 now, so it may seem that price is not unreasonable, but there are a few things that make me think otherwise.

@Zerpina brings up a good point about digital distribution. The manufacturing was a huge part of the cost (I imagine) for NES/SNES and that is not a cost companies really have these days. Also you don't have the physical distribution overhead. On the software side (and this was something I have been thinking about recently), you pretty much needed your product to be PERFECT on day 1, you could not just patch a major bug or glitch, and that takes a lot more time and effort in testing, so it makes sense games costed more then. Nowadays, it seems it is the norm to just ship something not done, and expect everyone to understand it will be fixed later

For those reasons, +$80 is too much for a game, imo. It might seem silly to use ps2 game price adjusted for inflation as a benchmark, but that's what I think. But there is a lot I don't know about this. Is the dev team on a modern game a lot bigger than say FFX?

 

[RedNin3]

It makes justifying my yohoho of Nintendon't stuff much more straightforward. (Not that I needed more excuses for it lmao)

 

[killerqueen]

I will just use piracy man, i'm on PC, i'm begging for Switch 2 to be possible to have a emulator if some dedicated team tries to make one, Nintendo is screaming with the strenght of 4 winds on all skies to be pirated with all of that shit lol. GTA VI will probably be played through FitGirl or ElAmigos on my PC, man.

 

[Yowane]

An interesting question because it involves a lot of economics. When you look at prices of new NES/SNES games, adjusted for inflation, those WERE +$100 games on release. There was a drop in manufacturing cost with psx/ps2 discs, but even with that, a new ps2 game adjusted for inflation would be ~$80 now, so it may seem that price is not unreasonable, but there are a few things that make me think otherwise.

@Zerpina brings up a good point about digital distribution. The manufacturing was a huge part of the cost (I imagine) for NES/SNES and that is not a cost companies really have these days. Also you don't have the physical distribution overhead. On the software side (and this was something I have been thinking about recently), you pretty much needed your product to be PERFECT on day 1, you could not just patch a major bug or glitch, and that takes a lot more time and effort in testing, so it makes sense games costed more then. Nowadays, it seems it is the norm to just ship something not done, and expect everyone to understand it will be fixed later

For those reasons, +$80 is too much for a game, imo. It might seem silly to use ps2 game price adjusted for inflation as a benchmark, but that's what I think. But there is a lot I don't know about this. Is the dev team on a modern game a lot bigger than say FFX?

My biggest argument as just like you said, there was a time games cost more or equal in dollars to now.
But those games were a one time purchase. No extra horse armor, not cosmetics, etc. Instead you just bought the game and a few years later "super/turbo edition" came out.

 

[Abecero]

That they can keep them, I wasn't paying for 60-70 bucks games in the first place anyway.
I can count on one hand the number of games from these big corpos that I was actually interested into.
And that hand is missing a few fingers to begin with. Not my actual hands, just making a figure of speech lol

 

[Yowane]

That they can keep them, I wasn't paying for 60-70 bucks games in the first place anyway.
I can count on one hand the number of games from these big corpos that I was actually interested into.
And that hand is missing a few fingers to begin with. Not my actual hands, just making a figure of speech lol

I'm onto you escaped ape.

 

[FrayGuillermo]

Pretty bad, I don't know how any higher-up can think establishing 100€/$ as the norm for AAAs to be a good idea

 

[Prism_Red]

For digital? That's stupid.
For physical? Okay, I can wait for a discount.
Since we are slowly heading to an era where games are about to go digital only, I'm content with watching Gamindustry crash and burn at this point.

 

[NOTthatHARD]

The more expensive games become more people are inevitably drawn to piracy.
Those developers are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[SolarSpectre]

I just won't buy them is all. Nintendo especially is never getting a cent out of me again.

 

[t3mpt0n]

 

[Yowane]

I actually have a question, why are people against pre-orders? I get it when devs lock content behind that but I'm lost why if your gonna buy it anyways like my local needed pre-orders to even get shelf stock.

 

[caviar]

i think it's ridiculous that prices are as high as they are but ultimately pretty predictable since this trends been going on for a while
i just hope that at some point enough people stop buying AAA games that they have to lower prices again, but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part

 

[Mr. Daddy]

My thoughts are that I certainly won't be willing to pay that much. I'm still hesitant at best to pay 70, and with how many problems so many modern games have on release these days, sometimes hesitant to pay 60 even though that's the standard I'm used to. I can only hope that the average consumer won't be more willing to pay these prices, otherwise they're going to stick. I imagine that's unlikely to happen though.​

 

[Antilocal123]

I think it’s based, they should keep increasing the price until gamers realize these guys only care about their pockets. /j

 

[ZEGA ZONIC]

Paying more than $100? Nope, I'm just going to Yar Har the [CORSE LANGUAGE CENSORED BY THE LUNAR CAPTIAL DEPARTMENT OF MEDIA] out of it!

 

[YuriSukiSan]

I think a lot of people will actually pay it. This is probably going to be a horse armor DLC moment that leads to games being ridiculously priced in the future, even if wages were adjusted for inflation they're still charging far too much money. It's needlessly greedy and I sincerely hope it leads to an industry crash with no company left unscarred.

 

[Don Patch]

My thoughts: There's plenty of crap on the PS2 I haven't played yet.

 

[Phage]

I actually have a question, why are people against pre-orders? I get it when devs lock content behind that but I'm lost why if your gonna buy it anyways like my local needed pre-orders to even get shelf stock.

Because it's been a problem for damn near 20 years at this point. To show my age a bit, "back in the day", you pre-ordered a game because you wanted to ensure you had a copy on release day and your local store needed to know how many to order to fulfill those orders plus a few extras to keep on the shelf for folks that didn't. These games were delivered on disc or cartridge and publishers knew that if they fucked up, they fucked up for good. If their game was shit, it was gonna be shit forever. Just look at Superman 64 and the fact that it's *still* held up as the poster child of all bad games. That's not to say that bad games didn't still happen, but we knew that we were at least getting a complete and functional game.

Skip forward to about 20 years ago and the advent of the first ever DLC, the infamous Oblivion Horse Armor. We all knew it was BS and it was openly mocked. We also knew that it would lead to wide-spread fuckery. Within a span of a couple years, we started getting games that were shipped incomplete or so buggy as to be unplayable. People were still clinging to the pre-order model because it's what we'd always done. If we didn't get our pre-order in then we wouldn't get to play the new Zelda for a couple weeks because it would be sold out everywhere! We were still pre-ordering and basically handing companies full-price for a game before it was even finished, only to be handed a pile of slop that didn't work at all, or was only half-finished. Imagine if you paid a restaurant in advance for your meal and they only brought half of the table food, and some of it was burnt and/or undercooked. You'd be pretty pissed and likely demand a refund, and if told that you wouldn't be given one, you'd promise to never do it again.

That's why we hate pre-orders. In the current age where games are releasing in "early access", which is a really fancy way to say "Pay full price for a beta build that may or may not ever get out of beta", pre-orders are seen as a way for companies to demand full price for a product without actually having to deliver a quality product. If you pay them in advance and the game is trash, what do they care? They got theirs. There was a *huge* movement years ago to stop pre-ordering anything ever, because it was encouraging this behavior, and more and more games that people pre-ordered were coming out with day one DLC that they were expected to pay extra for, or with such huge bugs and glitches that half the people who pre-ordered couldn't even play them. The anti pre-order movement exists to basically tell game companies "You can have my money when you deliver a playable game that's worth paying for." When you pre-order, you're telling them that you don't care if they deliver a finished product or not. You'll still throw money at them and they can just do whatever. Don't encourage them or enable them.

 

[VampireLord1024VampireLord1024's icon]

Those games are not worth the price.

 

[MadzombieBane]

i think it’ll make everyone to go towards the grand line