• zecg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    By all means, every increase in price is welcome, it’ll be that much less of a temptation. How are Concord and Fairgames doing?

  • VonReposti@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    There were more sports cars in the parking lot in the PS1 era than there were in the PS4 era

    What a struggle. Should we then have tripled the prices so the poor publishers could afford 2 sports cars instead? Or, hear me out, just play indie games that’s higher quality and doesn’t have a useless middle man.

  • k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    The quality of games did not improve, in fact game quality and diversity has deteriorated. The quantity of content has dropped off as well. Graphics fidelity and production costs have skyrocketed though.

    Graphics are so superficial when it comes to games anyhow, why would anyone pay more for a pretty waste of time?

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Diversity and quality are both going to be difficult to measure objectively, and I’d argue both are still in better supply today. Quantity is far easier to prove objectively. Not only are there just far more games out there, but try some like for like comparisons of some of your favorite long-running franchises on How Long to Beat. Assassin’s Creed II was 20-25 hours; Assassin’s Creed: Shadows is 35-64. Halo 2 was 9-12; Halo Infinite is 11-20. Baldur’s Gate 3 is close to as long as its two predecessors combined. Call of Duty is three games in one now.

      • k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        Quantity is directly proportionate to quality though, starfield and its 1000s of repetitive planets are the perfect example of this. Would any halo fan rather play 20 hours of infinite or 20 hours of halo 2…?

        Yes there have been outliers of increased quality and quantity over the last decade, but in the full priced AAA space nowadays, that is the exception not the rule.

        • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          Quantity is directly proportionate to quality though

          I’d disagree with that premise. It’s not like they’re making just as much game in the same amount of time. Games are taking way longer to make these days than they used to. As I’m 70+ hours into Kingdom Come: Deliverance II and nowhere near done, they could have made about 2/3 as much game as they made, and it still would have been phenomenal and worth the price. The same goes for Baldur’s Gate 3, not to say that I’m unhappy about how much of it I have.

          I don’t think the high quality games are outliers. We just have so many more games coming out these days that it becomes more and more likely that we get some bangers in that volume. EA or Ubisoft may be putting out fewer games because of how long they take to make, but they’ve got more competition than they did 20 years ago.

          • k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            As the end user why should i pay sympathetically for the extended dev time of a product that hasnt tangibly improved for my uses?

            Yes the price ceiling of $70 does not do justice to games like KCD 2, but all that matters for the end user is perceived value. If the perceived value of any game isnt going up, then it is difficult to charge consumers an increased amount.

            KCD 2 and Elden Ring are great examples of RPGs with content that fans perceive as a great value, but only AFTER playing.

            Maybe KCD 3 or Elden Ring 2 can push their perceived value beyond $70, but the simple fact is that the majority of AAA games DO NOT offer an amount or quality of content that gamers would consider to be worth $70, especially with the tiering off of content with various editions, passes and DLC.

            It is just subjective that you and i disagree about the amount of games that cross the value threshold of $70, but the evidence of a $0 cost increase for full priced games over the past decade or so definitely seems like evidence towards my perspective.

            I wish i could pay more money for higher quality games with more content, but the advertising for these products happens within a competitive and reciprocal market, and that market has a mean perceived product value of $70.

            KCD 2 and Elden Ring have essentially wasted dev time/cost creating bonus content, although the perceived value towards their brands it has created, plus the positive IP mind share, will pay off for them down the road with units sold i am sure.

    • Fermion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      “Fancy graphics” also doesn’t correlate well with how visually appealing a game is. I would take Ori graphics over CoD any day.

    • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Neither quality nor diversity are objective measures, and I’d certainly disagree with you that they didn’t improve.

      • k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Yes both very subjective. Accessibility and streamlining gameplay has seemed to be the focus. Developing unique, novel but also enjoyable new gameplay experiences? (the reason i believe most people game) That more or less ended with the Wii, Ps3 and 360 era of consoles.

        • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          I will, respectfully, still disagree with that assertion. Just because Assassin’s Creed, Call of Duty, and the like are on their umpteenth entry, does not mean that no more unique and novel games are being made.

          • k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 days ago

            I would argue that AAA full priced gaming space is not where that innovation has been happening in recent years, it has mostly been with lower priced indies.

  • teft@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    He’s not wrong since games pricing hasn’t kept up with inflation. If it had we’d be buying $120 games. The problem is wages also haven’t kept up with inflation either. If gaming companies had increased the prices they’d have fucked themselves.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I could also point out: If the main sales race was for the gold-plated base copy of a game, instead of nickel and dining people who only have nickels and dimes, then it’s possible we would have a gaming world entirely focused on churning out AAAA singleplayer experiences, back to putting out trilogies of obscure gaming experiences.

      This is not blaming gamers for not accepting higher prices for incomplete games; publishers moved where the money was, and I don’t blame them. I blame the rest of OTHER industries for not updating their wages so the world is livable and people have extra for entertainment.

    • cattywampas@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Gaming is one of the cheapest hobbies and forms of entertainment there is. The price I have paid per hour for playing my favorite games is miniscule compared to something like seeing a movie.

  • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    I think even if they did, we’d still have arrived at exactly where we are right now. They sold more copies of games because, after inflation, the games became cheaper and more accessible for the average consumer. Now that prices are rising again, that average consumer is getting priced out, and they’re not making up for that volume in the higher price. $70 seems to be what the highest tier of production value can get away with in 2025 if they’re maximizing sales, GTA and Mario Kart notwithstanding, as they’re outliers.

  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Supposed proponent of the “free market” thinks that the market was unfair to massive corporation. More at 11. /s

  • Pyr@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Capitalism and the free market is supposed to encourage efficiency and innovation in order to remain competitive in order to keep prices low… Is Sony against capitalism? Is it against the free market? Is in adverse to innovation? C’mon Sony … Stop being lazy.

    • Shayeta@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Yes, yes, and yes. By securing a monopoly you will have the highest possible profit at lowest possible investment. That is the ultimate goal of every publicly traded company.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Sony, Nintendo and Xbox are not true capitalism because their consoles are not free markets so of course they don’t like capitalism when they benefit from absolute control and can fix the prices for everything in their ecosystem.

      The only true capitalistic store front is steam and funnily enough it’s doing laps around all 3.

  • glitchdx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I’ve recently decided that I’m not spending more than $10 on a game until I’ve cleaned out my backlog.

    There’s hundreds of games in my backlog, so it’s going to be a while.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    What is with these people?

    They are CEOs of company’s, yet they don’t seem to understand how capitalism works. What’s something is worth is depending on what the market will bear. If the market won’t bear a $90 game then it isn’t worth $90.

    It’s a double edged sword

    • iegod@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      The factors that influence development costs in order to keep up with the quality of the times is no doubt complex, but at the end of the day you’re spot on. It’s only worth what the consumers will pay.

  • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Fucking why? These dudes always cite the cost of making games increasing as a reason for this nonsense but they never talk about the many many factors working in their favor already.

    First, most people are probably not buying physical games very much if at all anymore. And because of that people don’t really buy games used anymore either since used games in general are much rarer. So more people are buying games directly from company storefronts. These same storefronts that also make games stay more expensive for longer periods of time. Not only that but there are literally more people playing and buying games now than have ever done so in the past (at least up until very recently)

    All of these factors should be increasing Sony’s profit margins. If anything games should be getting cheaper. Not more expensive.

    And I don’t buy that a ps5 game is significantly more expensive to make than a ps4 game. There’s barely a difference between each system’s capabilities in terms of graphical detail in the assets a team needs to produce. Most of the benefits of ps5 come in the way of higher resolutions and higher frame rates. I have yet to see a game release on ps5 that couldn’t have also been ported to ps4 with lower resolutions and frame rates.

    Even the games they said needed the ps5’s speed were eventually ported to PC and run on the Steam Deck just fine. (Spider-Man 2 and Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart for example)

    These statements aren’t anything more than a company executive trying to gaslight people into accepting unacceptable pricing strategies.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Don’t forget that game development is increasingly shoving the hardware burden onto the consumer by using poorly made tools to streamline development (thus cutting costs) with garbage optimization which is why a gaming rig now has to be powerful enough to simulate a gaming rig from 10 years ago down to the atomic level but the graphics haven’t gotten appreciably better.

      • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        While thats definitely true for many games it’s less relevant for console makers and its hardly true universally; definitely not true for the insomniac games I mentioned.

        Plenty of games are coming out that are optimized very well. Unfortunately, UE5 has gotten way too popular and devs often don’t seem to really know how to optimize games developed on the engine. Kinda the downfall of having an engine that appeals so much to artists but not so much to engineers. I think the only remotely well optimized game I can think of that was made in UE5 is Hellblade 2. And even as impressive as that game is from a technical standpoint (nothing can fix how boring it is) I still have stuttering problems with it. Though my rapidly aging R5 2600 is not helping things there.

        But there are still impressive PC games out there. Recently Doom The Dark Ages, indiana Jones, and Kingdom Come Deliverence 2 come to mind as games that are impressively well optimized on PC. Especially KCD2, that game feels like black magic to me.

        I think this is less of an issue of cost cutting by devs and publishers, though it’s definitely a factor, and moreso just devs not being as knowledgeable about optimizing games as they used to be.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      When I first started working it was still back in the days where you were given cash in an envelope. After we were paid we always used to go out to a pub together for a few rounds, I rarely used to get through all of the change I’d been given, I never got into the paper money.

      You used to be able to get a pint for silvers, these days you need to give them folding money for a bag of peanuts.