Which is why looking at some of those games I kind of get why games need to charge more. Definitely not keeping up with inflation. However, I also see a much broader range in those games, and if they want game prices to go up then they also need to understand price ranges for quality.
Something like RDR2, true masterpiece, I would go to 100. Maybe 120. That game is perfect, no flaws, and several hundred hours of gameplay.
Assassin’s creed could stick at 60. Very much a mid game, gets a mid price.
Bad games will just pick high prices to trick people into thinking it’s good. Having everything cost the same at launch is the only steady-state solution.
Wayne Gretzky’s Fighting Hockey was one of the most expensive games and it was also complete and utter trash, so the tiered pricing isn’t gonna work. $60 is plenty, if the devs need more money I recommend firing executives and filler managers.
Not to mention, you don’t necessarily need budgets like this to make truly memorable and impactful games. The shining example of Minecraft is always there.
Sure, RDR2 is a rare masterpiece that many still consider to be the best game ever made, but once I finished it, I moved onto my many other indie titles that I had just as much fun with.
Graphics are great when the dev has the resources available, but if it requires that you upcharge the game when I would be having the same amount of fun anyway, maybe just focus more on the gameplay loop and less on graphics and tech.
I have a soft spot for Wayne Gretzky’s Hockey on N64 as I played it exclusively multiplayer which was much more fun than single player (which was extremely shit)
But you evaluate this value based on the price of other products which are all overpriced to compensate for the rich people taking their cut.
Take a bag of carrots, the person who picks them makes less than minimum wage, the person transporting them makes an ok wage, all the employees at the grocery store make about minimum wage, in the end that bag costs the store 1$ when taking all the actual labor and transport into consideration, they sell it to you for 5$, the CEO is a billionaire, everyone else in the production chain has a hard time affording the bag of carrots.
Everything we buy is overpriced to enrich the few, we can’t evaluate what is a fair price because of that!
You’re going way off point of what I originally said, and I’m not having an argument here about rich vs poor or class systems. All I said was that a higher quality game earned a higher price than a lower quality game. Anything else you want to assume or believe is your own, but it’s separate from my statement.
You said they need to charge more, I’m saying they don’t need to if you remove all the rich leeches that are only there to suck on the revenue to lower the total profits.
Lower the 30% share from the publisher and launcher to 10% each and the total cost can be much lower with the same revenue going to the studio. Those businesses taking a 30% share are where you find the multi millionaires and billionaires that don’t actually put in any work.
Multiply those prices by 2 to account for buying power back then.
Console is “only $300” but games are $100 at minimum.
Which is why looking at some of those games I kind of get why games need to charge more. Definitely not keeping up with inflation. However, I also see a much broader range in those games, and if they want game prices to go up then they also need to understand price ranges for quality.
Something like RDR2, true masterpiece, I would go to 100. Maybe 120. That game is perfect, no flaws, and several hundred hours of gameplay.
Assassin’s creed could stick at 60. Very much a mid game, gets a mid price.
Bad games will just pick high prices to trick people into thinking it’s good. Having everything cost the same at launch is the only steady-state solution.
Wayne Gretzky’s Fighting Hockey was one of the most expensive games and it was also complete and utter trash, so the tiered pricing isn’t gonna work. $60 is plenty, if the devs need more money I recommend firing executives and filler managers.
Not to mention, you don’t necessarily need budgets like this to make truly memorable and impactful games. The shining example of Minecraft is always there.
Sure, RDR2 is a rare masterpiece that many still consider to be the best game ever made, but once I finished it, I moved onto my many other indie titles that I had just as much fun with.
Graphics are great when the dev has the resources available, but if it requires that you upcharge the game when I would be having the same amount of fun anyway, maybe just focus more on the gameplay loop and less on graphics and tech.
I have a soft spot for Wayne Gretzky’s Hockey on N64 as I played it exclusively multiplayer which was much more fun than single player (which was extremely shit)
The number of copies sold is much higher though.
In the end if there’s someone rich from the sales somewhere in the chain it’s because the product is overpriced.
I disagree. I have no problem if a product is of high quality and it gets it’s value.
But you evaluate this value based on the price of other products which are all overpriced to compensate for the rich people taking their cut.
Take a bag of carrots, the person who picks them makes less than minimum wage, the person transporting them makes an ok wage, all the employees at the grocery store make about minimum wage, in the end that bag costs the store 1$ when taking all the actual labor and transport into consideration, they sell it to you for 5$, the CEO is a billionaire, everyone else in the production chain has a hard time affording the bag of carrots.
Everything we buy is overpriced to enrich the few, we can’t evaluate what is a fair price because of that!
You’re going way off point of what I originally said, and I’m not having an argument here about rich vs poor or class systems. All I said was that a higher quality game earned a higher price than a lower quality game. Anything else you want to assume or believe is your own, but it’s separate from my statement.
You said they need to charge more, I’m saying they don’t need to if you remove all the rich leeches that are only there to suck on the revenue to lower the total profits.
Lower the 30% share from the publisher and launcher to 10% each and the total cost can be much lower with the same revenue going to the studio. Those businesses taking a 30% share are where you find the multi millionaires and billionaires that don’t actually put in any work.
Got it, you want to argue your point, I don’t want to, we’ll leave it here.
I’m just answering what you said and saying it’s wrong, that’s all.