Comment on Madden should not be 70$

Targy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Games should not follow inflation at all?

  N64 games were 50$ in the 90s, more limited releases (Ogre Battle 64 for example) were 60$.

  Games pricing has stagnated, that’s good for the consumers but bad for smaller developers…

  source

  • Selmafudd@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Surely the difference in overheads involved in physical vs digital would mean profits are increasing at a higher rate then sale price

    source

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Maybe, development cost hasn’t gone down though, not one bit!

      source
    • billiam0202@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Not really.

      Optical discs are dirt cheap. This old answer from Quora says physical media (disc, case, artwork, inserts, etc) accounted for $2-$5 of the cost of a game.

      source

      • Selmafudd@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        So that’s like a 2.5 - 7% margin on a $70 game… an extra 7% profit margin at the high end is pretty significant

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • nomnomdeplume@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        And selling on steam costs 30%

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Hunter2@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    1. The medium games came in were more expensive

    2. The gaming audience was much smaller

    3. Games were only sold in stores

    4. If you add all the season passes you’re paying the same or even more with further microtransactions

    5. Games in general now have a longer shelf life

    AAA games in my country have been 69,99€ since the PS3 launch and now they’re asking 79,99€. It’s true development costs have ballooned, but I just don’t think that’s a good price/time ratio and rarely do I buy games over 15€. I really don’t mind waiting a couple years.

    source

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Bad price/time ratio? I don’t know many hobbies where you’ll spend that kind of money for 100h+ of enjoyment…

      source

      • Hunter2@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You can buy musical instruments for that price software or hardware synthesisers, for example.

        But that’s exactly the point, I’d rather pay double and triple for something I know I’ll use for hundreds of hours than 80€ for a game that will last me 12 to 30 hours (I only play offline story-based games).

        Even if I considered game X, there are decades worth of games availabe for under 10€ that I would rather get now or buy a Humble Bundle while waiting for a sale.

        The issue becomes of all publishers start to follow Nintendo’s model and not dropping the prices much.

        source
  • WereCat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    If you’re going to count in inflation then I’m going to count in the poor quality of those games

    source

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Rose tinted glasses.

      source

      • WereCat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        K

        source
• FoxBJK@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Tears of the Kingdom was $70, and I honestly feel like it was worth it because it’s quite an entertaining and enthralling experience.

  “Pro football video game v. 34” is probably not in the same caliber though.

  source
• 13esq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  New releases used to be £40 when I was a kid (twenty years ago), given inflation, £70 sounds not too bad.

  source

  • MrNesser@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That $40 included plastic packaging and a disc both of which largely don’t exist anymore.

    source

    • matt1126@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      And a complete game!

      source
    • ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Never was a significant cost. So complaining, you are never going to get you 50c of plastic to burn down the planet to spite publishers.

      source
    • dandroid@dandroid.app ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Those cost pennies. They were never part of the cost.

      source

      • MrNesser@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Absolutely agree with you. However it’s what’s been said to people for years to justify the cost

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    40? I remember when they were 20. Hell, I remember when you could get slightly older titles for 10. I used to go to Egghead and buy slightly older games with my allowance.

    source

    • ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      No you don’t. You are just imagining. At no point ever was $20 typical for a new game.

      source

      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It absolutely was in the 1980s.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • acosmichippo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    more importantly they sell way more units now. It takes virtually no more effort or cost for gaming companies to sell 20 million units vs 1 million.

    source

    • 13esq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      If they’re selling 20 million more units than they used to, then $70 clearly is not too much and outs this post as nothing more than a moan.

      source
• berg@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Depends on the playtime you get out of it. 140hrs+? Great value.

  source

  • Targy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I have devoted that amount of hours or even more to some games and still think the 40-50€ that costed me each one of them when I bought them is too much.

    Entertainment shouldn’t be that expensive. Period.

    source

    • Milan@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      If you were fine paying $50 15 years ago then I don’t see why you would complain about paying $70 now. That’s just inflation.

      source
    • berg@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I don’t agree. Development costs money and I’m willing to pay for it. I usually compare it to other daily things, such as nice restaurant visits or such. Things costs money.

      Just because I’m curious, what would you feel to be a fair price for one of those games?

      source

      • Targy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Except most of the revenues from the sales of the games don’t go to those who actually develop the games. We all know gamedevs aren’t paid enough and sometimes do a lot of crunch, specially in big studios. We can’t ignore that fact.

        Imo I could excuse a maximum of 50€ (or dollars in this particular case), and the ideal would be something between 30 and 40.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Spacecraft@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I dunno. Baldurs Gate 3 has a truly unbelievable amount of content in it. $70 for it is almost unfair when you consider how far $70 gets you in almost any other hobby.

  source

  • Targy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Someone told me something similar about Tears of the Kingdom and my answer is the same: BG3 could be the greatest game ever made with content from here to eternity, but 70$ is still too much for a game. Specially considering who ends up benefitting the most from the sales.

    source