Tears of the Kingdom was $70, and I honestly feel like it was worth it because it’s quite an entertaining and enthralling experience.
“Pro football video game v. 34” is probably not in the same caliber though.
Comment on Madden should not be 70$
Targy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
No game should be 70$ if you ask me
FoxBJK@midwest.social 10 months ago
13esq@lemmy.world 10 months ago
New releases used to be £40 when I was a kid (twenty years ago), given inflation, £70 sounds not too bad.
MrNesser@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That $40 included plastic packaging and a disc both of which largely don’t exist anymore.
matt1126@feddit.uk 10 months ago
And a complete game!
ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world 10 months 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.
dandroid@dandroid.app 10 months ago
Those cost pennies. They were never part of the cost.
MrNesser@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Absolutely agree with you. However it’s what’s been said to people for years to justify the cost
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 months 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.
ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world 10 months ago
No you don’t. You are just imagining. At no point ever was $20 typical for a new game.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It absolutely was in the 1980s.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 10 months 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.
13esq@lemmy.world 10 months 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.
berg@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Depends on the playtime you get out of it. 140hrs+? Great value.
Targy@lemmy.world 10 months 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.
Milan@feddit.nl 10 months 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.
berg@lemm.ee 10 months 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?
Targy@lemmy.world 10 months 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.
Spacecraft@lemmy.world 10 months 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 $70 gets you in almost any other hobby.
Targy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Someone told me something similar about Tears of the Kingdom and my answer is the same: BG3 could be the greatest game ever made with content from here to eternity, but 70$ is still too much for a game. Specially considering who ends up benefitting the most from the sales.
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 months 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…
Selmafudd@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Surely the difference in overheads involved in physical vs digital would mean profits are increasing at a higher rate then sale price
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Maybe, development cost hasn’t gone down though, not one bit!
billiam0202@lemmy.world 10 months 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.
Selmafudd@lemmy.world 10 months 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
nomnomdeplume@lemmy.world 10 months ago
And selling on steam costs 30%
Hunter2@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
The medium games came in were more expensive
The gaming audience was much smaller
Games were only sold in stores
If you add all the season passes you’re paying the same or even more with further microtransactions
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.
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Bad price/time ratio? I don’t know many hobbies where you’ll spend that kind of money for 100h+ of enjoyment…
Hunter2@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months 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.
WereCat@lemmy.world 10 months ago
If you’re going to count in inflation then I’m going to count in the poor quality of those games
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Rose tinted glasses.
WereCat@lemmy.world 10 months ago
K