Congrats to unfettered capitalist greed for not just ruining the design of games but games overall. Actiblizz, EA, and other AAA pubs had multiple, multiple opportunities to address the problem they themselves created before it got to this point but instead fell back on the time-tested method of "do it anyway and apologize later" (because that's how these companies work - the long term doesn't matter; short term quarterly profit does). Doesn't help that the people running the ESRB are also figures at said companies, so of course they wouldn't lobby for such a bill.
I don't know that this stuff is quite as borne of "greed" as you might think. The cost of developing games has gone up, while the cost of games on the shelves has not. That gap has to be recouped somewhere. A few years back, the way they tried to do it was through DLC, but people balked when they started putting meaningful content as DLC, so then DLC became more side content, at which point people stopped seeing value in it and stopped buying it. In need to new ways of generating income from games, lootboxes became the thing. (I don't like lootcrates, either, FWIW.)
The price point for games should actually be about $80 these days. I actually wouldn't mind paying that if it meant the end of lootboxes and other questionable efforts to reach into gamer's wallets for money beyond the retail price. We as gamers can't demand multiple versions of games optimized for both PCs and consoles of varying power from low-end all the way up to 4K HDR, consistently wait to purchase games only when they go on sale, and then get all pissy when publishers try to find other ways to generate income from games. I don't have the numbers, but I imagine the average price games actually sell at over their lifespan is somewhere around $40.
Let's take, say, Hitman 2 as an example. Successor to this very website's 2016 GOTY. Critically well-received. From a respected and newly independent studio that people should probably want to support. The reported sales figures out there for its launch window were roughly 200k. Let's assume it has sold more than that since, say, 500k total at a price of $60 to account for both people buying the deluxe editions and people who waited for a sale. That's $30,000,000 in sales revenue. IOI downsized from 200 employees when Squeenix kicked them to the curb, so let's say 150 people work there now. You're looking at $200k/employee, which equates to roughly three years of a decent salary of $66K. Assuming IOI employees get benefits, that max salary drops to $50K/employee with only three years of employment viable. And this doesn't even account for their expenses related to advertising, distribution, facilities, etc. I'm sure WB is helping absorb some costs, but the point is that it's not tough to see how even good games can fail to generate the kind of income needed.
It's easy to blame "corporate greed" and call it a day. It's tougher for gamers to own our own role in lootboxes. If we're going to expect games to remain $60 forever while development costs continue to increase or "wait for sales", then we can't really raise a fuss when publishers have to try to create additional revenue streams, even when they're shitty ones like lootcrates.
Log in to comment