@branthog said:
There are a lot of apologists who have been clamoring for game prices to increase, and citing inflation and how games have been the same price for decades as justification. Of course, they completely ignore things like how games just went up 20% a few years ago (games are now $60 on PC instead of $50) and how while retail prices may have stayed the same, there is now a much larger audience buying far more games and many are now doing it in digital form, which eliminates all the significant extraneous expenses of manufacturing and distribution which mitigate other rising costs. Other products - especially technological ones - tend to lower in price as adoption rates increase and cost to produce decrease. Even extremely expensive things, like movies. You don't pay $60 to own a movie or an album or a book. However, you're expected to pay $60, plus tax, plus $30 season pass, plus tax for a few hours of entertainment with a game.
I think the idea that people are paying $65 for eight hours of entertainment is absurd enough. I'm in a high income bracket with no dependents and few expenses and I find the price obscene, as it is. (Sorry, I don't care if you spent half a billion dollars on your shitty game - find a way to do it cheaper.. there is literally no game on the planet that should cost half a billion).
I hope these assholes keep icnreasing prices, DLC, pre-order bonuses, retail exlusives, microtransactions, and other money-grubbing scum activities until it finally implodes and people stop buying and playing their games and a huge chunk of the industry which treats its product and customers like cattle are bankrupt. Sometimes a forest fire is the healthiest thing for an ecosystem.
I will be shocked if $70 is not a standard price by the end of this generation. If not more.
I wouldn't expect $70 to be the standard any time soon. Publishers would much rather avoid the outcry by continuing to charge $60 and instead find more and more ways to add additional revenue on top of that for each game (DLC, microtransactions, season passes, etc.) That way they get it both ways: they avoid the massive PR hit that a price increase would bring but still get to charge potentially $70 and far beyond for a game.
Agreed, but I think they are about to stretch the season pass/DLC thing to the breaking point, soon. They're already selling games for $60, plus $30 season pass (or $50 for COD/BF4). If they want more money, they have to make season passes as expensive as the actual game or they have to introduce a lot more DLC and microtransactions that aren't part of the expensive season pass. I don't think people are likely to be happy with either of those much more. If they increase the price of the *game*, then they raise the ceiling across the board, in the future.
That is, if the limit for games now are:
$60 game, $50 season pass, very little non-season-pass DLC/microtransactions
Then there's not much room to move on the price of season pass or introducing more transactions outside of the pass.
If they raise the games to $70, then a couple years down the road, they can raise season passes to $60 and it's still less than the game. Now they've boosted an extra $20 per game out of you within only a few years.
All this, while the purchasing power and salary of the average person (in America, at least) has decreased by something like 23%. People are and will continue to truly pay more of their money toward this form of entertainment -- both in raw dollars and in percentage of their income.
Log in to comment