General Gaming Game prices likely to raise by $10 next gen (Update: CoD)

[Paperclyp]

8 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I'm not sure what argument you're actually trying to make then, but if the point you're making is that "rich guys get rich", I can't argue with you there. What I CAN say is that this notion that the actual rank and file of game developers are basically wage slaves is complete and utter bullshit. I myself have worked for several game companies, big ones in fact, and while some expect insane hours out of you (Riot cough cough) they ALL pay you very well. In fact it's because they pay you so well and have so many "perks and amenities" that they then have the attitude that they own you and you shouldn't expect to have a life while you work for them.

 

Yes Bobby Kotick makes an insane amount of money but I can PROMISE you, even entry level folks at these game developement companies are making FAR above what the average worker in this country makes. And that contributes to production costs. Maybe I'm missing your point because I'm really not getting where you're coming from 

 

The only point I'm making is that 69.99 isn't that unreasonable when you consider historical game prices AND the fact that if you don't need to get a game day one, you can wait and get it for cheaper ANYWAY. There are several games I'm waiting on price drops right now that I could have bought day one at full price but decided to just wait because they just weren't day one games for me. I just don't see the problem because there's a TREMENDOUS amount of choice that gamers have that fans of other entertainment don't.

 

 

"Jack" is relative.. because as I've said, I';ve worked at several gaming companies and I didn't see too many folks complaining about their money. TIme? Hell yes. Compensation? no.

I'm sorry I really am not being clear 

 

I'm not really disagreeing with your assertion that $69.99 isn't unreasonable. I prefer to not really assert either way whether or not it's reasonable, but I don't disagree with you. The only point I'm trying to make is that I don't think showing prices of retail games tells the story of what people paid for games back then. Like, it would not be unlike (in spirit) showing you the cost to rent that recent Pete Davidson movie (wasn't it like, $30 to rent) in 50 years and being like, see, new movies used to cost a lot to rent back then too. It's not a great analogy, but I'm just trying to get across that the price itself does not show the full context of the situation, and I think it's misleading. 

 

And I hope they are paid well. From the sounds of a lot of these studios, they do not get paid enough, especially if these games go on to sell gangbusters. You can't put a price on that crunch time, and it seems they've been taken advantage of for years. The people doing the work should get the money, and when they're not, I just don't think people should rush to defend the cost of a game. 

[Keyser_Soze]

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

I’m not disputing the prices - they were what they were. I don’t have data on the rental services and wouldn’t even know where to look for that information. But it was a significant option for people to play games that isn’t really around today, and the used market was viable as well. Personally, as a kid with limited funds, I rented 10x as many games as I ever bought, at least. It was, I dunno, $6 to rent a game that could easily be beaten over the weekend. Also the zeitgeist and FOMO around big titles wasn’t the same, at least among more casual players. Plus there was a lot more “borrowing” games and stuff like that. 
 

I’m just pushing back on the idea that everyone purchased all their games at $70 and that was the way things were. The situation was a lot different. 

 

Heck I had SEGA channel. So I have very few genesis games because of it.

[Brian]

I use GameFly so suck a big one bud

 

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/cyberpunk-2077-is-preparing-to-enter-certification-and-wont-cost-70-on-next-gen/

 

on topic, cyberpunk won’t be $70 for next gen

[Remarkableriots]

On 8/31/2020 at 7:16 PM, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Heck I had SEGA channel. So I have very few genesis games because of it.

I used SEGA channel once when i was at Disney World.

[number305]

On 8/31/2020 at 8:36 PM, Paperclyp said:

I'm sorry I really am not being clear 

 

I'm not really disagreeing with your assertion that $69.99 isn't unreasonable. I prefer to not really assert either way whether or not it's reasonable, but I don't disagree with you. The only point I'm trying to make is that I don't think showing prices of retail games tells the story of what people paid for games back then. Like, it would not be unlike (in spirit) showing you the cost to rent that recent Pete Davidson movie (wasn't it like, $30 to rent) in 50 years and being like, see, new movies used to cost a lot to rent back then too. It's not a great analogy, but I'm just trying to get across that the price itself does not show the full context of the situation, and I think it's misleading. 

 

And I hope they are paid well. From the sounds of a lot of these studios, they do not get paid enough, especially if these games go on to sell gangbusters. You can't put a price on that crunch time, and it seems they've been taken advantage of for years. The people doing the work should get the money, and when they're not, I just don't think people should rush to defend the cost of a game. 

I'm sure you know this... But charging more for the game will not put more money in the pockets of the programmers who are worked like slaves during crunch time. It will ensure the executives get a better bonus. 

[crispy4000]

3 hours ago, number305 said:

I'm sure you know this... But charging more for the game will not put more money in the pockets of the programmers who are worked like slaves during crunch time. It will ensure the executives get a better bonus. 

 

It’s far from this binary.
 

If employees aren’t getting raises to keep up with inflation or industry standards, they’re more likely to leave.  Game prices keeping up with inflation puts pressure on companies to increase their salaries.  Because being a programmer at a studio shipping AAA games means getting paid well enough not to get poached.

Those who get screwed over most, with or without crunch, are the temp workers.

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

It’s far from this binary.
 

If employees aren’t getting raises to keep up with inflation or industry standards, they’re more likely to leave.  Game prices keeping up with inflation puts pressure on companies to increase their salaries.  Because being a programmer at a studio shipping AAA games means getting paid well enough not to get poached.

Those who get screwed over most, with or without crunch, are the temp workers.

Base MSRP per game <> Revenue

Revenue has very little impact on how much the employees at a game studio make, and even less on how temp workers are treated at AAA studios.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Base MSRP per game <> Revenue

Revenue has very little impact on how much the employees at a game studio make, and even less on how temp workers are treated at AAA studios.

 

It has everything to do with how many full time employees AAA studios can actually afford to house.

 

The industry wouldn’t become gumdrops and lollipops if $60 was kept.  A price increase isn’t simply about greed.  It’s about sustainability, and people keeping their jobs.

 

That’s probably not a worry with COD, or NBA2k.  But they’re doing the rest of the AAA industry a favor. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

It has everything to do with how many full time employees AAA studios can actually afford to house.

That is very naieve.  Epic has managed to do very well by giving their game away, and selling cosmetics.

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

The industry wouldn’t become gumdrops and lollipops if $60 was kept.  

I am being very honest in saying that I have no idea what that sentence means.

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

A price increase isn’t simply about greed.  It’s about sustainability, and people keeping their jobs.

A price increase works when demand is elastic, which is probably the case with CoD -- but may not be with other games (like FIFA or Star Wars: Squadrons).  EA didn't price SW:S below $60 because they thought the lower price would lower demand.  Ubisoft is keeping the price of next-gen AC:V at $60, because they believe that increasing the price will hurt the overall revenue on THEIR game.

 

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

That is very naieve.  Epic has managed to do very well by giving their game away, and selling cosmetics.

I am being very honest in saying that I have no idea what that sentence means.

A price increase works when demand is elastic, which is probably the case with CoD -- but may not be with other games (like FIFA or Star Wars: Squadrons).  EA didn't price SW:S below $60 because they thought the lower price would lower demand.  Ubisoft is keeping the price of next-gen AC:V at $60, because they believe that increasing the price will hurt the overall revenue on THEIR game.

 

Yes, there’s different revenue models and approaches to mtx.  Doesn’t change that AAA developers can’t expect to bankroll their games off the back of a F2P model, unless it became wildly successful.  It’s not something most retail games could rationalize.  The F2P games by big publishers are typically projects with less riding on them.  Fortnite’s own success was born out of that approach.  (And so was Paragon’s death)

 

I think Ubisoft isn’t charging $70 because they realized they would have gotten blowback for Valhalla looking so current-gen.  EA meanwhile realizes arena flight combat games are a niche.

I doubt a majority of AAA games will do any worse in sales at $70 than $60, just as they didn’t from $50 to $60.  Those who buy new would pay either price.  Those who buy after price cuts will still get excited by %-off numbers and not complain it’s a few quarters more than they would have paid otherwise.  (... But kind of is the same anyways due to inflation.)

[Guest]

No business actually knows the perfect price point to maximize revenue. They make a lot of effort to find it, but they don’t know what it is because you can’t actually compare different price points on the same product with the same market conditions.

[chakoo]

F2P is not always a winning model. Hell if fortnight didn't make it's late pivot to be more like PUBG we wouldn't be talking about it right now. There are so many AAA games that tried the F2P model and ultimately failed to make back their development budget.

[Keyser_Soze]

9 minutes ago, chakoo said:

F2P is not always a winning model. Hell if fortnight didn't make it's late pivot to be more like PUBG we wouldn't be talking about it right now. There are so many AAA games that tried the F2P model and ultimately failed to make back their development budget.

 

What no one ever talks about is original fortnight. Is it still coming?

[Bloodporne]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spork3245]