I keep hearing news about layoffs and games failing to meet expectations in the industry. Games are so big nowadays, they need to sell a lot to be profitable. Developers are underpaid and overworked. As a solution, companies add insufferable amounts of monetization to their games, making them worse in the process, and expecting people to keep playing and paying for years.

To this, I say go back to the old ways! Considering inflation, games should be a lot more expensive! Charge 100 dollars per game, if that makes it good and not filled with microtransactions. While we’re at it, charge 700 dollars per console, and then give us free multiplayer instead of this subscription crap. And give game developers 90% of the sales instead of 70%, so that they can afford to take risks with creative stuff.

Then I remember I’m from a country that has lost a lot of purchasing power compared to the US, so game prices have actually gone up here. And I’m on this forum because I like paying less than $20 for classics that were sold for three times that when they came out. And I remember I bought the cheapest console, because it was cheap.

Guess I’m a hypocrite.

Would I be different if the world was different? Would I have an unending backlog of not started games if they were $100? Would the “living room mini pc” concept be in a better state if $300 consoles didn’t exist? We’ll never know for sure, but I think the answer is yes to all, because I don’t like taking the blame.

Add a comment if you’re a hypocrite too.

  • lordnikon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    the problem is CEO after you bought your $100 game for your $700 console. “We could boost profits so I can get my bonus this quarter by enabling microtransactions anyway and shut down the severs on the game you bought after a year. Because not enough people are buying the game anymore and we don’t offer dedicated servers like we did for 20 years with no issues but now it’s too hard. We will keep the severs going but you need to buy a subscription.”

    If you feed the beast more it just craves more to be full. I would have no problem paying the same prices for games in the 90s adjusted inflation. If wages had kept up with productively. Hell they can even keep the cost reduction going from carts to CDs or downloads.

    Also the Steam Deck is $349 right now.

  • gomp@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Considering inflation, games should be a lot more expensive!

    …and, considering the economics of scale, they should be a lot less expensive.

    It’s not like inflation is the only driver behind prices.

  • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Sorry, but inflation is a not great reasoning.

    Wages in a lot of the world (especially the US) have been completely left behind by inflation, so many people are paid very similarly to how they were paid in the 2000s. That is the entire driver behind the insane wealth inequality gap.

    Video games are a luxury good, so if you up the price (especially for shitty cranked out AAA games with little replay value and dubious quality) then they will see profits actually fall because so many people will see those games as not worth it. Not to mention that orders of magnitude more people are just struggling to pay rent now with skyrocketing housing prices (corporations switching to housing for investments and buying up all property) and worsening working conditions.

    The reason companies are switching to subscriptions and micro transactions en masse is because they just work, take minimal effort, and make massive profits. They are literally exploiting flaws in the human psyche.

    According to blizzard, 1 single horse skin microtransaction in world of warcraft made more money than all of the sales from the entire game of StarCraft 2: wings of liberty.

    Plus, let’s say all of this was successful in switching the content of games to less exploitative means of earning profits. Do you think developers will be treated better? Do you think shareholders will forgo their worship of yearly increasing profits and treat employers fairly? More likely they would just increase the price and double dip by micro transactions, loot boxes, and battle passes for those precious profits.

    I would love to go back to the better times of games also, but corporate greed prevents it at every turn.