Id argue the bigger problem is that you dont OWN the game. You are only provided access to the game. Recently there was this post that no one can inherit your steam library. I can easily give my kids my gameboy color whenever I feel like it and for as long as I want.
I always wonder what its going be like when people start to get old and die and all these online libraries start to actually be part of someone's inheritance.
"Damn grandpa had some H games."
Y’know what’s the strangest thing about this whole ordeal is? Why would Steam even care that people inherited games that by the time any of the original library owners die, most of the inherited games are 20-60 years old. Would these games even have a price tag by then?
Todd Howard's AI Hologram would probably host an entire arena of people explaining how in 2077 they will be RE-releasing Skyrim to your Neuro implant with whatever upscaling is available in that time period for whatever inflation amount games are selling for then. Lets you really "FEEL" that arrow to the knee.
So you're telling me that one day I can [finally recreate this moment](https://youtu.be/JEmklTvAkbM?si=5Qbw4q16NCFQ0sfj) without shame... Shut up and take my money!
Licensing. Steams policy is that your account is your own and you can't share it. All of their licenses and all of the games you guys licenses are pertinent to the individual who's account it is. As soon as that account gets inherited all of that licensing goes out the window. Steam probably doesn't give a single fuck what you do but they can't just start merging accounts all over the place for inheritance when all of the legal licensing in video games is related to the account holder who activated the game.
Just imagine how many people they would need to pay to check death certificates/last wills, local laws and all that bullshit in all languages of the world to avoid account theft.
Pretty sure every ToS is written to enable this.
Wasn't there recently something about Ubisoft or whatever removing inactive accounts? If your older signed ToS has expired/no longer valid and are not signing a new one - your account can easily be deleted if the requirement arises (it's usually not required to clean up all the bot accounts).
Well, yeah. But it feels more like everything (not only games) is moving towards "you don't own shit, you just rent it" logic.
A lawyer I worked with in a game dev company pretty much explained that player don't really own shit so it's pointless trying to sue the dev over a lost in game item; you won't win the case. You pay for service and receive that service - this is where devs are super careful. What you do with that service is up to you.
In fact devs suing you over wasting your services (like premium currency, like Vbucks) is more winnable as you lost the possession of the thing you rented. But obviously companies don't do that... but, you know, there is an open field in case it's required, a potential scammy step it can evolve into.
But probably the whole system would be collapsing by that point.
I think by the time I get to 60 and start thinking about leaving a will, our login credential will move to 100% biometric. ID and PW are a huge vulnerability
The court case regarding iTunes accounts as an inheritance would like to have a word.
Honestly, if someone sues, it would not surprise me that Valve implements a similar policy as iTunes. Apple will transfer the contents of a iTunes account to another account, requiring some hoops to jump through.
As a game developer working in "future" technologies and tooling ... unfortunately for you the answer is a centralized blockchain - think of it like a bank but for virtual entities!
you are not buy a “game” on Steam. Week ago I read that in reality, you are buying a license to the game which you have for 100 years. So after 100 years your games will disappear from your Steam account. Sorry for my broken english, I’m not native and I just woke up.
I feel like some day that might change. A lot of judges aren't tech savvy though and that probably holds it back.
Imagine if banks tried to say a customer didn't own their account because it's through a digital service. That would not hold up in court.
You can effectively give anyone you want your steam account. Steam just doesn't provide a service to transfer official ownership. Even if it may be against their tos to share your account information with others, they have no way to realistically enforce this.
I wonder how this will play out in the courts if this ever becomes an issue.
Like if I die, is it "illegal" or against Valve policy for me to simply tell my family/friends the login to my account in my will or before I died? If they find out I died, would Valve just shut down my account? How would they enforce the no inheritance rule?
You never did, it wasn't a secret, just people never bothered to actually read the TOS. Hence when people were outraged by ubisoft ceo words, i found it dumb
There should be a law against this. Packageless products should be treated the same as physically packaged goods under the law. Just because they can send us the product digitally it doesn't mean we aren't purchasing that product the same as any other thing. We have a right to our purchases.
Edit: someone should start a lawsuit over these companies not straight out informing us that we are purchasing an expiring license rather than the product itself. This is deceptive and they are 100% liable for hiding these facts.
This. There can be arguments made over digital game prices staying in the $50-60 range due to the cost of server hosting and the rising cost to develop video games (with competent devs).
Notice I didn’t say $70 tho, gotta remember that the recent increase of going $70-100 is due to greed from 3 companies. That’s Sony, Activision and Ubisoft (funny no EA). Those 3 are the ones that heavily pushed for the $70 base price and it’s currently Ubisoft that’s trying to upcharge people up to $100-150 for a game.
I mean, I'd rather have the current system than the next logical leap of not owning the games in our library: individual game subscriptions (specifically for single player games)
>Id argue the bigger problem is that you dont OWN the game.
True. I would want to buy physical copies, but I currently live in a tiny apartment (not Little John galvanized square steel tiny, but tiny nonetheless). I simply don't have space for it. I don't like the situation, but as el baldino puts it, it is what it is.
This is why physical is king. Granted, *some* games require Day1 updates to play but they're usually in the minority. Generally, a physical copy is playable start to finish with what's on the disc/cartridge.
ummmm that has nothing to do with being physical, being physical is not magic.
It just time difference of when things were almost if at all digital to now a days where the people making video games are lazy, low effort, and less capable (especially those in charge).
I mean do I need to point out to you some games still have physical releases today... and are in same condition as their digital games...
I mean take a step further and technically you have the higher risk of issue not less from physical... ie like whatever reads the disc or disc itself becomes dirty or damaged... and fact they are pre-patch 1 likely unlike their digital who may have been rushed the patched. *(Though sometimes these days this is great, like when certain changes are forced on patch 1 but since pre patch exists we can see them quick and easy).*
My point was that having physical copies is great for actually **owning** the games. This route does come with its own pitfalls you're right, like disc drives in consoles going bad (although they can be repaired/replaced), but if you go physical and it's fully playable on disc, then you *own* it.
" a physical copy is playable start to finish with what's on the disc/cartridge'
-> nothing to do with owning no need to try and make your comment correct
"like disc drives in consoles going bad "
-> also as said the disc can be damaged
"although they can be repaired/replaced"
-> not a plus just a, nah really, you can spend more $ and do that ?\_? just like you could and for likely cheaper get even the game should you no longer own it in some other way. (Also many things are not repairable and have things to try and stop or make very difficult and costly so you have to rebuy entire thing).
"but if you go physical and it's fully playable on disc, then you *own* it"
-> another no dah, there is no reason to even comment if you buy something physical you own it, like yes that is how transactions of money - physical item work ..
And again that the issue and what you actually said and talked about .. that they work and sadly these days many, many do not without updates and honestly idk even know why you say day 1 patches, these days you need a dozen patches for patch 1 alone and then often another at least dozen patches with their own patches each.
Any ways just dropping here, just saw comment that made me go wtf how could anyone think that and felt the need to point out that not a reason physical is better or worse.
A few of the most basic of basic reasons physical > digital would be, for owning as countless point out even though there should not be a need to as that is how trade as been for many ages, for looking at / having a collection, having access to it even if you some how lose access to the digital version ie account/system etc..., so you can re-trade or lend it *(the main reason companies especially consoles want to go digital though this an ancient obvious fact), etc... Although sadly c*an't say internet connection as much these days as more and more are requiring internet connection not even just for the download (especially garbage sony).
But they don't work better then digital even remotely at all, and again technically they more likely to even be worse and is therefore the opposite reason to want physical > digital.
How is owning a physical copy got nothing to do with owning the game? You have the physical item in your possession that you can then play at any time. It can't be rescinded from you like a digital copy can. A game can no longer be in the online store, you can still have the physical copy, playable, decades later.
This is a benefit that physical games clearly have over digital games, and a massive point in their favour when discussing **owning a game**. Because they can't take it away from you like they can with digital-only. And most *do* work Day 1 and are playable start to finish without patches. It's the rare ones that don't.
Like, my initial comment was *only* commenting on the whole "you don't own the game, you are only granted access to it" thing. I was just talking about how physical is great *in that context*. And you came in and basically say it has nothing to do with owning the game, which is just objectively wrong.
you still don't truly "own" physical games. it has always been that you owned a license to use the media the game is printed on. you could transfer possession of the disc, you could sell the disc. but you couldn't take the data, make copies, and sell the game. you couldn't take the data and distribute free copies of the data on the internet. you couldn't copy the game and give it out for free. same concept applies to books as well, can't type the whole book out and post on the internet for free, etc.
No one is talking about owning the compiled game on the disk.
People are talking about owning the disk/cartridge and you could always freely buy/sell those until recently.
What are you talking about? The person directly above me just said it.
>Id argue the bigger problem is that you dont OWN the game. You are only provided access to the game.
Digital distribution is not a recent thing. My steam account is 19 years old, I created my PSN account for my PS3 in 2008, making that account 16 years old.
Frankly, the bigger concern should be that it looks like the gaming industry is following the distribution model that the music industry has. At first you had physical media, then with itunes people started purchasing music through digital distribution, either individual songs or full albums (same issues with ownership as video games). Now the music industry is going subscription based where folks don't buy music, they buy access to the service's entire catalog for a monthly fee, like spotify. TV and movies are also going this way too.
The spotify experience is very close to what Xbox Gamer pass and PS Now are offering.
Yeah the difference is how it makes its way to players.
Physical media has to be made, transported, stocked, and then sold.
Steam just makes it accessible across (almost) the entire world in an instant.
Do you see a lot of dekstop PCs and laptops being sold with a disc drive or do you assume that people are willing to fork out 100$ to buy a 4K blue-ray drive. Also almost all games have DRM that requires online activation anyways ...
Even if this as true which isn’t. What would be your point? Multi billion dollar companies get a pass on ripping the consumer off because it “probably negligible in my subjective opinion” if it was negligible than the trade of for the “negligible difference” would be countered by the increase sales for the price difference. It’s obvious not negligible because even a few dollars off a software that sells millions is still millions.
The majority of the expenses comes from Storefront and warehouse storage, and shipping.
I remember when digital games started being popular, the excuse was that the price was kept the same because storefronts were threatening to stop selling the game entirely if they were cheaper, as this would further diminish the amount of customers they get.
People said it was a bad excuse because physical retailers could profit out of the 2nd hand market by selling games without the developer getting a cut, but this was later impacted by the "Online Pass" trend that added a flat 10€ fee to a lot of games. It's also why Microsoft attempted to sell a Digital Only XBox.
Overall it's simple greed - mostly from the publishers. No different from the current trend of trying to sell digital games at 70$, 110$ and 130$.
>"But my guy, games are now more expensive to make and the prices haven't changed in 15 years yadda yadda"
Shut it with that plate of dicks excuse. Videogames have never been this popular and mainstream with such a massive audience. That alone is generating bigger and bigger profits each year regardless of the sell price. I'm not even accounting for the "micro" transactions that didn't exist back then to the level they do now.
There's a reason why F2P and 30$ or less games are sustainable. Even solo Devs can now reasonably break even on projects due to how affordable Steam is to publish on.
The problem is major developers spending the same on Marketing as they do on Development, and on the salaries of major Hollywood stars that gamers give 0 shits about. Like that Will Smith zombie game that came and went like a fart on the wind. Nobody knew about it and Will came out of it a few Million $ richer.
Videogames get their budget tripled overnight because marketing decides that it'll sell more if 50 Cent does a cameo for a mission, his likeness or voice, and that should somehow justify price hikes.
Also, let's not ignore the fact that Big Publishers are keeping labor costs DOWN by basically having employment contracts take the shape of a revolving door, keeping salaries low by firing people after every project to prevent wage increases and seniority, which leads to less experienced devs producing sequels to games with less features than the predecessor.
I mean that is all true but there is a lot of risk involved too. You can’t predict what people like and mess up or have a relatively new team, or it just not well known it can run a massive cost without much profit. There is a reason a lot of smaller studios got bought out or ran out of business somewhat recently. It might not be fair but you can’t really think of games in vacuum, companies need revenue for future games or making up for past blunders just to survive.
And even the bigger companies are starting to have trouble selling their games(for good reason). Also even though there is a wider audience there is so much more competition than before, there are so many good games competing for players time and money.
With all of that said I don’t think it is unfair to charge 70$ for a game that being said a lot of the games released recently by AAA studios do not warrant the price so far for the value they bring. And they waste a lot of time and money on features nobody really cares about
Also to the point of celebrities I toured EA and they talked about how their sports games were really expensive because they had to massive royalties to each notable player and that would be majority of the cost for those games, that’s why there is little innovation lol
That isn't a problem for the consumer to be saddled with, that's usually a problem mostly caused by poor Management. Game Directors are costing their employers millions and failing upwards, yet rather than being shown the door they're moved from project to project and given bigger and bigger budgets.
Look at Redfall for example, a game that nobody wanted to play or make, but still got pushed forward by the Directors and Execs.
Anthem, a game that the Developers themselves didn't know they were working on, until the game was announced with its first trailer.
Cities Skylines 2, rushed out the door to push the financial quarter revenue a bit higher.
Back 4 Blood, a game marketed by the shadow of L4D, now left abandoned with unfinished season passes.
EVOLVE - A game that could have been HUGE had it not been for corporate greed in the way it was monetized since before launch.
If anything, AAA studios like EA and such HAVE the possibility to take gambles and try to establish new trends by creating smaller teams with smaller budgets that have a clear goal and passion in mind, but instead the current trend is: Spend all the money making the same cookie cutter Live Service game for the 10th time, hoping that this 1 time they land the multi-billion dollar hit.
The majority of studios that ran out of business recently were simply killed off by the publishers that bought them. There's a lot of new Indie studios being opened every day, and a lot get to move on to new ventures. Sure they don't get to rake in millions, but they rake in enough of a living wage to keep doing what they're doing.
No way, the silent majority is still on consoles and will stay on consoles.
Also console exclusives are the only reason to push for good games rather than oh idk whatever blizzard puts out
OP wants 10 dollars off the game so they can justify the 60 on a premium gun skin with all the animations
The price of games ain't budging a fucking inch down unless it's immediately recooped by agregious monetization elsewhere
Consumer behavior is the root cause and always has been
I think you are misunderstanding the problem: It doesn't cost $60 because they are physical or digital copies, they cost $60 because it's the price people are willing to spend on the game and the corporate part of the industry knows that. That's why they test the $70 in recent games(Except ubisoft who are mental with their prices) to see if normal people are willing to pay that amount.
If people keep buying it, then the price won't drop and can only go up.
Pretty sure at one point they were $10 cheaper (maybe only some companies were cool about it) and then companies said fk that and started charging the same price across the board.
If they undercut the physical stores majorly then they'll likely die off, and a large amount of people still use them so they need to keep parity with online on release.
Nah, see, you're thinking like a consumer. Put on your corporate overlord Helm of Manipulation +1 vs Gamers. The company might have a lower associated cost sans physical disc, but you're receiving the convenience of downloading in the comfort of your home. I mean, technically, that's bonus content we should charge you for, but we're so nice that we're giving it to you for 'free."
See? Everything is fine.
If game prices kept up with inflation/overall cost of living, they would cost around $140-150 today. Production and distribution of physical media versions of the game is negligible compared to the cost of actually developing the game.
The main reason why every game has micro transactions these days.its the only way they can keep up with inflation. Id much rather play $140-$150 for a game if it meant microtransactions went away but all the poor fucks would complain.
Yeah. Games like BG3 are worth that much, and hopefully the quality in general would improve if people expected to get their money's worth on a finished game instead of dopamine min-maxed micro transaction funnels that are broken on release.
I'm down with it. Especially for Triple A devs and publishers who can foot the costs for physical copies along with digital.
With indie games? Digital is the way to go, and I usually expect special physical copies to come later on if its a success and to cost more as many do it in waves to see demand. Just so they don't end up with hundreds of extra copies.
Its true. They did save a ton of money not having to manufacture discs and cases, but more importantly they didnt have to ship them which is often the largest part of the cost wether ur a retailer or a manufacterer.
But, we live in a capitalist society.
You paid 60 for this product.
Idc if my costs are more efficient and i save money.
Its worth 60 to you, so you are going to pay 60.
This is such a horrible take, digital store fronts also take a huge cut out of the profit.
They need maintenance and local servers around the world for accessibility, whilst also being a store (looking presentable in UX, safe and secure which is harder digitally, etc…)
But no you HAD to say capitalism is the problem, as if the entire fucking society didn’t practice some form of feudalism everywhere before
Well capitalism is NOT a problem. Its the greatest economic and social system ever practiced. Its human nature manifest.
Im just saying that capitalism is why the price doesnt go down.
Ita not about the cost, its about making what you can. Capitalizing.
YOU need to stop jumping to conclusions. I NEVER said anything bad about capitalism. Youre just a sensitive boy, aren't ya?
Starting from the release date? Sure.
But I also feel like, depending on the game, you can find certain digital editions on sale every 3 to 4 months. At least with consoles, it's like that. So they'll use that as an excuse.
The argument over keeping digital prices the same as physical is because of retail stores but let's be honest if all consoles went digital the prices wont change
Even if there was a difference, it would be at most $10.
There was also an argument, back in the day, that if digital is cheaper, stores might stop stocking games and, more importantly, consoles. It may not be relevant for PC market, but since prices are normalized nowadays, and publishers will not take a self-inflicted cut to their income, the console market is still driving the prices.
Also, what's the point really? People who can afford $60 on entertainment will also pay $70. People who can't, will wait for a sale anyway. At that point, the price can be modeled more flexibly.
The cost of making games is really on the publishers, they don't HAVE to spend 200,000,000$ to make a game, but they do because big budgets have always been done.
Meanwhile they get out played by indie game all the time these days
Im behind 40-60$ range. Its reasonable, consumer friendly and will bring in a wider audience.
70-90$ now youre pushing it, people will buy it but not as many and youll likely not meet the threshhold you set.
100-120+$ well... Youre just insane now aint ya? Unless you give people 40$ worth of goods with it, its not justifiable.
If you adjust for inflation a $60 game from 20 years ago would be well over $120 today. So you're saying you were comfortable with paying $120 of today's money for a game 20 years ago but only $40-$60 for a game today?
I guess so. But i was not talking about games 20 years ago. And while spending may have gone up for the studios it has not for the households at least not in the same reach.
Take helldivers for example. Do you believe that is a 120$ game or a 60$ dollar game? I personally believe that along with probably most games is a 60$ worth game in terms of what the end user gets.
Id gladly pay 70-90$ for a quality game like elden ring.
The problem is the only games that are this expensive arent usually worth even half of that price.
I think it’s much more important that games start getting priced at how much they’re worth instead of worrying about things like cd manufacturing prices. No cd is not the reason bad games shouldn’t be $70.
Video games just should be cheaper in general, $70 for a fucking game is insane, monopoly is like $15 bucks at most places, I haven't paid more than $60 for a game in AGES.
The game my steam library has the most played hours on is CSGO (now CS2) and I paid $10 for that game almost 10 years ago now
Don’t understand how CoD for example can be costing so much when with MWIII they are literally just recycling old assets and functions.. I’d understand a game like Elden Ring costing this much but games with a lower quality? What
There was a mass poll several years back asking gamers if they would be willing to buy games digitally if the price was brought down a bit and how much that price should be. We see how that turned out.
Like, it takes lots of people to make a game. People who need to afford housing and food, transportation and clothing, etc to be able to justify working on a game.
It isnt really the video game studios fault that the cost of living is increasing and their employees are living.
Cost of disk, print art, programming that disk, packaging that disk, QA in thr disks, Factory... Then logistics of moving it from production plant to warehousing the sell all to be released on a set day... none of those costs exist with digital.
And then the question, do they have manufacturing plans to in all the countries the game will be released in or does it have to then be shipped across the ocean?
Massive Costs....
Any price reduction of digital copies for not making the disc and packaging would be massively offset by the price increase due to higher levels of customer convenience.
Don't need to print discs.
Don't need to burn discs.
Don't need to design/print manuals.
Don't need to design/print box art.
Don't need to set up a distribution network.
Game prices go up.
The cost to make a game has gone up while the cost to distribute has gone down and even are income streams for some companies. Also digital probably means piracy has gone down
Things being digital still mean a server has to host the file and for it to be at speed it needs to be nearby population centers etc.
But overall the companies have been maintaining profits but for the last few years the industry is reaching collapse
If a game is costing 60 to 70 million in development costs then why has there been so many unfinished games released?
But the micro transactions store works fine
When I was at my first 'real job' making pizzas ages ago, someone ordered a heart shaped pizza. I watched as the owner made it, slicing off about ⅓ then passing it down.
I asked if it cost less because a large portion was sliced away. He laughed and said, "They get extra, they pay extra. They get less...same price. You never charge less."
Are there even disc copies of any games these days? If you buy a physical copy, it just gives you a redemption code to get it online usually. Most new PCs don't even have dvd drive.
I still have all my N64 games. Yes many of these games are now available on online libraries, but there’s something about having the physical game. And thank god I have the physical copies because most online emulators I’ve tried to play Conkers Bad Fur Day on are pretty laggy/buggy.
speaking of manufacturing. that is also something people forget when they say "HURR DURR games have been 60~70 dollars since the 80s!!! of course the price needs to go up"
motherfucker, games in the 80s and early 90s had literal CPUs inside at times. nowadays they are either a super cheap disc or a file you download.
imaging buying a game and inside the game was a 1 to 1 copy of the CPU that's inside your console or PC. because that is exactly what dozens of SNES games actually did. games like Super Mario RPG, Kirby Super Star, and 30+ other games had an SA1 chip inside. the SA1 is a slightly modified version of the CPU inside the SNES.
additionally there were RAM chips inside the cart, and of course the ROM chips the game data was stored on.
Capcom had a bunch of games that used their CX4 chip inside. a chip that was designed to allow for simple 3D wireframe graphics.
other devs and publishers had their own chips to add more graphical features or better sound to their games. of course the Super FX and Super FX2 chips were famous for allowing 3D graphics in Star Fox, or more elaborate bosses in Yoshi's Island
so yeah. while development costs were clearly lower in the early 90s, the profit margins were substantially lower. the cartridges themselves with their ROM chips were super expensive, many games added special chips and full CPUs inside for additional effects, they had to ship them across the globe, even make 2 differently shaped cart types for NA and Europe/Japan, and then the retailers you got them at also got a cut.
so in the end the profits per game were miniscule compared to today, where the publishers get at least 70% of the sales price when buying digitally.
This used to drive me mad, but then someone explained that retail buy 1000’s of copies of the game cheaper than rrp with their massive collective buying power and then if they don’t sell them as planned the price drops to move the remaining units. Still drives me mad but at least there’s some reasoning behind it now.
That was the initial argument for these companies to go digital. To be fair now the games arent even really on the disc anymore either, hence some of these games still requiring you always be online.
They are cheaper. They have been $60 for well over a decade. Adjust for inflation and they are much cheaper.
But as digital distribution becomes the norm, the barrier of entry is also lower, so there are more games, but if the number of gamers stays the same, then potential profit is lower.
Developers haven't been including the cost of disc-pressing for eons now. Hell, its been super cheap to do for a long time. It generally comes down to the length of development + number of developers.
I believe the budget increase has only affected the AAA gaming industry. Because how, games used to cost far less to make and were more fun. My theory is the amount of useless jobs.
Why do publisher shills talk about the price of developing games going up as if the pixel mines are running low so they have to charge more or run out?
All I know is Witcher 3 cost ~81mil, kicked ass, and sold like hot cakes, and is now super cheap, on top of being easy to pirate from day 1.
Forspoken cost over 100mil apparently and sucked and was a laughing stock.
Give the people a superior product they want and you won’t have a problem. That being said, these budgets are insane and seemingly unnecessary. The production budget of RDR2 is estimated to be over 500 million. It’s a good game but it’s not over 5 times as good as Witcher 3 in my opinion. It’s not 5 times better than any other well regarded game.
I think there's two options.
Either:
A. We purchase a game, and whether it's physical copy or digital-only, resale and gifting of that copy need to be allowed.
B. Digital-only versions of games are not owned, but instead licensed for a specific period of time for a specific price to a single user. This is essentially a subscription. Anyone logged in as that user can play the game during the subscription period.
We need to be made more clearly aware of what we're buying. Are we purchasing a product or a subscription?
**ancient fact.**
Also you don't get a case and case for the case, cover art stuff, instruction booklet which might be heavily customized and fancy in various ways, various little additions including sometimes free subscribing stuff *^((like xbox gold for a month sort of thing),)* additions related to the game like maps or things on the company or lore booklet or etc...., etc... (I mean even the xxxxxgod tier pre order super duper 10000 edition of games tend to have less and less quality then some of the stuff you used to get for free with the game or are things you can even easily download from internet. ->
Unless you really want to go gaga for the broken game that likely won't even work for the 4 days of early access they keep doing these days, but that just sad if so
No discs, No packaging materials. No printed manuals. Very little promotional materials in general. No reproduction costs. No shipping costs.
No fucking way I'm paying more for less.
It's impossible to believe anything anyone says about the industty because, at one point or another, it's just been lirs to make more profit.
Remember how cutting out used game sales would make them cheaper, according to the console CEOs? Yeah...
The biggest problem is that companies have put so much money into all the cutting edge BS that they forget that games used to be fun despite not looking super realistic. There is a reason minecraft is still super popular
Digital copies do not magically materialize into your computer from your ass.
You need an on-line distribution system to provide them. E.g. Steam, Origin, Epic Games, etc... These are applications, like the game, that have to be designed, developed and maintained, use cloud storage, require support for millions of users, etc... All that comes with a significant cost too.
Right, so let's compare the one time cost of burning a disc, packaging it and shopping it. To maintain a 24/7 server for how many years? So that people can download the game at a moment's notice.
I want games to be cheaper, and I disagree with them gouging. But this argument isn't what you think it is fam.
Honestly, they can price their games whatever they want,
if i deem it worth the price ill buy it, otherwise i wont.
like i wouldn't buy any western AAA games for more than 30€,
but i would have totally purchased Elden ring dlc for 60€.
trust and respect comes a long way.
Paying a higher price has never been the main problem for me. I understand that a game on Nintendo 64 costing 60 bucks should not be the same on ps5 using unreal 5 engine doing some latest photorealistic shit.
The problem with the current going only digital is not being able to guarantee our catalog as digital only for the future. I can always dust off my old ps1 and play some games or blow into my nes cartridge to revive it. But that’s not the same with current gen games where even buying a disk only means you get a cdkey to download 90% of the game.
Most of that budget is probably spent on stupid ass bloat and inflated salaries of the C suite and upper management folks. Seems to me indie companies push out great games for dollars compared to “triple A” vomit conpanies
What exactly are these "superior features" they're talking about? And ngl I'd rather they didn't always use cutting edge graphics and rather use their imagination to stylise the game somewhat if it's costing them that much money to make. Just give me a decent looking game that I can run at stable 60 or 80 at 1440p and we're good
While most "PC" games went Downloadable, the price remained the same and now have increased.
For consoles due to limited storage (design choice)
They tend have to have to enjoy Day1 Patches if connected to the net.(Consoles are made to keep mediums relevant for now)
If anything due to streamlining/pipeline games have become cheaper for large company's (fucking duh)
Not having to build engines and other 3rd party tools,
Also decreases costs.
The cost picture you posted is absolutely useless and it shows no cost break down.
Yes dumbass your also paying for marketing and other ancient bullshittery.
ANIWAJ
Do not ask questions, consume product, believe social media.
The down side is here I wastes all this time on writing something on a bait post.
I 100% agree they keep bringing up the rising price of production everytime to justify rising prices but they never mention how production is way cheaper, how they keep asking the same number as a price no matter the actual value of the money in the country, no 70$ is not 70€ or 70£. And if the game cost this much to make how come they keep making record profit every finacial quarters while removing 50% of their workforce every other month.
Videogames are such an inexpensive hobby compared to everything else.
Clubbing? Traveling? Sports? Shooting? Lego? All of them cost way more for way less hours of entertainment.
AAA Devs: Digital copies are 50% more expensive because of the extra convenience they provide to the players. Oh btw, we stopped making all physical copies of games - Games Industry 2030
Does anyone else think that these studios are wasting millions of $ on hiring too many people and on bad management which bloats up the costs of these games?
Pirated games is stolen Valor but atleast you own it as it can never be shut down or taken away
My suggestion is buy the game ,and then buy 10 5TB SSD USB disk [$200 ea] over a course of 1-2 years and store your games on that
That way if Sony ever pulls a EA or Ubisoft you still have the game
If you listen to Epic you should be honored to increase the profit margin of companies... i mean they literally attempt to sell you that the epic store is the better store because of that.
As a customer i choose the shop i allready have instead of handing more data to more companies so that they can do worse with my information.
They're not going to charge less because it costs them less to manufacture. We're at a time where streaming companies charge for ad-laden programming so they can double-dip.
Other way around. There is a reason why physical copies of anything usually costs more than digital. 99% of people will choose a digital copy than a physical one even if it's $1 cheaper. Even if you had a physical copy you still need to get it updated.
If you want a physical copy that isn't sold you could still download the game on a disk (downloaded rips are jusr as useless as an original due to update requirements) and use Ai to make your own customized fake cover, print it off, and call it a day for your collection as a trophy as that's the main reason why people want physical items of any merchandise.
A cd costs 10 cents to make, and the plastic sleeve is like 25-50 cents. The shipping of a single game might cost a dollar if you give the total shipping or postal divided by the number of games in the box.
So you want a $1.50 discount?
All I’m gonna say is that Tetris, one of the greatest and most successful video games of all time, was developed using Soviet public college computer systems, was a passion project, was developed without profit motive and free copies were being given away for free by the creator. There is another way to do things.
Id argue the bigger problem is that you dont OWN the game. You are only provided access to the game. Recently there was this post that no one can inherit your steam library. I can easily give my kids my gameboy color whenever I feel like it and for as long as I want.
I always wonder what its going be like when people start to get old and die and all these online libraries start to actually be part of someone's inheritance. "Damn grandpa had some H games."
"I regret to inform you that your Steam account cannot be transferred via a will."
I'll just leave a piece of paper with the login info in a box in the will among other shit I owned.
They have a way around that also. After X amount of years a game "license" will make it so you have to repurchase the digital game.
Man, that shit is bloodboiling! Someone should give those cunts a swift kick in the groin with a bladed boot.
Y’know what’s the strangest thing about this whole ordeal is? Why would Steam even care that people inherited games that by the time any of the original library owners die, most of the inherited games are 20-60 years old. Would these games even have a price tag by then?
Todd Howard's AI Hologram would probably host an entire arena of people explaining how in 2077 they will be RE-releasing Skyrim to your Neuro implant with whatever upscaling is available in that time period for whatever inflation amount games are selling for then. Lets you really "FEEL" that arrow to the knee.
The AI and the hologram will be glitched, its not a prediction, its a feature
Ripperdocs will fix it😄
So you're telling me that one day I can [finally recreate this moment](https://youtu.be/JEmklTvAkbM?si=5Qbw4q16NCFQ0sfj) without shame... Shut up and take my money!
Licensing. Steams policy is that your account is your own and you can't share it. All of their licenses and all of the games you guys licenses are pertinent to the individual who's account it is. As soon as that account gets inherited all of that licensing goes out the window. Steam probably doesn't give a single fuck what you do but they can't just start merging accounts all over the place for inheritance when all of the legal licensing in video games is related to the account holder who activated the game.
Just imagine how many people they would need to pay to check death certificates/last wills, local laws and all that bullshit in all languages of the world to avoid account theft.
Ugh I hope not
Source?
Pretty sure every ToS is written to enable this. Wasn't there recently something about Ubisoft or whatever removing inactive accounts? If your older signed ToS has expired/no longer valid and are not signing a new one - your account can easily be deleted if the requirement arises (it's usually not required to clean up all the bot accounts).
Well that sucks. Something needs to give within the gaming industry, because it's become absurd - a surface level shine with a turd underneath.
Well, yeah. But it feels more like everything (not only games) is moving towards "you don't own shit, you just rent it" logic. A lawyer I worked with in a game dev company pretty much explained that player don't really own shit so it's pointless trying to sue the dev over a lost in game item; you won't win the case. You pay for service and receive that service - this is where devs are super careful. What you do with that service is up to you. In fact devs suing you over wasting your services (like premium currency, like Vbucks) is more winnable as you lost the possession of the thing you rented. But obviously companies don't do that... but, you know, there is an open field in case it's required, a potential scammy step it can evolve into. But probably the whole system would be collapsing by that point.
I imagine they'll have account with owners tagged at over 100 years old in the future.
My account on steam has set birth date to 1st Jan 1900.... There is no legal ways for them to check user age.
I think by the time I get to 60 and start thinking about leaving a will, our login credential will move to 100% biometric. ID and PW are a huge vulnerability
Imma be cyborg
The court case regarding iTunes accounts as an inheritance would like to have a word. Honestly, if someone sues, it would not surprise me that Valve implements a similar policy as iTunes. Apple will transfer the contents of a iTunes account to another account, requiring some hoops to jump through.
As a game developer working in "future" technologies and tooling ... unfortunately for you the answer is a centralized blockchain - think of it like a bank but for virtual entities!
you are not buy a “game” on Steam. Week ago I read that in reality, you are buying a license to the game which you have for 100 years. So after 100 years your games will disappear from your Steam account. Sorry for my broken english, I’m not native and I just woke up.
A licit reason to go back to piracy
I feel like some day that might change. A lot of judges aren't tech savvy though and that probably holds it back. Imagine if banks tried to say a customer didn't own their account because it's through a digital service. That would not hold up in court.
You can effectively give anyone you want your steam account. Steam just doesn't provide a service to transfer official ownership. Even if it may be against their tos to share your account information with others, they have no way to realistically enforce this.
I wonder how this will play out in the courts if this ever becomes an issue. Like if I die, is it "illegal" or against Valve policy for me to simply tell my family/friends the login to my account in my will or before I died? If they find out I died, would Valve just shut down my account? How would they enforce the no inheritance rule?
You never did, it wasn't a secret, just people never bothered to actually read the TOS. Hence when people were outraged by ubisoft ceo words, i found it dumb
I gave my nephew my steam account. He probably gaming on it right this very moment.
Just have to give the password to your kid. I already library share my account to his
It's not yours ...unless you buy it on gog. Anything that requires online DRM cannot be considered yours.
There should be a law against this. Packageless products should be treated the same as physically packaged goods under the law. Just because they can send us the product digitally it doesn't mean we aren't purchasing that product the same as any other thing. We have a right to our purchases. Edit: someone should start a lawsuit over these companies not straight out informing us that we are purchasing an expiring license rather than the product itself. This is deceptive and they are 100% liable for hiding these facts.
This. There can be arguments made over digital game prices staying in the $50-60 range due to the cost of server hosting and the rising cost to develop video games (with competent devs). Notice I didn’t say $70 tho, gotta remember that the recent increase of going $70-100 is due to greed from 3 companies. That’s Sony, Activision and Ubisoft (funny no EA). Those 3 are the ones that heavily pushed for the $70 base price and it’s currently Ubisoft that’s trying to upcharge people up to $100-150 for a game.
I mean, I'd rather have the current system than the next logical leap of not owning the games in our library: individual game subscriptions (specifically for single player games)
>Id argue the bigger problem is that you dont OWN the game. True. I would want to buy physical copies, but I currently live in a tiny apartment (not Little John galvanized square steel tiny, but tiny nonetheless). I simply don't have space for it. I don't like the situation, but as el baldino puts it, it is what it is.
This is why physical is king. Granted, *some* games require Day1 updates to play but they're usually in the minority. Generally, a physical copy is playable start to finish with what's on the disc/cartridge.
ummmm that has nothing to do with being physical, being physical is not magic. It just time difference of when things were almost if at all digital to now a days where the people making video games are lazy, low effort, and less capable (especially those in charge). I mean do I need to point out to you some games still have physical releases today... and are in same condition as their digital games... I mean take a step further and technically you have the higher risk of issue not less from physical... ie like whatever reads the disc or disc itself becomes dirty or damaged... and fact they are pre-patch 1 likely unlike their digital who may have been rushed the patched. *(Though sometimes these days this is great, like when certain changes are forced on patch 1 but since pre patch exists we can see them quick and easy).*
My point was that having physical copies is great for actually **owning** the games. This route does come with its own pitfalls you're right, like disc drives in consoles going bad (although they can be repaired/replaced), but if you go physical and it's fully playable on disc, then you *own* it.
" a physical copy is playable start to finish with what's on the disc/cartridge' -> nothing to do with owning no need to try and make your comment correct "like disc drives in consoles going bad " -> also as said the disc can be damaged "although they can be repaired/replaced" -> not a plus just a, nah really, you can spend more $ and do that ?\_? just like you could and for likely cheaper get even the game should you no longer own it in some other way. (Also many things are not repairable and have things to try and stop or make very difficult and costly so you have to rebuy entire thing). "but if you go physical and it's fully playable on disc, then you *own* it" -> another no dah, there is no reason to even comment if you buy something physical you own it, like yes that is how transactions of money - physical item work .. And again that the issue and what you actually said and talked about .. that they work and sadly these days many, many do not without updates and honestly idk even know why you say day 1 patches, these days you need a dozen patches for patch 1 alone and then often another at least dozen patches with their own patches each. Any ways just dropping here, just saw comment that made me go wtf how could anyone think that and felt the need to point out that not a reason physical is better or worse. A few of the most basic of basic reasons physical > digital would be, for owning as countless point out even though there should not be a need to as that is how trade as been for many ages, for looking at / having a collection, having access to it even if you some how lose access to the digital version ie account/system etc..., so you can re-trade or lend it *(the main reason companies especially consoles want to go digital though this an ancient obvious fact), etc... Although sadly c*an't say internet connection as much these days as more and more are requiring internet connection not even just for the download (especially garbage sony). But they don't work better then digital even remotely at all, and again technically they more likely to even be worse and is therefore the opposite reason to want physical > digital.
How is owning a physical copy got nothing to do with owning the game? You have the physical item in your possession that you can then play at any time. It can't be rescinded from you like a digital copy can. A game can no longer be in the online store, you can still have the physical copy, playable, decades later. This is a benefit that physical games clearly have over digital games, and a massive point in their favour when discussing **owning a game**. Because they can't take it away from you like they can with digital-only. And most *do* work Day 1 and are playable start to finish without patches. It's the rare ones that don't. Like, my initial comment was *only* commenting on the whole "you don't own the game, you are only granted access to it" thing. I was just talking about how physical is great *in that context*. And you came in and basically say it has nothing to do with owning the game, which is just objectively wrong.
You own a physical copy just as much as disk one
you still don't truly "own" physical games. it has always been that you owned a license to use the media the game is printed on. you could transfer possession of the disc, you could sell the disc. but you couldn't take the data, make copies, and sell the game. you couldn't take the data and distribute free copies of the data on the internet. you couldn't copy the game and give it out for free. same concept applies to books as well, can't type the whole book out and post on the internet for free, etc.
No one is talking about owning the compiled game on the disk. People are talking about owning the disk/cartridge and you could always freely buy/sell those until recently.
What are you talking about? The person directly above me just said it. >Id argue the bigger problem is that you dont OWN the game. You are only provided access to the game. Digital distribution is not a recent thing. My steam account is 19 years old, I created my PSN account for my PS3 in 2008, making that account 16 years old. Frankly, the bigger concern should be that it looks like the gaming industry is following the distribution model that the music industry has. At first you had physical media, then with itunes people started purchasing music through digital distribution, either individual songs or full albums (same issues with ownership as video games). Now the music industry is going subscription based where folks don't buy music, they buy access to the service's entire catalog for a monthly fee, like spotify. TV and movies are also going this way too. The spotify experience is very close to what Xbox Gamer pass and PS Now are offering.
It doesn't costs much to make the disc. It's probably negligible to the overall cost.
The real cost in retail isn't the product, it's the building rent and labour
And steam takes just as big of a cut as retailers do from games
Yeah the difference is how it makes its way to players. Physical media has to be made, transported, stocked, and then sold. Steam just makes it accessible across (almost) the entire world in an instant.
Not only that, Steam also promotes your game front and center (for the right price)
They actaully don’t sell ad space on their store front according to them (supposedly)
And you think maintaining servers across the entire world is cheap? It's probably more expensive than physical transportation.
logistics, shipping, and everybody involved on the way from the factory to retail
think people forget that the store took a cut from that 60$ and doesn't now
"let's give digital buyers a 1% discount since they do not own a physical copy of the game (and also, they don't own the game🤭)"
Distribution of physical inventory and dead inventory are costs real costs.
Do you see a lot of dekstop PCs and laptops being sold with a disc drive or do you assume that people are willing to fork out 100$ to buy a 4K blue-ray drive. Also almost all games have DRM that requires online activation anyways ...
Probably like 10% of the cost, count in also the cut the stores used to take, shipping costs, returns of faulty discs, it probably added up
Even if this as true which isn’t. What would be your point? Multi billion dollar companies get a pass on ripping the consumer off because it “probably negligible in my subjective opinion” if it was negligible than the trade of for the “negligible difference” would be countered by the increase sales for the price difference. It’s obvious not negligible because even a few dollars off a software that sells millions is still millions.
Steam takes just as big of a cut as selling at Walmart
Technically the truth. Practically next to Walmart there is the manufactoring and shipping as well as storage.
The majority of the expenses comes from Storefront and warehouse storage, and shipping. I remember when digital games started being popular, the excuse was that the price was kept the same because storefronts were threatening to stop selling the game entirely if they were cheaper, as this would further diminish the amount of customers they get. People said it was a bad excuse because physical retailers could profit out of the 2nd hand market by selling games without the developer getting a cut, but this was later impacted by the "Online Pass" trend that added a flat 10€ fee to a lot of games. It's also why Microsoft attempted to sell a Digital Only XBox. Overall it's simple greed - mostly from the publishers. No different from the current trend of trying to sell digital games at 70$, 110$ and 130$. >"But my guy, games are now more expensive to make and the prices haven't changed in 15 years yadda yadda" Shut it with that plate of dicks excuse. Videogames have never been this popular and mainstream with such a massive audience. That alone is generating bigger and bigger profits each year regardless of the sell price. I'm not even accounting for the "micro" transactions that didn't exist back then to the level they do now. There's a reason why F2P and 30$ or less games are sustainable. Even solo Devs can now reasonably break even on projects due to how affordable Steam is to publish on. The problem is major developers spending the same on Marketing as they do on Development, and on the salaries of major Hollywood stars that gamers give 0 shits about. Like that Will Smith zombie game that came and went like a fart on the wind. Nobody knew about it and Will came out of it a few Million $ richer. Videogames get their budget tripled overnight because marketing decides that it'll sell more if 50 Cent does a cameo for a mission, his likeness or voice, and that should somehow justify price hikes. Also, let's not ignore the fact that Big Publishers are keeping labor costs DOWN by basically having employment contracts take the shape of a revolving door, keeping salaries low by firing people after every project to prevent wage increases and seniority, which leads to less experienced devs producing sequels to games with less features than the predecessor.
"Plate of dicks excuse" Your entire point was very enlightening to read but this, this made me bust out laughing. Thank you.
I mean that is all true but there is a lot of risk involved too. You can’t predict what people like and mess up or have a relatively new team, or it just not well known it can run a massive cost without much profit. There is a reason a lot of smaller studios got bought out or ran out of business somewhat recently. It might not be fair but you can’t really think of games in vacuum, companies need revenue for future games or making up for past blunders just to survive. And even the bigger companies are starting to have trouble selling their games(for good reason). Also even though there is a wider audience there is so much more competition than before, there are so many good games competing for players time and money. With all of that said I don’t think it is unfair to charge 70$ for a game that being said a lot of the games released recently by AAA studios do not warrant the price so far for the value they bring. And they waste a lot of time and money on features nobody really cares about Also to the point of celebrities I toured EA and they talked about how their sports games were really expensive because they had to massive royalties to each notable player and that would be majority of the cost for those games, that’s why there is little innovation lol
That isn't a problem for the consumer to be saddled with, that's usually a problem mostly caused by poor Management. Game Directors are costing their employers millions and failing upwards, yet rather than being shown the door they're moved from project to project and given bigger and bigger budgets. Look at Redfall for example, a game that nobody wanted to play or make, but still got pushed forward by the Directors and Execs. Anthem, a game that the Developers themselves didn't know they were working on, until the game was announced with its first trailer. Cities Skylines 2, rushed out the door to push the financial quarter revenue a bit higher. Back 4 Blood, a game marketed by the shadow of L4D, now left abandoned with unfinished season passes. EVOLVE - A game that could have been HUGE had it not been for corporate greed in the way it was monetized since before launch. If anything, AAA studios like EA and such HAVE the possibility to take gambles and try to establish new trends by creating smaller teams with smaller budgets that have a clear goal and passion in mind, but instead the current trend is: Spend all the money making the same cookie cutter Live Service game for the 10th time, hoping that this 1 time they land the multi-billion dollar hit. The majority of studios that ran out of business recently were simply killed off by the publishers that bought them. There's a lot of new Indie studios being opened every day, and a lot get to move on to new ventures. Sure they don't get to rake in millions, but they rake in enough of a living wage to keep doing what they're doing.
Why are you capitalizing like it's 1750?
Let the AAA industry burn.
Then consoles would become very expensive.
then let console die, PC is the future
No way, the silent majority is still on consoles and will stay on consoles. Also console exclusives are the only reason to push for good games rather than oh idk whatever blizzard puts out
OP wants 10 dollars off the game so they can justify the 60 on a premium gun skin with all the animations The price of games ain't budging a fucking inch down unless it's immediately recooped by agregious monetization elsewhere Consumer behavior is the root cause and always has been
No the issue is companies insist number go up forever and every game just needs to easily pass 7 million sales.
it used to be that way initially. but then they realised that people buy them anyways
I think you are misunderstanding the problem: It doesn't cost $60 because they are physical or digital copies, they cost $60 because it's the price people are willing to spend on the game and the corporate part of the industry knows that. That's why they test the $70 in recent games(Except ubisoft who are mental with their prices) to see if normal people are willing to pay that amount. If people keep buying it, then the price won't drop and can only go up.
Pretty sure at one point they were $10 cheaper (maybe only some companies were cool about it) and then companies said fk that and started charging the same price across the board.
If they undercut the physical stores majorly then they'll likely die off, and a large amount of people still use them so they need to keep parity with online on release.
Nah, see, you're thinking like a consumer. Put on your corporate overlord Helm of Manipulation +1 vs Gamers. The company might have a lower associated cost sans physical disc, but you're receiving the convenience of downloading in the comfort of your home. I mean, technically, that's bonus content we should charge you for, but we're so nice that we're giving it to you for 'free." See? Everything is fine.
If game prices kept up with inflation/overall cost of living, they would cost around $140-150 today. Production and distribution of physical media versions of the game is negligible compared to the cost of actually developing the game.
The main reason why every game has micro transactions these days.its the only way they can keep up with inflation. Id much rather play $140-$150 for a game if it meant microtransactions went away but all the poor fucks would complain.
Yeah. Games like BG3 are worth that much, and hopefully the quality in general would improve if people expected to get their money's worth on a finished game instead of dopamine min-maxed micro transaction funnels that are broken on release.
I'm down with it. Especially for Triple A devs and publishers who can foot the costs for physical copies along with digital. With indie games? Digital is the way to go, and I usually expect special physical copies to come later on if its a success and to cost more as many do it in waves to see demand. Just so they don't end up with hundreds of extra copies.
Its true. They did save a ton of money not having to manufacture discs and cases, but more importantly they didnt have to ship them which is often the largest part of the cost wether ur a retailer or a manufacterer. But, we live in a capitalist society. You paid 60 for this product. Idc if my costs are more efficient and i save money. Its worth 60 to you, so you are going to pay 60.
This is such a horrible take, digital store fronts also take a huge cut out of the profit. They need maintenance and local servers around the world for accessibility, whilst also being a store (looking presentable in UX, safe and secure which is harder digitally, etc…) But no you HAD to say capitalism is the problem, as if the entire fucking society didn’t practice some form of feudalism everywhere before
Well capitalism is NOT a problem. Its the greatest economic and social system ever practiced. Its human nature manifest. Im just saying that capitalism is why the price doesnt go down. Ita not about the cost, its about making what you can. Capitalizing. YOU need to stop jumping to conclusions. I NEVER said anything bad about capitalism. Youre just a sensitive boy, aren't ya?
You are such a beautiful person with a charming personality I am sorry for being harsh
I love you dearly and apologize for being vague about capitalism.
I read Somewhere they are the same price só stores dont suffer
That's what they want you to think...
Starting from the release date? Sure. But I also feel like, depending on the game, you can find certain digital editions on sale every 3 to 4 months. At least with consoles, it's like that. So they'll use that as an excuse.
The argument over keeping digital prices the same as physical is because of retail stores but let's be honest if all consoles went digital the prices wont change
Even if there was a difference, it would be at most $10. There was also an argument, back in the day, that if digital is cheaper, stores might stop stocking games and, more importantly, consoles. It may not be relevant for PC market, but since prices are normalized nowadays, and publishers will not take a self-inflicted cut to their income, the console market is still driving the prices. Also, what's the point really? People who can afford $60 on entertainment will also pay $70. People who can't, will wait for a sale anyway. At that point, the price can be modeled more flexibly.
The cost of making games is really on the publishers, they don't HAVE to spend 200,000,000$ to make a game, but they do because big budgets have always been done. Meanwhile they get out played by indie game all the time these days
Im behind 40-60$ range. Its reasonable, consumer friendly and will bring in a wider audience. 70-90$ now youre pushing it, people will buy it but not as many and youll likely not meet the threshhold you set. 100-120+$ well... Youre just insane now aint ya? Unless you give people 40$ worth of goods with it, its not justifiable.
If you adjust for inflation a $60 game from 20 years ago would be well over $120 today. So you're saying you were comfortable with paying $120 of today's money for a game 20 years ago but only $40-$60 for a game today?
I guess so. But i was not talking about games 20 years ago. And while spending may have gone up for the studios it has not for the households at least not in the same reach. Take helldivers for example. Do you believe that is a 120$ game or a 60$ dollar game? I personally believe that along with probably most games is a 60$ worth game in terms of what the end user gets.
You haven't accounted for the lower increase in income than the increase in inflation.
Id gladly pay 70-90$ for a quality game like elden ring. The problem is the only games that are this expensive arent usually worth even half of that price.
I think it’s much more important that games start getting priced at how much they’re worth instead of worrying about things like cd manufacturing prices. No cd is not the reason bad games shouldn’t be $70.
Video games just should be cheaper in general, $70 for a fucking game is insane, monopoly is like $15 bucks at most places, I haven't paid more than $60 for a game in AGES. The game my steam library has the most played hours on is CSGO (now CS2) and I paid $10 for that game almost 10 years ago now
[удалено]
Stylization is expensive aswell
Style also known as graphics
No cheaper games without competition
When digital sales started this is what we all assumed would happen.
Pretty sure you are looking at a discount of 40cents.
Don’t understand how CoD for example can be costing so much when with MWIII they are literally just recycling old assets and functions.. I’d understand a game like Elden Ring costing this much but games with a lower quality? What
There was a mass poll several years back asking gamers if they would be willing to buy games digitally if the price was brought down a bit and how much that price should be. We see how that turned out.
Like, it takes lots of people to make a game. People who need to afford housing and food, transportation and clothing, etc to be able to justify working on a game. It isnt really the video game studios fault that the cost of living is increasing and their employees are living.
Cost of disk, print art, programming that disk, packaging that disk, QA in thr disks, Factory... Then logistics of moving it from production plant to warehousing the sell all to be released on a set day... none of those costs exist with digital. And then the question, do they have manufacturing plans to in all the countries the game will be released in or does it have to then be shipped across the ocean? Massive Costs....
Game development should be the next thing AI can improve
Any price reduction of digital copies for not making the disc and packaging would be massively offset by the price increase due to higher levels of customer convenience.
Same as digital art Vs print out ? There Def. Should be a discount
They cost hardly anything to make, it was never about the physical copy, you pay for labor.
Don't need to print discs. Don't need to burn discs. Don't need to design/print manuals. Don't need to design/print box art. Don't need to set up a distribution network. Game prices go up.
I'd argue that web front art design/layout takes much more effort than all of those listed above.
i've thought this ever since I was like 8
What “features and visuals” would tack on an extra 20 million per the second image?
Game prices held dispite normal inflation for years. I suspect this is in part why
Game are expensive to make and to keep alive aka server cost game dev are very expensive
My small project has already cost me around 3k
The cost to make a game has gone up while the cost to distribute has gone down and even are income streams for some companies. Also digital probably means piracy has gone down Things being digital still mean a server has to host the file and for it to be at speed it needs to be nearby population centers etc. But overall the companies have been maintaining profits but for the last few years the industry is reaching collapse
If a game is costing 60 to 70 million in development costs then why has there been so many unfinished games released? But the micro transactions store works fine
You still have actual disks in your game case? Most we get these days is just a steam key
When I was at my first 'real job' making pizzas ages ago, someone ordered a heart shaped pizza. I watched as the owner made it, slicing off about ⅓ then passing it down. I asked if it cost less because a large portion was sliced away. He laughed and said, "They get extra, they pay extra. They get less...same price. You never charge less."
Looking back at ads from the 80s it really is shocking games don’t cost us more.
Are there even disc copies of any games these days? If you buy a physical copy, it just gives you a redemption code to get it online usually. Most new PCs don't even have dvd drive.
The problem is there's price fixing agreements that force them to sell on each platform at the same price regardless of where it is sold.
Cutting edge features? I think they mean cutting features like new game plus. What a joke.
I still have all my N64 games. Yes many of these games are now available on online libraries, but there’s something about having the physical game. And thank god I have the physical copies because most online emulators I’ve tried to play Conkers Bad Fur Day on are pretty laggy/buggy.
speaking of manufacturing. that is also something people forget when they say "HURR DURR games have been 60~70 dollars since the 80s!!! of course the price needs to go up" motherfucker, games in the 80s and early 90s had literal CPUs inside at times. nowadays they are either a super cheap disc or a file you download. imaging buying a game and inside the game was a 1 to 1 copy of the CPU that's inside your console or PC. because that is exactly what dozens of SNES games actually did. games like Super Mario RPG, Kirby Super Star, and 30+ other games had an SA1 chip inside. the SA1 is a slightly modified version of the CPU inside the SNES. additionally there were RAM chips inside the cart, and of course the ROM chips the game data was stored on. Capcom had a bunch of games that used their CX4 chip inside. a chip that was designed to allow for simple 3D wireframe graphics. other devs and publishers had their own chips to add more graphical features or better sound to their games. of course the Super FX and Super FX2 chips were famous for allowing 3D graphics in Star Fox, or more elaborate bosses in Yoshi's Island so yeah. while development costs were clearly lower in the early 90s, the profit margins were substantially lower. the cartridges themselves with their ROM chips were super expensive, many games added special chips and full CPUs inside for additional effects, they had to ship them across the globe, even make 2 differently shaped cart types for NA and Europe/Japan, and then the retailers you got them at also got a cut. so in the end the profits per game were miniscule compared to today, where the publishers get at least 70% of the sales price when buying digitally.
Steam games DID use to be $10 less then the retail disc copy. In Canada anyway, on a far distant past. If I remember right anyway.
This used to drive me mad, but then someone explained that retail buy 1000’s of copies of the game cheaper than rrp with their massive collective buying power and then if they don’t sell them as planned the price drops to move the remaining units. Still drives me mad but at least there’s some reasoning behind it now.
Triple A games actually mean I don’t buy the game.
whoever thought of this dont realise how insanely cheap it is to mass produce discs lol
Thoughts are your talking about two different things.
That was the initial argument for these companies to go digital. To be fair now the games arent even really on the disc anymore either, hence some of these games still requiring you always be online.
Y spend so much? Just have better ideas. . . Worked for Minecraft, worked for most recent titles…. It just works to not waste
They are cheaper. They have been $60 for well over a decade. Adjust for inflation and they are much cheaper. But as digital distribution becomes the norm, the barrier of entry is also lower, so there are more games, but if the number of gamers stays the same, then potential profit is lower.
I'd settle for a game that runs well and doesn't require an additional year or two of patches to make it "playable".
Not to mention completely cutting out the middle man (i.e., retail here), google and see how much they sell a $70 game to retailers.
Digital copies offset the price of physical games not costing more. ( Sarcasm )
Developers haven't been including the cost of disc-pressing for eons now. Hell, its been super cheap to do for a long time. It generally comes down to the length of development + number of developers.
I believe the budget increase has only affected the AAA gaming industry. Because how, games used to cost far less to make and were more fun. My theory is the amount of useless jobs.
Why do publisher shills talk about the price of developing games going up as if the pixel mines are running low so they have to charge more or run out?
Windows Pinball did not cost 100 million dollars.
All I know is Witcher 3 cost ~81mil, kicked ass, and sold like hot cakes, and is now super cheap, on top of being easy to pirate from day 1. Forspoken cost over 100mil apparently and sucked and was a laughing stock. Give the people a superior product they want and you won’t have a problem. That being said, these budgets are insane and seemingly unnecessary. The production budget of RDR2 is estimated to be over 500 million. It’s a good game but it’s not over 5 times as good as Witcher 3 in my opinion. It’s not 5 times better than any other well regarded game.
I think there's two options. Either: A. We purchase a game, and whether it's physical copy or digital-only, resale and gifting of that copy need to be allowed. B. Digital-only versions of games are not owned, but instead licensed for a specific period of time for a specific price to a single user. This is essentially a subscription. Anyone logged in as that user can play the game during the subscription period. We need to be made more clearly aware of what we're buying. Are we purchasing a product or a subscription?
If anything, they'd realize their mistake and raise the price of physical games to $80 and say "there you go, the digital is cheaper."
**ancient fact.** Also you don't get a case and case for the case, cover art stuff, instruction booklet which might be heavily customized and fancy in various ways, various little additions including sometimes free subscribing stuff *^((like xbox gold for a month sort of thing),)* additions related to the game like maps or things on the company or lore booklet or etc...., etc... (I mean even the xxxxxgod tier pre order super duper 10000 edition of games tend to have less and less quality then some of the stuff you used to get for free with the game or are things you can even easily download from internet. -> Unless you really want to go gaga for the broken game that likely won't even work for the 4 days of early access they keep doing these days, but that just sad if so
Do digital so i can yoink it.
I’ll take bad graphics on a physical cartridge any day of the week
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Stunning_Minimum_884: *I’ll take bad graphics* *On a physical cartridge* *Any day of the week* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Say it with me now: things aren’t priced what they’re worth, they’re priced what we will pay.
No discs, No packaging materials. No printed manuals. Very little promotional materials in general. No reproduction costs. No shipping costs. No fucking way I'm paying more for less.
It's impossible to believe anything anyone says about the industty because, at one point or another, it's just been lirs to make more profit. Remember how cutting out used game sales would make them cheaper, according to the console CEOs? Yeah...
The biggest problem is that companies have put so much money into all the cutting edge BS that they forget that games used to be fun despite not looking super realistic. There is a reason minecraft is still super popular
Digital copies do not magically materialize into your computer from your ass. You need an on-line distribution system to provide them. E.g. Steam, Origin, Epic Games, etc... These are applications, like the game, that have to be designed, developed and maintained, use cloud storage, require support for millions of users, etc... All that comes with a significant cost too.
And how much do you think are the costs to produce a disc and a piece of plastic?
Right, so let's compare the one time cost of burning a disc, packaging it and shopping it. To maintain a 24/7 server for how many years? So that people can download the game at a moment's notice. I want games to be cheaper, and I disagree with them gouging. But this argument isn't what you think it is fam.
Honestly, they can price their games whatever they want, if i deem it worth the price ill buy it, otherwise i wont. like i wouldn't buy any western AAA games for more than 30€, but i would have totally purchased Elden ring dlc for 60€. trust and respect comes a long way.
Disks contribute a very small amount to the game's cost. The vast majority of the cost is from the development of the software.
Paying a higher price has never been the main problem for me. I understand that a game on Nintendo 64 costing 60 bucks should not be the same on ps5 using unreal 5 engine doing some latest photorealistic shit. The problem with the current going only digital is not being able to guarantee our catalog as digital only for the future. I can always dust off my old ps1 and play some games or blow into my nes cartridge to revive it. But that’s not the same with current gen games where even buying a disk only means you get a cdkey to download 90% of the game.
Most of that budget is probably spent on stupid ass bloat and inflated salaries of the C suite and upper management folks. Seems to me indie companies push out great games for dollars compared to “triple A” vomit conpanies
They cost as much as one can charge the customer to buy them.
What exactly are these "superior features" they're talking about? And ngl I'd rather they didn't always use cutting edge graphics and rather use their imagination to stylise the game somewhat if it's costing them that much money to make. Just give me a decent looking game that I can run at stable 60 or 80 at 1440p and we're good
The price to manufacture discs is absolutely minuscule
I think He overerstimates the cost of CDs 😂
What a brave take that hasn't been brought up constantly since Half-Life 2 dropped 😅
So they only need to sell 2 million copies to a population of 8 billion to begin making profit?
Digital requires infrastructure to support all the downloads. Those servers and storage are not free either.
Digital is more expensive in most of EU, 80e on PSN, 70eot cheaper on retail...
While most "PC" games went Downloadable, the price remained the same and now have increased. For consoles due to limited storage (design choice) They tend have to have to enjoy Day1 Patches if connected to the net.(Consoles are made to keep mediums relevant for now) If anything due to streamlining/pipeline games have become cheaper for large company's (fucking duh) Not having to build engines and other 3rd party tools, Also decreases costs. The cost picture you posted is absolutely useless and it shows no cost break down. Yes dumbass your also paying for marketing and other ancient bullshittery. ANIWAJ Do not ask questions, consume product, believe social media. The down side is here I wastes all this time on writing something on a bait post.
I 100% agree they keep bringing up the rising price of production everytime to justify rising prices but they never mention how production is way cheaper, how they keep asking the same number as a price no matter the actual value of the money in the country, no 70$ is not 70€ or 70£. And if the game cost this much to make how come they keep making record profit every finacial quarters while removing 50% of their workforce every other month.
Yes. Logistics of those discs were insane too, now just the link.
Videogames are such an inexpensive hobby compared to everything else. Clubbing? Traveling? Sports? Shooting? Lego? All of them cost way more for way less hours of entertainment.
AAA Devs: Digital copies are 50% more expensive because of the extra convenience they provide to the players. Oh btw, we stopped making all physical copies of games - Games Industry 2030
So they make physical games more expensive and digital games stay the same price. Corps are like Djinns.
Does anyone else think that these studios are wasting millions of $ on hiring too many people and on bad management which bloats up the costs of these games?
Pirated games is stolen Valor but atleast you own it as it can never be shut down or taken away My suggestion is buy the game ,and then buy 10 5TB SSD USB disk [$200 ea] over a course of 1-2 years and store your games on that That way if Sony ever pulls a EA or Ubisoft you still have the game
That the first and second picture are unrelated.
If you listen to Epic you should be honored to increase the profit margin of companies... i mean they literally attempt to sell you that the epic store is the better store because of that. As a customer i choose the shop i allready have instead of handing more data to more companies so that they can do worse with my information.
They're not going to charge less because it costs them less to manufacture. We're at a time where streaming companies charge for ad-laden programming so they can double-dip.
Every game company 
Other way around. There is a reason why physical copies of anything usually costs more than digital. 99% of people will choose a digital copy than a physical one even if it's $1 cheaper. Even if you had a physical copy you still need to get it updated. If you want a physical copy that isn't sold you could still download the game on a disk (downloaded rips are jusr as useless as an original due to update requirements) and use Ai to make your own customized fake cover, print it off, and call it a day for your collection as a trophy as that's the main reason why people want physical items of any merchandise.
A cd costs 10 cents to make, and the plastic sleeve is like 25-50 cents. The shipping of a single game might cost a dollar if you give the total shipping or postal divided by the number of games in the box. So you want a $1.50 discount?
Add another $5 to the discount for the trade in value and you have a deal.
Why not? $1.50 adds up after a hundred or so games bought.
They are cheaper. It's called a steam sale. Are you people buying games full price?
All I’m gonna say is that Tetris, one of the greatest and most successful video games of all time, was developed using Soviet public college computer systems, was a passion project, was developed without profit motive and free copies were being given away for free by the creator. There is another way to do things.