How much is too much $ for games?

[Kenrou]

While it may be bothersome (to some) we don't 'own' a game anymore (but 'merely' a license to play it), others don't care (raises hand).

Small caveat there, there are still some websites like GoG.com that make you download the installer (as many times as you need), so you actually OWN the game/DLC/patch/extras you pay for. Sadly, they don't have the massive selection of Steam/others, but the games on the "shelf" are usually big hitters and/or oldies that most people liked

 

[rainless]

My 2 cents... well ya see, the games are worth what they get for them. Considering you cannot just get hard copies at Electronics Boutique anymore (to me) they are less valuable.

Still, they are worth every penny to those willing to buy them.

What about those that are willing to buy them... but not at $70? There used to be a way to handle this... not that long ago either. PS4/Xbox One era. We'll sell you the game for $59.99... and if it's worth $79.99 to you... then you can get the HYPER DELUXE EDITION, and we'll throw in the Golden Ox of Babylon, free of charge. *

This evolved into: "On second thought... We ain't givin' you NOTHING. Just give us the extra money and we'll let you play until we decide you can't."

If it was some sort of two-tier system where you pay on a sliding scale... then I wouldn't care. I'll the Corpos could pay their 90 bucks or whatever and be happy... but it's not like that.

I didn't read all the replies, so I will say what I think about the main statement - "NO game is worth 70 bucks."
For me, any game is worth $70 when it gives you fun for long hours. By long, I mean at least 100+, and the best when you go back to this title every few months. One example, the last two Zelda releases. If you like it, you will spend 300+ hours each. Most expensive games nowadays have more cutscenes than actual gaming and typically take 5-7h to pass. For sure, I won't spend any money on a game like that.
I spent ~$70 on Diablo 4 ... a total fail and I see many disappointed gamers around the web who quit after 2-3 weeks. Baldur's Gate 3 - totally worth it, 4 passes, ~250h in total so far.

How do you explain that discrepancy? Why does everyone ignore the fact that... if it's SO important for companies to charge $70 for the "hours of play argument" (which I won't even waste any more of my time debunking) then why is BG3 60 bucks?

Isn't that almost a 3-year-old game (11/2020?)?

Yeah and it hit Playstation Plus like a year and a half ago or something. Brand NEW games (even Halo... AND Starfield) hit Gamepass on DAY... ONE.

So what's your point?

AC:V sold 1.7M digital units in the first month (fastest selling AC, for the record) on it's way to over 1B in revenue (supported by frequent new seasons/updates). Also, Valhalla's MSRP for the base game was $60 at launch. There were several versions of it costing up to $120, however. I guess what I'm saying here is, even in the face of $60/70+ games, your examples at least, sold hand over fist. People are voting and breaking records with new releases, even at $70+. Sad, I agree.

Yeah but those numbers are misleading. Valhalla, COD, et al... benefitted hugely by being the ONLY games available for the PS5/Xbox Series X at launch. There was literally nothing else (especially on Xbox) for new system owners to BUY... let alone PLAY... besides those games. So that 1.7 million number is more a reflection of the success of the console than the success of the games.

So it was less a matter of "they were willing to pay X-amount" and more a matter of them having a GUN TO THEIR HEADS and wanting to play SOMETHING on their brand-new systems. (Are you sure about the MSRP on PS5 and Xbox Series X? Doesn't sound right to me. I know they were released on PC, PS4, and Xbox ONE for that price... but I sincerely doubt that was the PS5 and Series X price. That's sort of the whooooole point... Curiously the only new PS5 game to sell under 69.99 was Miles Morales... Keep in mind they wanted 69.99 for Demons Souls... a remake of a 15 year old game... well Miles was a remake of a MUCH more successful 3 year-old game... and they were charging $49.99/39.99 for it. Logic out the WINDOW.

 

[EarthDog]

So what's your point?

Well, I was wondering what yours was, considering what happened seems completely in the realm of a normal life cycle. You're all, zOMG! and, it's just normal...especially when they jam two new ones since that time. I'd expect the older one(s) to be cheap and or free somewhere. This is the way, lol!

That said, membership has its privileges (and limits!)! Even in the face of that titles still sold untold millions of copies.

Yeah but those numbers are misleading. Valhalla, COD, et al... benefitted hugely by being the ONLY games available for the PS5/Xbox Series X at launch. There was literally nothing else (especially on Xbox) for new system owners to BUY... let alone PLAY... besides those games. So that 1.7 million number is more a reflection of the success of the console than the success of the games.

lol, seriously? You're too much sometimes.

 

[Archer0915]

What about those that are willing to buy them... but not at $70? There used to be a way to handle this... not that long ago either. PS4/Xbox One era. We'll sell you the game for $59.99... and if it's worth $79.99 to you... then you can get the HYPER DELUXE EDITION, and we'll throw in the Golden Ox of Babylon, free of charge. *

This evolved into: "On second thought... We ain't givin' you NOTHING. Just give us the extra money and we'll let you play until we decide you can't."

If it was some sort of two-tier system where you pay on a sliding scale... then I wouldn't care. I'll the Corpos could pay their 90 bucks or whatever and be happy... but it's not like that.



How do you explain that discrepancy? Why does everyone ignore the fact that... if it's SO important for companies to charge $70 for the "hours of play argument" (which I won't even waste any more of my time debunking) then why is BG3 60 bucks?




Yeah and it hit Playstation Plus like a year and a half ago or something. Brand NEW games (even Halo... AND Starfield) hit Gamepass on DAY... ONE.

So what's your point?



Yeah but those numbers are misleading. Valhalla, COD, et al... benefitted hugely by being the ONLY games available for the PS5/Xbox Series X at launch. There was literally nothing else (especially on Xbox) for new system owners to BUY... let alone PLAY... besides those games. So that 1.7 million number is more a reflection of the success of the console than the success of the games.

So it was less a matter of "they were willing to pay X-amount" and more a matter of them having a GUN TO THEIR HEADS and wanting to play SOMETHING on their brand-new systems. (Are you sure about the MSRP on PS5 and Xbox Series X? Doesn't sound right to me. I know they were released on PC, PS4, and Xbox ONE for that price... but I sincerely doubt that was the PS5 and Series X price. That's sort of the whooooole point... Curiously the only new PS5 game to sell under 69.99 was Miles Morales... Keep in mind they wanted 69.99 for Demons Souls... a remake of a 15 year old game... well Miles was a remake of a MUCH more successful 3 year-old game... and they were charging $49.99/39.99 for it. Logic out the WINDOW.

Nahhhh, it is market driven. I understand your point but here is mine... buy something else, it is that simple.

You want a new car, do you think they will sell you a Ferrari for the price of a Hyundai? Nope, they do not have to do it.

It is market driven. The market has much to do with the price. If people were not paying the prices would be lower.

 

[Janus67]

Nahhhh, it is market driven. I understand your point but here is mine... buy something else, it is that simple.

You want a new car, do you think they will sell you a Ferrari for the price of a Hyundai? Nope, they do not have to do it.

It is market driven. The market has much to do with the price. If people were not paying the prices would be lower.

Yep, and thus why many games are at minimum 20% off within a month or two of launch. Ubisoft games can be closer to 50% off lol

 

[EarthDog]

Why does everyone ignore the fact that... if it's SO important for companies to charge $70 for the "hours of play argument" (which I won't even waste any more of my time debunking) then why is BG3 60 bucks?

Because nobody here said companies should charge like that. I think you mentioned something about that earlier(?). We're talking about what makes me (several of us in this thread) warm and fuzzy inside when buying an expensive game. This isn't something you can debunk, lol.

 

[Woomack]

How do you explain that discrepancy? Why does everyone ignore the fact that... if it's SO important for companies to charge $70 for the "hours of play argument" (which I won't even waste any more of my time debunking) then why is BG3 60 bucks?

Most people don't know that, but BG3 was at first an open project sponsored by fans. Later they got some larger sponsors and made a real budget. In total, it took them much more time than expected. Considering the fact that a lot of money came from fans and sponsors who got nothing from the release, I'm still not sure why this game costs so much. On the other hand, looking at other games on the market, it's still worth this money.

Nintendo said that their latest Zelda has to cost more because it took them a lot of work and more time than they expected so their total cost was higher than expected. They actually said something reasonable and I haven't seen many people making problems out of that as the game is well designed and was well prepared for the release. What Blizzard did with Diablo IV is just their policy of bumping prices to the limits when the game isn't anything really new or special. It's not even properly optimized what suggests they didn't spend enough time on polishing everything. The same EA or some other larger companies set higher prices without any background. They just want more money and since stupid people pay for that (even for below average titles) then prices will go up.

Online games are where people leave most money. The same people who refuse to spend $50+ for a single player game, spend $10-20 monthly on an online game. It's subscription or things you have to buy in game to have a better experience (or just stupid stuff like character clothes or whatever). However, people spend many more hours in online games than in any single player game. They don't want the game to end in 10-20h.

No one says how much games have to cost. All are counting costs and profits, but some companies decided that their games will cost more and that's all. Console games always cost more, but recently PC games are not much cheaper. Again, if brainless people whouldn't pay for everything that shouts at them from commercials, then prices wouldn't be so high. One thing is a production cost and another one is the final product price in store. Some companies keep reasonable prices, some just set price tags way too high, because they know that people will pay for that anyway.