This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Apparently we don't pay *enough* for games, according to market analyst

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Apparently we don't pay *enough* for games, according to market analyst

User Info: Voxwik

Voxwik
5 months ago#31
This is why not just "games as a service" but "software as a service" in general is a dire threat to consumers.

User Info: DarkZV2Beta

DarkZV2Beta
5 months ago#32
if you play for 2.5 hours a day for a year.
lol

Nobody wants to pay $3/hr to play videogames.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud

User Info: Marikhen

Marikhen
5 months ago#33
KillerTruffle posted...
seriously, where do they still sell $6 movie tickets?


Omaha. AMC Theaters charge about that for normal, non-3D/IMAX movies shown before noon on Monday through Thursday.

bass_god6790 posted...
I don't think I've played any game for a thousand hours, let alone in a single year.


Oi. That's 20 hours/week. I've been doing almost that with Path of Exile for the last six or so month, and I've been feeling burnt out as hell on the game for the last two or three. Hell, last time I counted play times up I'd had about 1500 hours, but that took me 5 years.

steve_madsci posted...
Not to mention AAA games cost 10-20x more to develop than they did 30 years ago.


And gas costs 2-4x more, soda has gone up by 100-150% in many cases, and other things have increased in price as well despite manufacturing costs staying the same if not reducing. Also, didn't some guy do a bit of research for a YouTube video where he tossed out some numbers, normalized for inflation, showing that game development costs have remained fairly static and even dropped a bit over the last 5-10 years?

Also, why is the assumption that if someone spends money doing something that it costs that much to do it? Unless money spent/wasted is one of the absolute criteria behind defining "AAA" then I don't see that developers spending more necessarily means that production costs more.

Ultimate_Noob posted...
Pricing may have not moved very much with inflation, but video games as a market has exploded. There's way more gamers today than there was in the 1990's and it's constantly growing.


Not to mention that game distribution costs have been falling ever since the advent of optical discs. CDs drastically dropped the per copy production cost of games as a tangible good compared to cartridges, and digital distribution has dropped the reproduction and distribution of copies of games to so close to zero that it's not even funny.
Logic is the antithesis of faith, else why is it that faith defies logic while logic denies faith?

User Info: Dyshonest

Dyshonest
5 months ago#34
KillerTruffle posted...

It's true gamers have it better than some - game prices haven't really gone up much at all in the past 30 years. In some cases they've actually come *down*. Game pricing has not kept up with inflation, so it's been good in that respect.
Uh, no? AAA games aren't even close to being 50% complete by the time you spend 100$ in a lot of cases.

In the age of DLC piecemealing, game prices HAVE went up for COMPLETE products. Overglorified demos are still 60$, though.

Also, smart people DO realize that AAA development hasn't exactly went up much, right? DEVELOPMENT is roughly the same, it goes up linearly with the dollar. Advertisement costs an arm and a leg now, sadly, and that's where most of a budget goes.

Destiny had a 500m$ budget and only 80m$ went to development.

User Info: yohabroha

yohabroha
5 months ago#35
Dyshonest posted...
AAA games aren't even close to being 50% complete by the time you spend 100$ in a lot of cases.

jesus talk about hyperbole
"Myself I am a PC Gamer but I am forced to keep this side of me hidden because of who I am and my brand integrity." - dan_fs

User Info: Marikhen

Marikhen
5 months ago#36
yohabroha posted...
Dyshonest posted...
AAA games aren't even close to being 50% complete by the time you spend 100$ in a lot of cases.

jesus talk about hyperbole


Considering how over-priced a lot of DLCs are, yeah. I mean Borderlands 2's skin packs cost $1 apiece, but if they were priced at the same development:retail cost ratio as the core game was they'd probably cost a penny apiece.

More complex stuff does, of course, require more development time and therefore money, but does anyone here honestly believe that stuff like Fallout 4's DLCs cost more to create than the game itself did? The game's original retail cost was $60, but the total for the DLCs is $70. Even with it packaged into a "season pass" for $50 one has to question the validity of that price when that's 80% of the game's original retail cost and 166% of the core game's current cost. Even with the "game of the year" edition we're basically seeing Bethesda saying that the DLC costs as much as the core game.

Now sure, Bethesda recycled much of the engine from... Skyrim, Fallout 3, Oblivion... Morrowind? /shrugs. Whatever. As I was saying, now sure, Bethesda might have been reusing the same engine for going on a decade now, but they do actually update it, at least a bit, with each game's release. On top of that they often have to create the entire new game world and all its attendant art assets from scratch.

Contrast this with the DLCs which can often recycle many of the same art assets and, at least insofar as those art assets go, thus don't require any more development cost than a skilled modder might incur using first-party resources to expand the game world themselves.

In any case, whether it's Borderlands 2 or Fallout 4 or whatever, a lot of games really are 80-90% "complete" in their original release, not a mere 50%. The original release just costs 50% of the total package price, if you're lucky, because the remaining 10-20% is exceedingly overpriced.
Logic is the antithesis of faith, else why is it that faith defies logic while logic denies faith?

User Info: yohabroha

yohabroha
5 months ago#37
Marikhen posted...
yohabroha posted...
Dyshonest posted...
AAA games aren't even close to being 50% complete by the time you spend 100$ in a lot of cases.

jesus talk about hyperbole


Considering how over-priced a lot of DLCs are, yeah. I mean Borderlands 2's skin packs cost $1 apiece, but if they were priced at the same development:retail cost ratio as the core game was they'd probably cost a penny apiece.

More complex stuff does, of course, require more development time and therefore money, but does anyone here honestly believe that stuff like Fallout 4's DLCs cost more to create than the game itself did? The game's original retail cost was $60, but the total for the DLCs is $70. Even with it packaged into a "season pass" for $50 one has to question the validity of that price when that's 80% of the game's original retail cost and 166% of the core game's current cost. Even with the "game of the year" edition we're basically seeing Bethesda saying that the DLC costs as much as the core game.

Now sure, Bethesda recycled much of the engine from... Skyrim, Fallout 3, Oblivion... Morrowind? /shrugs. Whatever. As I was saying, now sure, Bethesda might have been reusing the same engine for going on a decade now, but they do actually update it, at least a bit, with each game's release. On top of that they often have to create the entire new game world and all its attendant art assets from scratch.

Contrast this with the DLCs which can often recycle many of the same art assets and, at least insofar as those art assets go, thus don't require any more development cost than a skilled modder might incur using first-party resources to expand the game world themselves.

In any case, whether it's Borderlands 2 or Fallout 4 or whatever, a lot of games really are 80-90% "complete" in their original release, not a mere 50%. The original release just costs 50% of the total package price, if you're lucky, because the remaining 10-20% is exceedingly overpriced.

nice meme
"Myself I am a PC Gamer but I am forced to keep this side of me hidden because of who I am and my brand integrity." - dan_fs
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Apparently we don't pay *enough* for games, according to market analyst

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived