The All Purpose Video Game Thread Part Iv

[KirkAlbuquerque]

The quickness in which games went from $60 USD to $70 USD to $80 USD to potentially more is insane and absurd. I hate it. No reason for it.

As someone already said, games from 30 years ago on NES that were terrible and you could beat in 3 hours were going for 80$ ,

 

[haohmaru]

As someone already said, games from 30 years ago on NES that were terrible and you could beat in 3 hours were going for 80$ ,

Final Fantasy III was $89.99. Can't beat it in three hours but in today's $ that's got to be $200+

 

[Irishguy42]

I don't agree with the increase in game pricing beyond $60/$70. It's an incredibly stable revenue stream for publishers, despite increased production costs. As physical costs were reduced, it makes sense that it remains roughly the same. But like 80+ is insane is wilding out. There is no need for games to jump to 80+ especially since physical copies are not needed as much. I think the physical requirements for prices increasing don't outweigh the other implications for prices increasing.

Sure, the makeup needs to be made somewhere, I guess, but the amount it's been marked up is INSANE. It is not in line, tbh. The reduction in physical necessity is an immense downgrade in price.

But we all know capitalism causes the price to go up, and only up. No other way to go about it. I think prices, for no reason, increased with the semi-current gen of consoles. One could say they increase with the Xbox 360, and since then the quality of games has stayed the same/decreased but the price has increased.

Yes, the technology has increased since then, but nah the price shouldn't increase. It's silly to think that price of gaming should have increased as much as it has in the past year or so. It's basically increased by like $15-20 and that's wild/bad considering the quality of games we've gotten.

Especially when you have better quality games out there like Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, etc, that cost less than $60 list price. Whoops (and it's not a one off successful game at that price).

It's just capitalism driving the higher ups to bring the game price over $60/$70, and for no good reason. The increase in game dev/etc. isn't an actual reason. I also think the increase form $60/70 to $80/90 is insane. The internal cost does not demand the list price increase, from my understanding (multiple industry leads on this).

 

[mas0764]

But we all know capitalism causes the price to go up, and only up. No other way to go about it.

Come on, bro.

 

[Takeahnase]

Come on, bro.

Dudes would be playing Pong 3 under communism with a garden rake for a controller.

 

[Takeahnase]

The Precinct came out today and I just downloaded it. About to clean up the streets.

 

[Cmox]

The Precinct came out today and I just downloaded it. About to clean up the streets.

Reminds me of GTA3. I like the style a lot


I'm listening to a streamer during a boss battle in Clair Obscure while watching the hockey game. It's absolute cinema. The music works so hard.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Dudes would be playing Pong 3 under communism with a garden rake for a controller.

Not gonna lie... I laughed harder at this than I should have.

I think as it relates to the price of video games we are at a point of diminishing returns.

When video games were still in their infancy or toddler years so to speak, the technology was relatively new and expensive to make games. As technology increased at a rapid rate, companies were likely able to produce games with the scale and speed previously unavailable. This allows for a price reduction in the product in order to reach a larger audience base and that price point was able to be maintained for many years as there was continuous, rapid improvement in game development process that led to minimal impacts in profitability.

But we are at a point of diminishing returns and the only way to combat rising costs (significantly increased development timelines for AAA+ games) while finding growth in a segmented market, is to raise prices.

Frankly, it is amazing that it has taken this long. When you look at the wild price fluctuations we have seen across nearly all areas of life over the last 20 years, the fact that we are just now at a point of significant price increases for games... Not really sure how anyone could complain.

Not to mention, look at Concord ( ), Skull and Bones, Dragon Age: Veilguard, etc. When these products flop in such significant and spectacular fashion while having a massive investment from a development standpoint, it is going to have an impact on the industry.

 

[haohmaru]

To add to the above - Adventure for Atari 2600 is widely considered to be one of the most influential video games of all time - considered to be among the first, if not the first, action-adventure/open ended/fantasy games ever on a console. Adventure likely retailed around $39.99

Let's jump forward to a game like Hogwart's Legacy, for example, and it's $69.99 price tag. Nothing groundbreaking but a popular title etc...

Things to consider:

$1 in 1980 is worth $3.79 today so Adventure, today, would cost about $150.00+
Adventure was programmed by ONE PERSON over the course of ONE year.
Hogwart's Legacy was designed/programmed by hundreds of people and took nearly FIVE years.

So, you are effectively getting a game at half price of what it would've cost 45 years ago that took one guy a year in his office to make as opposed to a game that took hundreds of people five years to make.

I think we're doing okay.

 

[Bob Richards]

Will start Doom: The Dark Ages sometime this week.

I played and beat Doom and Doom Eternal for the first time in the past month and those games were f***ing awesome lmfao.

 

[nyr2k2]

Will start Doom: The Dark Ages sometime this week.

I played and beat Doom and Doom Eternal for the first time in the past month and those games were f***ing awesome lmfao.

Let me know what you think. I've seen mixed things about both in terms of some reviews but also the chatter online and what seems like a lackluster start with the sales.

 

[Overcast]

Let me know what you think. I've seen mixed things about both in terms of some reviews but also the chatter online and what seems like a lackluster start with the sales.

Eternal was insanely good. Eternal was Doom 2016 (which was also insanely good) on steroids. There's something about The Dark Ages that just..doesn't look good. And yea sales/player count are abysmal for this installment.

I don't know if anyone has ever followed the pro Counter-Strike scene, but one of the old legendary players (s1mple) made his return to major events with FaZe yesterday and has been tearing it up so far (well not in today's first game).