I enjoy low priced games as much as the next person but I’m inclined to agree. At least a little.
In terms of currency per hour some games are outright bargains when you compare to a cinema trip and yet the triple A’s cost more to produce than your average film.
He’s certainly correct, at the purely analytical, quantitative level. But if humans were purely analytical and quantitative, then laissez-faire capitalism would function perfectly.
The problem arises from games having more costs than just monetary though. The cost of a film, asides the ticket price, is a couple hours of sitting on your ass. The cost of a video game, willingly paid by every gamer, is actually hours of practice with hand eye coordination, various video game systems and conventions, time spent learning that specific game, etc etc. You can see, objectively, this is a lot of “investment” required. Which is one of the big reasons not everyone is much of a gamer.
The executives should be factoring this cost in too though, because your subconscious does when it decides how much “fun” you’re having at whatever you’re doing right now.
Well you have to take the price of the system you run the game on into account. If you spent hundreds of dollars to buy a game and a console (pc gaming is even worse), you need a lot of content to reach parity with something like a cinema ticket or a Netflix subscription.
This hobby is expensive, particularly because it’s main demographics is children or cash strapped young adults. Maybe it’s good value if you spend hundreds of hours on a few games, maybe take-two is feeling that it doesn’t get its fair share from these hundreds of dollars, but they should not be deluded into thinking it’s cheap for the customer.
BG3 is one of my favorite games, but there is nothing technologically groundbreaking about it. As hardware improves, studios often prefer to use the new leeway to neglect optimization, which is a nightmare scenario for consumers who are forced to upgrade endlessly for no reason. It’s understandable that smaller studios may need to make that sacrifice, but there should be SOME penalty for it or it will get out of hand. The series S parity requirements provides some small penalization that I hope continues for generations to come.
“No, there are no in-game purchases in our game. We believe in providing a complete and immersive gaming experience without the need for additional purchases. Enjoy the game to its fullest without any additional costs or microtransactions.”
Oh good I still haven’t upgraded from the last generation. I may just skip this one at this point, the only games I feel like I’m missing out on are the new Spider-Man and the unreleased GTA VI
They would have to be pretty incompetent to price the ps6 at $700 since they would be ignoring their own history and the fact that low barrier to entry is what made the ps1/ps2 sell so well in the first place. Sony already cracked the code to success in the 90s. If they fail to remember what they have already learned and the base ps5/ps6 goes up in price they should be fired.
There are over 1000 Pokemon at this point. There's bound to be some level of similarity here and there. Gamefreak even designed Pokemon after other creatures, so it just seems somewhat silly to point a finger.
forbes.com
Ważne