Weird how entitled publishers have become, you don’t automatically get peoples money because “gaming”. Something is only worth what people can buy it for learn it one way or another.
I was just wondering that, too. Wasn’t the first one almost like an indie title? Not sure, how much I’m mixing it up with Outer Wilds, but Wikipedia tells me their teams were around a similar size anyways…
Hot take, but $80 is a perfectly reasonable price for a “mainline” game.
Back in 1998, I saved all my money to buy Quest 64 for the suggested retail price of $60. That’s $120 in today’s money, and I guarantee you I didn’t get as much game as I will with Outer Worlds 2. Games dipped to $50 when they moved to discs, but even that was more expensive than today once you factor in inflation.
Realistically, an extra $10 isn’t pricing anyone out. All modern gaming platforms are expensive. There are still plenty of ways to enjoy gaming for cheap; they just don’t involve the newest platforms. That has been the case for most of the history of gaming.
Meanwhile games are more expensive than ever to develop. We want developers to get paid, and we want them to take more risks, but both of those things cost money.
There’s two issues with this thinking. The first is the assumption that the additional money is going to the developers. Considering Microsoft continues to layoff developers, I think we can safely rule that out as a possibility. It’s going to the c-suite and maybe marketers.
The second is the assumption that games are more expensive than ever to develop. This is beyond untrue; games have actually never been cheaper to develop. That’s a big reason why indies have exploded in popularity, and in many ways have supplanted AAA as the primary drivers of innovation in the industry. AAA games are bloated because business executives want to chase infinite money, and put ludicrous amounts of man hours chasing the dragon of graphical fidelity. I strongly believe that more mid-budget titles focused on solid gameplay fundamentals with good art direction would result in greater success, but since that won’t make infinite money I doubt the shareholders will ever take that route.
Considering Microsoft continues to layoff developers, I think we can safely rule that out as a possibility.
It’s possible that in this specific instance Microsoft would not spend the extra money wisely. But for the industry as a whole, if the financials look better, fewer people will be laid off and companies will be willing to take more risks.
The second is the assumption that games are more expensive than ever to develop. This is beyond untrue; games have actually never been cheaper to develop.
Yes, indie games are cheaper to produce, which is why they cost less. The prevalence of mid-budget indie games strengthens my point: gamers have many options at many price points, and raising the cost of AAA games to $80 isn’t pricing anyone out.
In any case, we’re not talking about indie games. A big game like Baldur’s Gate 3 or Elden Ring costs $100M+ to make, which is a lot more expensive than it used to be.
The graphical arms race is also easily explained by the fact that a lot of AAA publishing execs own stock in NVIDIA or Microsoft or Sony or all of those, and are very interested in pushing the latest and greatest hardware for a game that has picture perfect glistening skin for the most cookie cutter story and gameplay that involves pointing and shooting a thousand goddamn times and maybe a few explosions.
I miss when games weren’t interested in maximizing my carbon emissions.
The developers are already paid and are gonna get laid off regardless if game does well or not. You could give it away and I wouldn’t bother to get it at this point. I hope MS rots.
I just hope all the developers unionize. Microsoft is such a diverse company it’s nearly impossible to boycott into any type of pressure. If firing one group could cause another team to strike it might at least slow them down.
I liked the first Outer Worlds a lot. I loved Parvati’s storyline and was so excited when she finally went on that date with Junlei. However, even I’m not paying that much for a sequel.
This is the biggest factor for me now, too. Not to go all old man Millennial, but humor me for a second:
I’ve been playing games since the NES era. The scene used to be a lot slower and while I never played every single game that came out or even owned every console, I was enough of a hobbyist that I could still follow all the major developments. These days, there’s simply TOO MUCH. And I don’t mean to imply that an abundance of choices is bad, just that it’s an absolute firehose that no one person can follow. You have to dedicate yourself to your specific interests, your specific niches. These can well be served by indies and the whole back library of games.
Because that’s the other thing, we’re starting to more thoroughly recognize games as art, as a library rather than as pure content. Unless you are absolutely committed to sucking on the end of that firehose to catch all the new content at its zenith, what’s really the point?
Fuck man, it’s time to go back to the NES for me, pick up all those games I never beat as a kid and sink 10,000 hours into learning how to speedrun some of my favorites. There’s simply no need to spend $70-80 fucking dollars on subpar, rushed, exploitative content. Fuck 'em.
Definitely recommend playing or replaying old games. I’ve recently put hours into replaying Morrowind and Jedi Academy.
The main game I’ve been playing lately is Mount & Blade Warband from 2010. Got it for a couple $ and have been loving it. I missed it when it came out and recently a friend had been talking a lot about how much fun it used to be.
I have played a few newer AAA games that I uninstalled after a few hours. Sure there’s some great new games, especially from small publishers or indie devs, but there’s a lot more slop like you said.
It’s not even “content at it’s zenith” - AAA games nowadays are pushed out both expensive and broken, plus they come with the risk of some form of enshittification being sneaked in later (be it promised content that we’re told “couldn’t make it into the launch” being sold later as overpriced DLCs or even monetisation).
I would say that the zenith of most AAA games (in the sense of peak enjoyment) is at least a year after release once most bugs have been fixed and the threat of enshittification has passed, sometimes never (for those games that did got enshittified).
IMHO, the best value, not just in terms of fun-per-$ but also in avoidance of unpleasant feelings (such as feeling that you’ve been swindled by a game maker or are being taken advantage of) is in buying games which are at least 2 years old, or in the case of some publishers like Nintendo, it’s never.
We were already seeing this at $70: the market is largely unwilling to support games getting any more expensive right now. And even though we had $90 SNES games back in the mid-90s, without adjusting for inflation, I think we can also say quite definitively that the market expanded exponentially as prices got lower, relative to inflation and in absolute terms, in subsequent years. Increasing prices further is pricing out those people. Plus, we’ve got tons of low-cost options that can often be higher quality than the games charging $70+.
But people forget about the DLC that is expected of the consumer to buy for the “full experience”. Some games don’t have a complete story if you don’t buy the DLC or you can’t access all the features without DLC, such as multiplayer games that don’t let you play with your friends if you don’t have that specific DLC pack.
So not only is it a $70 price up front, they also want you to spend, at least, an extra $30 on the new DLC season pass or buy the DLC separately at a slightly higher cost over time. Also not including the special edition packs with extras, either physical or digital, that add to that initial $70. Ubisoft is the biggest asshole in this space, going as high as $120 for a day 1 release.
I think they only expect a subset of their consumers to get the DLC; most people don’t care if they got the full experience. If you’re playing with your friends, they’ve got the option to play with you DLC-less in every case I can think of. In something like a fighting game, they’ve just got a character that you don’t, or in something like Civilization, if they know they’re playing with you, they host the version of the game that doesn’t include the DLC you don’t have. The entry price exists because they know nowhere near everyone will go for their most expensive edition.
I don’t doubt that game studio business models have gotten scummier, but I never liked the phrase “The full experience”.
There’s a few Bioware games I can cite where it was a terrible setup that added story-critical quests through DLC, but most often, a “special edition” or even the season passes tend to add very optional, often-ugly, costumes to games that already offer a number of costumes with the base game.
Saying it often makes people picture that they don’t get an ending to their story, or are locked out of abilities. There are live service games with that issue - the “hero model” being a frequent offender, but in the best of those games, the game’s base price is low and even the guide authors will acknowledge few people should feel the need to buy every character.
Game prices have been higher before, but the economy is kind of fucked right now (personally, as a Brazilian, buying foreign games was already fucked, but still).
How’s Brazilian regional pricing doing so far? I heard some countries are getting the short end of the stick now because of some users VPN routing to another country for deals.
Consoles are a walled garden - the only reason they can do what they do is because of the lack of options for the customer to use their hardware.
PCs are the only gaming platform (apart from perhaps smartphones) that have an open framework untouchable by publishers or game platforms. You don’t have to publish with Sony and Microsoft, and the majority don’t.
Unless your console has homebrew, you will always be screwed by the platform holder.
Sorry, I’m not following the A-to-B on your comment in relation to this topic. Sony isn’t charging $80 for games, and even $70 games regardless of consoles aren’t doing so hot. Microsoft hasn’t done console exclusives for a decade.
I’m referring to that consoles can set the price period. You don’t have another marketplace (except for the used physical market, if you console supports it) to acquire first or third party games. Therefore, those who own the market can set the price as high as they’d like.
I remember when console prices were standardized at 60 USD during the 7th generation. On steam I’ve never paid more than 40, with the majority of my library costing under 20.
But this game is on Steam, and $80 is a price point companies are flirting with regardless of their ownership of the storefront, like Grand Theft Auto, for instance.
I bought the outer worlds for $10 on a steam summer sale. The original list price and the price a customer pays tends to be much lower on PC (many wishlist and wait), and piracy is an option.
open framework untouchable by publishers or game platforms
Splitting hairs here, but Steam is a pseudo monopoly at this point. Sure, one can not publish a game there, but that’s hard. And on multi-store releases, I don’t think publishers are allowed to undercut it on other platforms.
Which is fine since (even though 30% is not cheap) Steam is behaving and working well…
And then the next storefront or launcher will come along. Or GOG/Epic start making moves that appeal to a wider demographic. Or indies publish on their own sites (Vintage Story). Or someone releases a simplistic cracking tool for Steam’s DRM.
There’s a lot more options than you think for those who aren’t happy with the status quo. Going back full circle, on consoles, you are SOL in that situation. PC never had that issue.
Sure, I’ve bought tons of games that are on Game Pass, because I like keeping the game when I’m done, and not having to rush to finish it before the subscription renews.
They set the 70$ price point and they set the gamepass price, it's all abstract values that they decide. That's price anchoring at play, you think you're getting a good deal in comparison, so of course you get the gamepass, but no matter which product you buy, microsoft wins.
Well yes, but understand this is the function of gamepass being so cheap at the moment, to convince you temporarily that it is in your best interests as a consumer to rent video games rather than buy them because for now massive corporations like Microsoft are artifically holding the consumer price of these subscription services low to entice enough customers to buy in that they can then turn around and destroy other methods of earning a living in the video game industry as anything but a tiny indie game studio and waves wand with flourish all of a sudden the video game industry sucks even more than it used to and you have to watch ads every 10 seconds even though you are paying more for gamepass “premium crystal edition” than you do for all your streaming TV services combined…
Look if that is the future y’all want, great, but just be honest about it at least?
windowscentral.com
Najnowsze