"Games cost more to make!", "Game prices have been stagnant since the 90s!", there's a lot of coping going on with the increase of prices on video games, and I'd like to counter these arguments.Yes, games cost more to make, but there are some things people need to think about;A disgusting chunk of the cost goes to marketing.Games might cost more, but their total amount of sales have also gone up. Even in the mid-noughties, a game was considered a success if it sold 3-4 million copies. Today, 10 million copies is seen as the breaking point for these expensive AAA projects. We also can't forget that there are still AA games being made with only a percent of the budget. Games like The Surge 2 and Greedfall cost only a fraction to make compared to Sekiro and Dragon Age Inquisition. These games don't need to sell 10 million copies. For these, even one million would be considered a great success.When you buy a game for 60 dollars today, you don't actually get the full game more often than not. If you want the full game, and not just the foundation, you are already looking at paying 80-90 dollars. The upfront cost for the box is not the only way publishers and developers make their money return, in fact for some titles DLC and microtransactions are THE income maker. Publishers and devs make a disgusting amount of money through extras in games. Why do you think they are so eager to put them in, even in single player games?It's not a matter of HAVING to increase the cost to break even, as some people claim (why would you even defend others pockets and not your own? I'd love if games went down to 50 dollars rather than 60, instead of going up to 70.), but it's a matter of "they can", because people will still buy the games with little to no objection.Totalbiscuit (RIPerino), Jim Sterling, and many others have shredded the "they NEED to increase the cost of games because of inflation!"-debate many times over. Why do people still fall for it and accept it? More info: https://ift.tt/2PMj48u
No comments:
Post a Comment