NiKKoM said:
Zkuq said:
The thing is, games cost a lot already and gamers have only so much money to spend on games. Trying to monetize the market won't suddenly increase that amount of money. I'm sure it'll increase that amount a bit but not I'm also sure it won't be very much, at least compared to the current situation. If games cost more, people will buy less games.
This isn't an issue of gamers not spending enough on games, this is an issue of publishers spending too much on developing and marketing games. Those marketing budgets are huge, even bigger than development budgets and even those are huge.
|
No they don't.. games are historicly at their cheapest
Games back then cost a lot less to develop than they do now, but they cost a lot more for the consumer.. creating more healthy income for the developer then nowadays with this consumers are spending less cause inflation didn't kick in and budgets are up.. something has to be done right now or we will be playing facebook games for the rest of our lives.. and this is one way.. sure it's not the second hand games fault.. but they have to try to monetize that because the final option would be 100 dollar new games..
|
Retail/digital revenue is still 50% up compared to 1992, adjusted for inflation.
It's rapidly shrinking now though. Raising prices or making sales less atractive (by blocking used games and sharing/lending) when sales are declining is not a good idea.
Throwing bigger budgets to games and marketing and target it to the largest crowd possible is not sustainable. Going back to a model where a few 100k sales is a success sounds good to me. More variety instead of chasing the one game fits all model more and more people are getting tired of.
