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..
|
Maybe single games are relatively cheaper than they used to be but I imagine most people also buy more games these days than in 1992 because of that. There's just so much more choice and more worthwhile games. And either way, $60 is a lot for a single game and people perceive it as being expensive and if they think it's expensive, they'll definitely think twice before buying their next game which is not helped by higher prices. Overall, I don't think this is the way to help gaming industry. The current model is unstainable and needs to be changed. Each generation brings development costs higher and the currend model doesn't seem to allow for much more growth in terms of sales. I also doubt this second-hand thing is going to change that enough in the long term.
