oniyide on 10 June 2013
| gigantor21 said: The whole macroeconomic excuse devs use to justify costs is a load of shit. If you're really going to be technical about it, that argument is invalid in the States where wages have stayed pretty much flat for 90% of the country since the 70s. Adjusted for inflation, people don't have much more to spend on video games than they did back in the NES days. Family incomes have thus been buttressed by other factors, like women entering the workforce and people relying more on credit. Beyond that, the economic trends in the country are no excuse for out of control AAA budgets. Very few games deserve to be budgeted around sales of millions of copies just to break even. And yet publishers keep chugging along anyway, regardless of how many disappointing financial quarters or fiscal year results they get when their lofty goals slam into reality. Even Iwata was whining about how threatened they feel about people only spending 99 cents on a game, saying that it "devalues" gaming as a whole. I, for one, feel that if stuff like Angry Birds is able to turn people away from spending $60 on a console game, then console games clearly weren't that valuable to begin with. It would be better to bring costs down as a safeguard rather than complain about consumers wanting the best deal--something that's been true for every industry as long as commerce has existed. |
God damn this is brilliant and is that Christina Hendricks as your avatar?
