| OttoniBastos said: I read a thread on neogaf talking about inflation and how $60 in 1992 =/= $60 in 2015 that made me wonder... it's really fair to AAA games be locked at $60 price point? i mean, i don't want games to be more expensive, don't get me wrong but..looking from the devs perspective: -AAA Games are becoming way more expensive: -Software price drops really fast these days(6 month old games for less than half of the price) -It's not like devs are not charging more than $60 already(see: OP). If you think about two of the biggest reasons why Video game market crashed back in the 80's were #1 huge amount of shovelwere/bad games and #2 lower price point for softwares. These two things are happening right now! We have a lot of shovelwares(indies AND AAA) and the Software price point fall too fast. Of course,back then devs didn't have DLC,microtransactions,DRM,etc... but still.... |
Don't be fooled by such slanted analysis. yes, $60 back then is around $100+ now, but the thing such analysis fails to mention is that back then the average AAA game didn't go on to sell 5M copies.
The market is much bigger now. That aside, there are also tons of ways devs can make money from games these days than what were possible back then. Ways that don't involve gouging their user base. Think about it, how many people can afford to spend $120-$180 on a game? If asked to choose, do you really think publishers will choose to sell 1M copies of a game at $150 or sell 5-10M copies of the same game at $60? cause that is what it means. Raising the cost simply means you reduce the demand. Economics 101.
and as for this game, well.... they can keep their really good content that gamers would love to pay for to themselves. Hell maybe they should buy it themselves. When it's all said and done, this game will bomb, and they should ask themselves what would have happened if they just gave everything at $60. I think publishers are beyond stupid these days.
