By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Thoughts on 69.99$ games for Next Gen Consoles?

 

Thoughts on 70$ games next gen?

I'm happy with it, more money=better value 6 5.77%
 
I'm ok with it 26 25.00%
 
Don't like it, but will tolerate it 30 28.85%
 
Completely against it, won't tolerate it 42 40.38%
 
Total:104
Pyro as Bill said:
Just out of interest, which option do people consider the least value/expensive?

A $60 game that's worth $10 after 12 months or a $100 game that's still worth (trade-in) $90, 5 years later?

This one's better value.

If I'm buying it day 1 then I'm probably never selling it, so lower initial price = better value. If I'm not buying it day 1 then I'll be getting it very cheap so whether I re-sell it later or keep it I'm not paying much out either way so lower discounted price = better value.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
Pyro as Bill said:
Just out of interest, which option do people consider the least value/expensive?

A $60 game that's worth $10 after 12 months or a $100 game that's still worth (trade-in) $90, 5 years later?

This one's better value.

If I'm buying it day 1 then I'm probably never selling it, so lower initial price = better value. If I'm not buying it day 1 then I'll be getting it very cheap so whether I re-sell it later or keep it I'm not paying much out either way so lower discounted price = better value.

Day 1 = time preference.

I never said anything about day 1.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill said:
Ka-pi96 said:

This one's better value.

If I'm buying it day 1 then I'm probably never selling it, so lower initial price = better value. If I'm not buying it day 1 then I'll be getting it very cheap so whether I re-sell it later or keep it I'm not paying much out either way so lower discounted price = better value.

Day 1 = time preference.

I never said anything about day 1.

You implied it though. If the price is $10 after 1 year then when exactly was it $60? Day 1, obviously

Besides, my whole point was that the $60/$10 option was better value regardless of time preference.



Minecraft was a one-man effort and he made a billion $$$.

Why do game devs have to be so greedy when a free game is enough is to make them a billion dollars each?



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Ka-pi96 said:
Pyro as Bill said:

Day 1 = time preference.

I never said anything about day 1.

You implied it though. If the price is $10 after 1 year then when exactly was it $60? Day 1, obviously

Besides, my whole point was that the $60/$10 option was better value regardless of time preference.

I purposely didn't but it's hard to come up with a scenario that excludes time preference in the entertainment industry given that cinema/movie theatres only exists because of it. Some people will pay $50 to watch a film at the cinema but won't play it again until it's free.

If you'd just passed your driving test, and there was car already on the market for 5 years that you really, really wanted but you knew it was gonna drop in price by 80% if you were willing to wait 3 weeks to 12 months, how long would you wait?



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
Barozi said:
javi741 said:

Games this gen are also selling far better now then they were in the year 2000. Many franchises at the time like GTA were extremely young and didn't have an established brand or foothold in the market yet as it takes years for games to become extremely popular. The gaming industry has also grown exponentially since the PS2 era and will only keep growing.

GTA sales this gen obviously are killing the sales of the older GTA games right now, the COD franchise is more popular than ever, even Nintendo games are selling the best in their respective franchises on the Switch. Many other franchises like Uncharted, Witcher 3, NBA 2K and more are selling better than ever this gen, so that kinda makes up for the higher development cost of games over time, also there's DLC, Microt-transactions, digital distribution that cuts out the middle man, making more money for these developers.

1. "Games this gen are also selling far better now then they were in the year 2000."

Nowadays games are also far more expensive to develop than games in the 2000s. PS2 games only had a budget of a few millions. You'd need at least a million or two in extra sales to break even on 7th and 8th gen games. For EVERY SINGLE game.

2. "COD franchise is more popular than ever"

Where did you get that from? The best selling CoD games were from the PS3/360 era.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/321374/global-all-time-unit-sales-call-of-duty-games/
NPD source: https://www.shacknews.com/article/115860/call-of-duty-games-were-10-of-the-top-15-best-selling-titles-of-the-decade

3. "The gaming industry has also grown exponentially since the PS2 era and will only keep growing."

The gaming industry as a whole - yes, but the console market has NOT grown exponentially.

50% of the revenue comes from smartphone-, tablet- and casual browser games. How does that help the devs and publishers of console and PC games again?

4. "also there's DLC, Microt-transactions, digital distribution that cuts out the middle man, making more money for these developers."

Which was exactly the reason why the $10 raise didn't come earlier.

1. Developing costs have gone up, that's for sure - but the real increase in expenses for AAA video games has not been on the development side, but on it's marketing. For most AAA games, the marketing campaign actually costs at least as much as the development of the game itself these days.

Destiny for instance cost $140M to make, but with the ad campaign until launch included into the pricetag we're already at $500M. CoD: MW2 cost 44M to make and 250M total until launch, so over 200M for it's ad campaign. Heavy Rain cost a measly 16.7M€ (about $21M) to make, but Sony added another 25M€ for advertisement.

It's those ads that cost so much, not so much the actual games themselves. And those ad budgets keep on increasing.

2. In sales, that would be true. But in terms of revenue, CoD broke records las year, earning Activision over 1.1 billion dollar. No need for big sales if you have microtransactions...

3. So the console market didn't grow as fast as the other videogame markets. Your point being?

Also, don't just look at console sales. We're specifically talking about videogame sales and revenue here, and that one has grown quite a bit even on consoles due to digital distribution - and digital distribution leaves a higher margin for the publisher than retail...

Also, while 50% comes from mobile, look who owns those big names in mobile gaming: Yes, it's the same publishers as for the consoles, filling their pockets on either end with endless monetization schemes.

4. I'd much rather had preferred to have that $10 raise in price 10 years ago and even another $10 now on top of that than any of that monetization bullshit that Bethesda kickstarted with their fucking horse armor. We don't need both, one or the other is amply enough.

Edit: Also, this here: https://www.pcgamer.com/ea-tells-investors-turning-off-battlefront-2s-microtransactions-will-not-affect-earnings/

A company is not allowed to lie to their shareholders, so you can see that the big "we must increase the prices and add microtransactions to finance the games" argument is a big myth and nothing more. It's just greed, greed from the executives and from their shareholders who always want more, more and more.

Also, I'll give you this to read through: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-gamers-get-so-bent-out-of-shape-concerning-the-various-monetization-tactics-of-video-game-publishers

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 04 July 2020

It was bound happen. I rarely buy full priced games due to gamepass. Ps4 games I only when it's on sale. Doesn't affect me as much. Moving forward subscription based model will be the most cost effective and the best value.



Too many pages wasted on inflation arguments whilst ignoring how many free games there are today.

GTA could profit even if it was given away for free like Fortnite is.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill said:
Ka-pi96 said:

You implied it though. If the price is $10 after 1 year then when exactly was it $60? Day 1, obviously

Besides, my whole point was that the $60/$10 option was better value regardless of time preference.

I purposely didn't but it's hard to come up with a scenario that excludes time preference in the entertainment industry given that cinema/movie theatres only exists because of it. Some people will pay $50 to watch a film at the cinema but won't play it again until it's free.

If you'd just passed your driving test, and there was car already on the market for 5 years that you really, really wanted but you knew it was gonna drop in price by 80% if you were willing to wait 3 weeks to 12 months, how long would you wait?

You can't avoid talking about time preferences when talking about how the price of a game changes over 5 years though. Those things are intrinsically linked. If you want to avoid that then you can only talk about 1 price and shouldn't take the price 1 year or 5 years later into account at all.

Yeah, I'm not the right person for that comparison. I've no interest in cars whatsoever so passing a driving test or buying a car are both things that mean literally nothing to me. In terms of games however, if I really really wanted it then I'd get it straight away (or as soon as I could afford it if it were prohibitively expensive). I'd only wait for price drops for things that I want, but not that much (ie. about 99% of games released these days).



Ka-pi96 said:
Pyro as Bill said:

I purposely didn't but it's hard to come up with a scenario that excludes time preference in the entertainment industry given that cinema/movie theatres only exists because of it. Some people will pay $50 to watch a film at the cinema but won't play it again until it's free.

If you'd just passed your driving test, and there was car already on the market for 5 years that you really, really wanted but you knew it was gonna drop in price by 80% if you were willing to wait 3 weeks to 12 months, how long would you wait?

You can't avoid talking about time preferences when talking about how the price of a game changes over 5 years though. Those things are intrinsically linked. If you want to avoid that then you can only talk about 1 price and shouldn't take the price 1 year or 5 years later into account at all.

Yeah, I'm not the right person for that comparison. I've no interest in cars whatsoever so passing a driving test or buying a car are both things that mean literally nothing to me. In terms of games however, if I really really wanted it then I'd get it straight away (or as soon as I could afford it if it were prohibitively expensive). I'd only wait for price drops for things that I want, but not that much (ie. about 99% of games released these days).

Entertainment is near impossible to measure so it's stupid to try.

One person can make a song/story/game that can last thousands of years and entertain billions of people, give it away for free and not make a penny or alternately make riches beyond measure.

Funny old game.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!