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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Dear PlayStation Fans: Trickle-Down Economics Isn't Real!

Chrkeller said:

Companies will be as greedy as consumers allow them to be.  Changing corporate practices typically requires voting with one's wallet.  

Thats why consumers need to actually speak up and voice their opinions and not defend it.

the-pi-guy said:

One question that I have is why is a $70 game with no DLC greedier than a $60 game with $100 or even $1000 worth of microtransactions?

The question is why they need to raise the price? Video games are actually selling more and more so the price doesn't need to be raised as they are making more money off more sales. The other main concern is $70 games that also have MTs. Sony pushed $70, guess what EA did? Followed, and so have many others.

Every little step you give these companies, they will continue to take and take until people actually say enough is enough. Look at Maddan, the series hasn't changed for 20 years yet EA want to charge $70 for a game they made 20 years ago. Why doesn't EA change Maddan? Because Maddan continues to sell so they just get away with it. I don't want my side hobby to become more expensive just because these billion dollar corps want more out of my wallet. Maybe that's what you want, not me.

I now wait for game sales due to the explosive prices on day one releases. $99 to $149 (AUD) depending on which digital version you want. You really cannot see the issue here?



Around the Network
Azzanation said:
Chrkeller said:

Companies will be as greedy as consumers allow them to be.  Changing corporate practices typically requires voting with one's wallet.  

Thats why consumers need to actually speak up and voice their opinions and not defend it.

the-pi-guy said:

One question that I have is why is a $70 game with no DLC greedier than a $60 game with $100 or even $1000 worth of microtransactions?

The question is why they need to raise the price? Video games are actually selling more and more so the price doesn't need to be raised as they are making more money off more sales. The other main concern is $70 games that also have MTs. Sony pushed $70, guess what EA did? Followed, and so have many others.

Every little step you give these companies, they will continue to take and take until people actually say enough is enough. Look at Maddan, the series hasn't changed for 20 years yet EA want to charge $70 for a game they made 20 years ago. Why doesn't EA change Maddan? Because Maddan continues to sell so they just get away with it. I don't want my side hobby to become more expensive just because these billion dollar corps want more out of my wallet. Maybe that's what you want, not me.

I now wait for game sales due to the explosive prices on day one releases. $99 to $149 (AUD) depending on which digital version you want. You really cannot see the issue here?

Nope.  They need to speak with their wallets.  Money drives business decisions.  



Hynad said:
zero129 said:

Thats all well and good. But when other users are saying the same thing why are you going reporting them and trying to get them banned like azzanation said.

No need to make things personal also like Azz said and like it seems your trying to do here.Like you said i am me and i will call out hypocrisy when i see it.

Edit: Do you have me blocked from looking at your profile and old posts?. Was going to have a look at your posts but its kinda hard to do when i cant even view your profile...

Azzanation says I do that. That’s not what I do. I suspect he is projecting and describing his own behaviour, just like with the downvoting thing.

I think some of the users here have either special powers or are moderators in disguise to know who reports them =p



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Will the backlash change NVidia's pricing? Is it all greed or merely reality?

https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-df-direct-weekly-rtx-4080-pricing-a-big-mistake-or-a-sign-of-things-to-come

Backing up Nvidia's position, Xbox architect Andrew Goossen spelt this out to us in plain language two years ago - the cost-per-transistor is not reducing at speed anymore. Microsoft saw no route to cost-reducing Xbox Series X effectively, hence the launch of Xbox Series S. If existing tech cannot be cost-reduced, it stands to reason that more performance will hike up prices. Meanwhile, in recent times, the PlayStation 5 has increased in cost, despite using a smaller 6nm chip. Beyond all of that, we've not even factored in out-of-control inflation and its impact on GPU prices.

There may well be mitigating factors to explain the pricing but ultimately, the market will decide what to make of the RTX 4080. The reaction is such that there's undoubtedly a golden chance for AMD to make an impact with its upcoming RDNA 3 graphics line. If Nvidia is indeed over-pricing, AMD has the opportunity to significantly under-cut its opposition. If it doesn't meaningfully offer a much better deal, we should accept the probability that big silicon commands big prices going forward, just as Nvidia suggests.



zero129 said:
SvennoJ said:

Will the backlash change NVidia's pricing? Is it all greed or merely reality?

https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-df-direct-weekly-rtx-4080-pricing-a-big-mistake-or-a-sign-of-things-to-come

Backing up Nvidia's position, Xbox architect Andrew Goossen spelt this out to us in plain language two years ago - the cost-per-transistor is not reducing at speed anymore. Microsoft saw no route to cost-reducing Xbox Series X effectively, hence the launch of Xbox Series S. If existing tech cannot be cost-reduced, it stands to reason that more performance will hike up prices. Meanwhile, in recent times, the PlayStation 5 has increased in cost, despite using a smaller 6nm chip. Beyond all of that, we've not even factored in out-of-control inflation and its impact on GPU prices.

There may well be mitigating factors to explain the pricing but ultimately, the market will decide what to make of the RTX 4080. The reaction is such that there's undoubtedly a golden chance for AMD to make an impact with its upcoming RDNA 3 graphics line. If Nvidia is indeed over-pricing, AMD has the opportunity to significantly under-cut its opposition. If it doesn't meaningfully offer a much better deal, we should accept the probability that big silicon commands big prices going forward, just as Nvidia suggests.

I really hope so. Like i said in the PC thread i hope AMD comes out and gives Nvidia a run for their money just like they did with Intel as Nvidia is being way to greedy here with their prices.

It will likely be like the Series S, smaller less powerful versions that are more affordable. Which Nvidia already sort of did with the 4080 vs 4090.

Part of the discussion in DF Direct Weekly this week covers the various reasons why this is happening. The backlash puts the blame squarely on Nvidia for over-pricing its products, for 'rebadging' a prospective RTX 4070 as an RTX 4080 in order to deliver an 80-class product for under a thousand dollars. However, last week, Nvidia boss Jensen Huang delivered a stark message: that cost reductions on performance, or the same performance for half the cost with a new generation are a thing of the past.

Greed or not, things are getting a lot more expensive everywhere and while Moore's law isn't dead yet, it has been slowing down a lot in the past decade. GPUs keep getting bigger as well to keep up with expectations. The results are still great, at a hefty price

Right now though, the RTX 4090 will remain the preserve of the super-affluent, delivering far superior performance than RTX 3090, even beating the 3090 Ti into a cocked hat, by quite some margin. The message is clear though: the biggest gen-on-gen upgrade with Nvidia's new line of graphics hardware comes at a price: $1599, specifically.

As discussed by myself and the team in this week's show though, the RTX 4080 pricing storm has diverted attention away from some incredible stuff. Portal RTX is built on the new RTX Remix tool, effectively opening the door for many older games to receive full path-tracing 'remasters'. Portal itself is a brilliant example of what Remix can do: classic gameplay never ages, but now the title looks breathtaking. DLSS 3? We'll have much more on that soon, but with an effectively path-traced Cyberpunk 2077 running at perfectly playable frame-rates, the potential here is astonishing: PC can now scale beyond consoles in offering a totally transformed experience as opposed to the usual staples like unlocked frame-rates, ultrawide resolutions, tweaked settings etc. All of this has been overshadowed by RTX 4080 specs and pricing.

Ray tracing isn't advancing as fast as I would have liked to see, with a hefty price tagged on.



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
Azzanation said:

The question is why they need to raise the price? Video games are actually selling more and more so the price doesn't need to be raised as they are making more money off more sales. The other main concern is $70 games that also have MTs. Sony pushed $70, guess what EA did? Followed, and so have many others.

Every little step you give these companies, they will continue to take and take until people actually say enough is enough. Look at Maddan, the series hasn't changed for 20 years yet EA want to charge $70 for a game they made 20 years ago. Why doesn't EA change Maddan? Because Maddan continues to sell so they just get away with it. I don't want my side hobby to become more expensive just because these billion dollar corps want more out of my wallet. Maybe that's what you want, not me.

I now wait for game sales due to the explosive prices on day one releases. $99 to $149 (AUD) depending on which digital version you want. You really cannot see the issue here?

I'm not saying it's what I want, I'm just saying I think there are worse things. And lots of publishers are pushing a lot of these things that I think are worse, and people don't seem to care as much.

As always, vote with your wallet. Most of these games I'm not going to buy for $45, let alone $70. 

MTs and Lootboxes have been complained about for years to a point where some companies had to go to court, and they even banned the concept in some countries.

In saying that, you can actually argue MTs gives you extra content and is completely optional to a straight up $10 price hike where we get nothing in return except for paying more. Just because MTs are a thing in modern gaming doesn't justify ignoring game prices going up. Sony are not innocent with the MT concept either. GT7 was sold at full price and also had some of the worst MTs this current gen. TLOU1 also had them. It doesn't matter who does MTs because it's not the same thing. Games on GP also have MTs yet the games are technically free on the service.

As an industry, we need everyone from all sides not accepting the PR excuses from these corporate giants, they claim to justify any form of price hike. Not when they continue to earn billions off your services already. This isn't the PS3 and 360 era where the consoles were costing them billions, its completely opposite this gen and last gen.



Azzanation said:

MTs and Lootboxes have been complained about for years to a point where some companies had to go to court, and they even banned the concept in some countries.

In saying that, you can actually argue MTs gives you extra content and is completely optional to a straight up $10 price hike where we get nothing in return except for paying more. Just because MTs are a thing in modern gaming doesn't justify ignoring game prices going up. Sony are not innocent with the MT concept either. GT7 was sold at full price and also had some of the worst MTs this current gen. TLOU1 also had them. It doesn't matter who does MTs because it's not the same thing. Games on GP also have MTs yet the games are technically free on the service.

As an industry, we need everyone from all sides not accepting the PR excuses from these corporate giants, they claim to justify any form of price hike. Not when they continue to earn billions off your services already. This isn't the PS3 and 360 era where the consoles were costing them billions, its completely opposite this gen and last gen.

That's some nice mental gymnastics. MTs give you extra content, err no. MTs hold back content which you can re-enable by paying up small amounts of money or to skip the grind. How do you know you get nothing in return for the higher game price. It's not a luxury tax, it goes straight into the budget for the game, allowing a bigger more polished game than one that costs less. The difference between a 20, 40 and 60 dollar game is obvious, the difference between 60 and 70 is smaller but not nothing...

The PS3 and 360 era didn't cost them billions because of exchange rates and inflation. The PS3 was very expensive to produce because of adding blu-ray which had a big shortage in blue laser diodes at the time. Standalone blu-ray players cost over $1000 when the PS3 launched! The 360 lost billions because of RROD, pushing a faulty console out the door.

Today we're dealing with increasing hardware price, a situation that hasn't happened on this scale before. A perfect storm of diminishing returns, global pandemic, and further destabilizing markets from Russia's war mongering.

Anyway vote with your wallet, don't buy a new GPU. Stick with game pass, ignore Season passes, DLC and MTX. It's all overpriced compared to what we had 2 generations ago.




MTX are the bane of gaming, IMHO. I would MUCH rather pay $10 for a full game over the nickel and dime crap.



SvennoJ said:

That's some nice mental gymnastics. MTs give you extra content, err no. MTs hold back content which you can re-enable by paying up small amounts of money or to skip the grind. How do you know you get nothing in return for the higher game price. It's not a luxury tax, it goes straight into the budget for the game, allowing a bigger more polished game than one that costs less. The difference between a 20, 40 and 60 dollar game is obvious, the difference between 60 and 70 is smaller but not nothing...

The PS3 and 360 era didn't cost them billions because of exchange rates and inflation. The PS3 was very expensive to produce because of adding blu-ray which had a big shortage in blue laser diodes at the time. Standalone blu-ray players cost over $1000 when the PS3 launched! The 360 lost billions because of RROD, pushing a faulty console out the door.

Today we're dealing with increasing hardware price, a situation that hasn't happened on this scale before. A perfect storm of diminishing returns, global pandemic, and further destabilizing markets from Russia's war mongering.

Anyway vote with your wallet, don't buy a new GPU. Stick with game pass, ignore Season passes, DLC and MTX. It's all overpriced compared to what we had 2 generations ago.


Thats absolutely nonsense. Not all MTs are the same. Some MTs actually release after the game was launched and some $60 games also offer a wealth of content while also offering MTs. Yes, you have games that offer bad MTs like where they purposely extend grinds or actually remove content from the games. However you are just generalizing the MT system.

I'll give you a perfect exactly. I've played WoW since 2005. Over the years Blizzard added some MTs like Store Mounts and Pets, stuff that wouldn't exist 15 years ago. They cost as much as the $10 price tag that current games are raised to, and id argue that WoW has more content than any game you can point out that cost $70 today. No game this gen has justified the extra $10. Nothing we haven't seen last gen or even the gen before that, so far. 

Also the PS3 and 360 was billions on hardware and they couldn't recoup that, Xbox might have, with its Subscription service, but no figures are out and we can only do our own maths on it.

PS5 and XSX are not systems in the same situation. This inflation crap is nothing Sony, Nintendo and Xbox cannot just eat up, as they are making more money than they ever have with Subs, software and overall sales. They are just making excuses to justify the price hike. They are multi-billion dollar profitable companies. They just want to please their share holder pockets and making you pay more for literally nothing extra.



Azzanation said:
SvennoJ said:

That's some nice mental gymnastics. MTs give you extra content, err no. MTs hold back content which you can re-enable by paying up small amounts of money or to skip the grind. How do you know you get nothing in return for the higher game price. It's not a luxury tax, it goes straight into the budget for the game, allowing a bigger more polished game than one that costs less. The difference between a 20, 40 and 60 dollar game is obvious, the difference between 60 and 70 is smaller but not nothing...

The PS3 and 360 era didn't cost them billions because of exchange rates and inflation. The PS3 was very expensive to produce because of adding blu-ray which had a big shortage in blue laser diodes at the time. Standalone blu-ray players cost over $1000 when the PS3 launched! The 360 lost billions because of RROD, pushing a faulty console out the door.

Today we're dealing with increasing hardware price, a situation that hasn't happened on this scale before. A perfect storm of diminishing returns, global pandemic, and further destabilizing markets from Russia's war mongering.

Anyway vote with your wallet, don't buy a new GPU. Stick with game pass, ignore Season passes, DLC and MTX. It's all overpriced compared to what we had 2 generations ago.


Thats absolutely nonsense. Not all MTs are the same. Some MTs actually release after the game was launched and some $60 games also offer a wealth of content while also offering MTs. Yes, you have games that offer bad MTs like where they purposely extend grinds or actually remove content from the games. However you are just generalizing the MT system.

I'll give you a perfect exactly. I've played WoW since 2005. Over the years Blizzard added some MTs like Store Mounts and Pets, stuff that wouldn't exist 15 years ago. They cost as much as the $10 price tag that current games are raised to, and id argue that WoW has more content than any game you can point out that cost $70 today. No game this gen has justified the extra $10. Nothing we haven't seen last gen or even the gen before that, so far. 

Also the PS3 and 360 was billions on hardware and they couldn't recoup that, Xbox might have, with its Subscription service, but no figures are out and we can only do our own maths on it.

PS5 and XSX are not systems in the same situation. This inflation crap is nothing Sony, Nintendo and Xbox cannot just eat up, as they are making more money than they ever have with Subs, software and overall sales. They are just making excuses to justify the price hike. They are multi-billion dollar profitable companies. They just want to please their share holder pockets and making you pay more for literally nothing extra.

New stuff can be added through DLC instead of MTX, so there is nothing MTX really add except of money rolling through pubs pocket.

Sure companies can eat the cost. But if you look for the sources that were already given in this thread, PS revenue and profit have dropped on the past year or two, so they aren't making more money they are making less, so now is it justified?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."