• offspec@lemmy.nicknakin.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Games have been the same price for over thirty years, they’ve not changed with inflation and production costs have skyrocketed. To an extent the increased market has helped keep costs down for the consumer but it’s not unreasonable to see prices shift upwards.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      What about the cost of disc media that’s absolutely disappeared? That was a huge chunk of the overhead. Logistics to get the copies to all the stores, etc.

      Now it’s just electricity and servers to download from.

      Do you ever notice that no one ever talks about all the advancements that saved money? Of course not, cause then they’d never be able to justify continually hiking the prices up.

      • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I am genuinely not trying to sound like a studio apologist, because there are myriad reasons to be upset with them, but y’all need to think these arguments through a little better. I haven’t pulled up any numbers, but are we really going to pretend that the cost of producing a game in 1990 is even remotely comparable to that of a modern day AAA game? The fact that video game costs have remained relatively steady and even decreased in some cases for decades should be astonishing.

        Pick a different argument.

        • thedrivingcrooner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Pick a non-strawman argument and then we can have a discussion. They had different methods of creating games yes, but were they easier back then than they are now? I don’t think so, they had people inventing the fucking wheel of what could be possible and we still had a consistent price tag with a FEATURE COMPLETE package. They didn’t have as many workers as they did because all of the programming went to those individual developers to figure out. The amount of work is more intricately spread out in these bigger studios, but the passion and creativeness was more alive back in the early days. None of it was automated with fully polished dev tools and externally hired language teams.

      • Corroded@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lots of games today force some sort of online element (ex. Cloud saves, workshop content, multiplayer, etc.) I wonder how much that costs them to maintain. I can’t imagine it’s that significant if they are dealing with multiple single player games.

        • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Probably not as much as the money they derive from the live service model.

          Businesses do what makes them the most money.

        • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s no way in hell that paying steam is more expensive than buying dics, putting your game on those discs, putting those discs in cases, and then paying to ship those cases all over the world.

          Know how I know? Because businesses do whatever is the most profitable, and clearly digital distro is cheaper since we’ve been pushing for it since it was invented.

    • Maladius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah my parents were paying $60 for NES games for me… Which is why I had like 3 NES games. The only reason game aren’t $180 now is competition… And reproducibility vs size of market… And physical media is cheap or non-existent. Ok there are a few reasons, but still…