Capcom’s president and chief operating officer has said he thinks game prices should go up.
Haruhiro Tsujimoto made the comments at this year’s Tokyo Game Show, Nikkei reported. TGS is sponsored by the Computer Entertainment Supplier’s Association, a Japanese organisation which aims to support the Japanese industry, which Tsujimoto is currently the chairman of.
“Personally, I feel that game prices are too low,” Tsujimoto said, citing increasing development costs and a need to increase wages.
I think my salary should go up
Have you considered being a CEO for a gaming corporation?
I’m still working on “Be attractive. Don’t be unattractive.”
Have you seen many CEOs? Those aren’t requirements.
deleted by creator
I’m still not cool with them raising PC games from $50 to $60 almost 20 years ago just because they could and used the console parity excuse due to their licensing fees. I don’t think I’ve bought a AAA game since EA’s stunts around 2012/2013.
Are you buying $70 games though?
deleted by creator
The last triple A game I bought at launch was ‘Watchdogs Legion’, to comemorate my new PC. I figured I just build a new computer, so why not celebrate by buying an expensive game. It was a stupid impulse buy.
Everyone: “Games are getting WAY too expensive.”
Out of touch executive: “Games are too cheap! Why are our sales going down? I promised the shareholders infinite growth!”
Games haven’t gotten more expensive since ever. Like I said above, The Original Donkey Kong for the SNES was 66 usd. It releases in 1994.
That’s a very US-centric view, at best. I paid about 23 dollars for a brand new copy of Half-Life 2 in 2004.
I live in Sweden. But saying it cost 799sek in 1994 might not give you a good idea of its cost.
Fair enough. Still, games used to be vastly cheaper in my country and the asking price for the basic version of Starfield is 80 USD. There is no way any game is worth this much of my income.
Like I said. The price tag on Donkey Kong from 1994 says 799sek which in today’s market is worth 66 usd. I can’t be arsed to follow index and calculate how much that was in -94 but it’s a lot more than Starfield.
My only point here is that games haven’t really increased in price ever. Anyone claiming it has, is wrong. We can discuss the other parameters all day with (un)finished products, mtx, bugs, paid dlc etc. The fact still stands that games in 2023 haven’t vastly increased in price at all. And we have a lot of free options now as well that didn’t exist back in the ninetees.
In 1994 you were buying a physical, manufactured product which you owned.
Now you are temporarily licensing access to something that doesn’t exist, can’t be transferred or resold or backed up or modified, has unlimited reproduction potential for no cost, and sells at scales unimaginable in 1994 dwarfing all other consumer markets in total revenue.
Games are dramatically overpriced.
If you buy a game today, does it come with a free SSD to install it in? Does it have a paper manual and a nice box? Is it even finished? Games aren’t cheaper, you’re just getting scammed.
That was as expensive as it was back then because the game released on what is effectively a PCB. Which was expensive to make.
How expensive? Because accounting for inflation, $66 in 1994 is worth about $136 in 2023.
The expense was probably quite considerable. Not only do you have to have the game ROM on a chip, you would also need Nintendo’s lockout chip too. If your game had a battery save system (DKC did) you would also need to buy a RAM chip and watch battery too. That’s ignoring any enhancement chips as DKC didn’t use any (but many other late generation games did).
And all that before you get to the fact that the only who could officially make these boards was Nintendo. Meaning there isn’t exactly much competition driving prices down. Sure, Nintendo couldn’t quite take the piss the way they could in the NES days, as Sega was all too eager to try and attract new games for its console, but unless you wanted to completely remake your game, you’re dealing with the big N’s bullshit.
The boards could probably have been made much cheaper today than in the 90s, as ROM memory was expensive AF, even the couple-of-MB ones used in the consoles of the day.
There’s a reason PS1 and Saturn games were massively cheaper to buy than N64 games.
No matter what price they make games, have no illusion that developers will be paid more. This is to pad C level pockets.
$80 for AAA games is already super expensive. I buy most of my games on sale now.
It’s funny how it’s “the game’s are not expensive enough” and not “we don’t know how to manage our or money” or “our profit are too high”. Fuck those capitalists.
Oh the stupid shit head “games are 100 times more expensive to make now” but you sell thousands times more and there no physical media anymore is irrelevant I guess… Assholes…
If they weren’t profitable at the current price they wouldn’t be charging the current price.
And “budgets keep going up!”
Whose fault is that, guys? Were those numbers placed on you by a witch’s curse? No. You spent $100M on one game, it made $300M, so you spend $200M on the next game. Games didn’t get twice as hard to make, between those decisions. They didn’t require twice as many people or twice as much time. You’re just treating them like a factory where more capital in means more revenue out.
The original Doom was made in nine months by a team that fits in an elevator. Yeah, it’s simpler than modern games, but they had to make the nearly-unprecedented engine and all their own tools as they went. It’s not like anything’s harder, now. People have basically recreated that seminal title as solo one-week game jam projects. A modern handful of professional computer nerds can pick from a handful of modern high-end toolchains and start banging out content, today.
If the market for video games only supported six-digit budgets - there would still be video games. Big ones, fancy ones, creative ones, whatever. Would they be the spectacles that currently get advertised to death? Nope. But they also wouldn’t produce as many unstable bug-fests as those sprawling mega-projects. Nor would they be announced in 1999, previewed in 2006, delayed in 2017, and launched to middling reviews in 2025.
Studios that aren’t injected with obscene capital and forced to deliver “AAA” money-trees tend to shoot their shot and move on to the next game. That’s how they survived and grew as plucky little private affairs, before some publishers swallowed them whole and turned them into a sequel factory for their breakout hit.
If your games cost too much money to fail, stop giving them more money.
You know what, I’ll bite. For this to work though, let’s agree on two things. First, the game they’re selling shouldn’t be a hot pile of garbage on day one. Second, I don’t want to even catch a whiff of microtransactions or subscription based models. If we can nail those down, I would be fine with a price increase. As it stands, the sticker price is just the cost of entry in the vast majority of games. They are still bringing in cash well after the initial purchase.
Not surprising for the man who thinks an iPhone port of an 18 year old GameCube game should cost $60.
Are you talking about RE4? Because they were actually talking about an Apple port (iPhone, iPad and Mac, with people being able to play on all platforms with one purchase) of the recent remake, which is a 2023 game which only really borrows the story and some layouts from the 2005 game.
And even then it only borrows the bullet points of the story. I prefer the approach they took with this game compared to say FF7’s where the story definitely feels like it’s improved if you are more familiar with the original.
Are you referring to FF7 remake’s? Because you definitely get more out of it if you’ve played the previous games and watched the movie since it’s quite literally a sequel to them. I really enjoy their approach to it.
I’m not saying RE4’s isn’t the case either. I just don’t think it’s a one or the other kind of scenario and they’re a little different as to why as well.
I mean… if it looks and plays like a touchscreen- and battery-limited version of the $60 PS5 / Xbox Whatever game… fine?
Of course if he also expects one cent of optional or recurring fees on top of that, he can get fucked.
I’m already waiting for games to go on sale in order to avoid being an unpaid bug tester, so sure do whatever you want.
deleted by creator
Lower your budgets, ship more often, stop treating products like services.
Personally, I feel that game prices are too high. Patient gaming is where I’m at.
Besides all of that, I don’t have the time for all of these games maybe cut down the scope of the game, go back to linear, 10-20 hour games and if its an open world don’t make it a huge empty sandbox with most of it being unused or with a boring game loop. If a game publisher decides to jack up prices then I expect top notch quality with no fluff included anywhere and that it works day one the fact that I have to mention that is sad, then and only then to me such a high price would be justified which has not been the case for some games in recent years. Finally, if a full priced game incorporates f2p monetization and battle passes, then to me its price increase is not justified in my book.
I think the subscription based stuff is decent value for now. Run 2 years behind the current and you hardly have to buy anything.
The only games I have for my PS5 that I “own” are God of War Ragnarok that came with it, and Baldur’s Gate 3.
I remember getting Donkey Kong on release for the Super Nintendo and it was more expensive than most games are right now, 66 usd. Name one thing that has the same price in 2023 that it did I 1994. It’s insane.
They were a lot cheaper to make back then too.
Rare spent 18 months developing Donkey Kong Country from an initial concept to a finished game, and according to product manager Dan Owsen, 20 people worked on it in total. It cost an estimated US$1 million to produce, and Rare said that it had the most man hours ever invested in a video game at the time, 22 years. The team worked 12–16-hours every day of the week.
These days that’s indie game territory.
The Donkey Kong you bought in 1994 had to pay not only for development, but also for the package, for the circuits (think a 1TB SSD in 2023), for distribution, etc. Do you see modern companies having to pay for any of that?
You seem to miss the point it was almost 30 years ago and they spend 18 months developing with a team of 20 people. Read those numbers again. Damn, the electrical bills alone to create Starfield most probably surpasses the entire development cost of a handful of SNES games combined. Yes, old games had manuals and came in physical form but those components where cheap at the time.
I’m not saying game SHOULD cost more. I’m just claiming games haven’t become a lot more expensive.
My dad still reminds me that when he bought me Dr. Mario for NES on release, it was $90USD. I remember seeing many a game at Toys R Us with price tags of up to $120.
But I can name plenty of games in 2023 that cost more $66. Shittons of console titles are $70 now!
But I can name plenty of games in 2023 that cost more $66.
None of which come with the media used to play, most don’t even have a box. If you think games are cheaper now, you’re being scammed.
$66 in the 90’s vs $70 in 2023 isn’t cheaper because games are digitally distributed now? What are you smoking? Can I have some?
You’re illiterate, I see. Show me a digital release which comes with a box, manual, and the media used to play, and I’ll concede.
Apparently you’re illiterate because I was asking how that makes them cheaper. None of those things matter in the slightest and would only cost marginally more to produce.
$70 is still more than $66, regardless of that unnecessary shit.
You’re arguing that media used to play (i.e. a FUCKING SSD in 2023) costs marginally more? Find me an SSD that could fit Sea of Thieves for less than 25 USD (and isn’t trash). If you’re a shill, delete your account.
OIC… You’re just an absolute dingus who has no fucking clue what they are on about. Cartridges were only slightly more to produce than a CD, and Nintendo still makes their games on cartridges (fancier ones than the SNES, too) that cost the same as the digital release. The only time this wasn’t true was during the 64 era, when an earthquake shut down the manufacturers of the carts and fucked up production. Do you work for Capcom? I feel like you’d fit in.
How is this part of the discussion? What did a SNES cost? This doesn’t matter. Consoles and hardware always costs money. We are talking about the games here. Or do you want to take in to account what a decent TV cost in 1994 as well? And the second gamepad? We can’t compare life as a whole. Saleries. Living cost. Everything matters, yes. But then we can just end the discussion right here and right now because we will never arrive at anything but ifs and buts.
I buy physical copies of ps4 games for under $10 pretty regularly. You can find some absurd sales if you know where to look and how to keep an eye out.
Good fucking luck playing that game without downloading anything…
I’d rather play the release version of a game than no version.
As much as I don’t want to see game prices increase, I’ve been shocked to see that they haven’t kept up with inflation at all. Especially since the cost of developing games has skyrocketed.
I don’t/can’t pay full price for games now as it is so good luck with that.
Patient gamer for life I guess.
“Man who stands to gain from an increase in game prices advocates for increase in game prices”.
Seriously though I’m not sure there’s much more room to go on the top end when it comes to prices rises. I’ve got to think at some point you’ll just push more people into buying at sale, or waiting for a game to hit their subscription platform of choice.
Maybe it’s time we re-evaluate what makes a AAA worth £75 in the first place? And, what role do micro transactions have in this system, because anyone who’s ever spent £75 on a new AAA game will know there’s plenty of other ways they try to skin the proverbial cat.
Removed by mod
