Game price isn't the problem, wages are
Game price isn't the problem, wages are
Game prices for the past 30 years haven't kept pace with inflation.
I recognise the argument that publishers are shifting larger volumes of units now, which has been a factor that has allowed the industry to keep price increases below inflation for the last 30 years.
Wages not being even close to keeping up with inflation (especially housing inflation) is the real issue here, not the $70/$80 video game.
You should be angry at your reduced purchasing power in all of society, not just with the price of Nintendo games.
(Secondary less unpopular opinion, the best games out these days are multiplatform and released at least 5 years ago, buy them for << $80 and wait for sale the new releases, when they too are 5 years old)
Are the game developers and artists wages now being increased by the same percentage though? You are correct overall, especially in places like the UK where wages have been stagnant since like 2008 it feels like. But letting a company off the hook for raises “due to inflation” if they themselves are not raising their workers salaries to meet that inflation is bullshit.
Welcome to being an adult and finally realizing capitalism mainly involves screwing the workers and increasing product prices to make investors happy. We were never meant to be happy, just milked to death.
The math works out to be the CEOs pay raise is high enough, that on average with all the other 99.99% of the workers, it has kept up with inflation.
Good news, wages are no longer stagnant! Minimum wage has started to catch up to many professional jobs at this point. Outside of London anyway.
While wages are an issue, AAA gaming is more about C-suite satisfaction and the continued growth of the capitalist way of life.
Indie devs can make gold for $9.99.
Indie devs can make gold for $9.99.
I've spent less than $20 for all of the Vampire Survivors content, and gotten 250 hours of enjoyment out of it.
Sucks to suck, EA.
Indie devs have infinitely less overhead than AAA game studios, so of course they can.
Yes I mentioned the C-suite...
And they have infinitely less funding and marketing. They don't have the overhead but they don't have the benefits of that overhead either and will succeed.
This is really about late stage capitalism and chasing infinite growth. Every year profits must go up X percentage. There is never enough. So they have to find ways to make it to up, cutting wages and increasing prices is the obvious way.
An $80 game today is cheaper than $60 games decades ago. There are also a large category of free to play games which didn't exist before the Internet.
They also don't have to print games to discs and ship them around the world anymore.
They also don't have to develop their own engines. Some dude with little to no experience can make a functional game in a few days now. Not to mention functions in UE5 like LOD control do a lot of the work that devs had to handle.
They also have Moore’s Law on their side: The average laptop can now develop what required a $10,000 workstation in 2000.
They also now pack games with microtransactions to make even more money.
They also now sell DLC for games to make more money.
They also now re-release games, which takes a fraction of the effort and still charge a disproportionate price.
Games, objectively, should be cheaper. This is just the hunger for more and more.
The problem is throw-away game culture and generally low quality games. A good game can provide you with years of content and would be well worth a >$80 price tag.
But people keep paying the same prices for trash games they play for 2 weeks and then move on. And honestly, they deserve these prices.
But then there’s Factorio for $35
Adding to that - Nintendo is one of the few devs that actually consistently provides the kind of games you're talking about. I feel like Ubisoft selling their next cookie-cutter shopping-list BS for $80 is offensive, but Nintendo doing it is bearable and maybe even justifiable.
I do worry that Nintendo's $80 price tag will normalize $80 games. Ideally, it would be nice if it instead normalized seeing games at a wider variety of fair prices.
This comment deserves 90$ games.
Game prices are absolutely a problem still. The price of a game is just the entry fee. Then there's subscriptions, MTX, etc. If you add in everything you need to make a game a complete experience like they were pre-download era, games cost more even with inflation factored in.
Depend on the game. There are still many single players games that don't have any MTX etc, Sony first party games are like that, and so are most Nintendo games. Sony often release a DLC, which cost more, but that's more money for more content, and you don't need DLC.
Thankfully, that's true! But looking at the industry as a whole, they're making far more money than they ever have and the costs of creating physical copies has even decreased significantly since it's mostly digital now. Games with a heavy focus on online play or that have MTX should cost less, but they never do.
I would also like to add that 30 years ago devs had to write the engine and devtools from scratch. Player hardware and optimizations were also massive pain points that needed attention.
I would argue that cost of development has gotten CHEAPER than it was 30 years ago, even when taking the scope of today's games into account. Not to mention the market is also orders of magnitude bigger.
Any schmuk today can take Unity/UE5/Godot and make something playable in a matter of days. Barrier to entry is practically non existent. Look at Palworld, Vampire Survivors, Among Us, Balatro, Terraria. For studios with AAA-level scope look at Larian studios, Warhorse studios, Eleventh hour games, Hello games.
Large studio execs with 0 substance who don't know what they're doing are spouting this inflation drivel as justification to raise prices of their already failing games as AA and indie teams run CIRCLES around them.
Maybe development in the sense that it is easier for programmers to put together the logic of the game, but game budgets are in the hundreds of millions now they have not gotten cheaper. You're forgetting that artists are needed to create all the high quality textures and objects needed to populate the gameworld. As gamers have called for more and more unrealistic standards of graphical fidelity, more and more budgets have gone to the legions of graphical artists necessary.
They're still underpaying them, but indies can get away with having maybe one guy as their whole art team. Check the credits for how many studios helped the art for the next AAA game you play.
Honestly looking at the most popular games, I dont think graphics matter to even 1% of gamers. Minecraft, Terraria, lethal company, baltro, among us, all have the graphical quality of a 2 year old drawing.
Publishers are just spending a million to underpay artists solely because 'graphics' worked back in the ps2-ps3 era, so theyre still hitting that slot machine hoping for the same returns.
Edit to add: tunic, factorio (technically) Tetris, temple run, hill climb racing, Wii sports (arguably nindendos entire style until recently), human fall flat all have incredibly cheap graphics
As gamers have called for more and more unrealistic standards of graphical fidelity, more and more budgets have gone to the legions of graphical artists necessary.
This is one of the things I personally like the least about modern games. I don't want ultra-high detail textures for 4K resolution that will be completely wasted on my not-so-new hardware. Instead, I'd rather have optimized games that don't intoduce 100+ GB of bloat and require me to set all the graphic options to minimum quality in order to run with a decent fps.
While I agree that 1 person can make a game easier than ever before, game development cost has ballooned for bigger studios.
People love to point to Indie mega hits and say "why doesn't EA/Activision just make games with creativity like Balatro? This is what the people want.", but I challenge anyone to actually predict what that hit game is going to be before it takes off.
It's a big gamble to put games out there and most indie studios don't make more than 1. It's not a reliable business model to put these thousand person studios to work on a thousand different solo pet projects.
What has gotten much more expensive is the 3D modelling and level/gamespace making side of things, rather than development, which is why you see so many indies doing 2D games or simple 3D visuals and procedural generation of the gamespace.
This is partly why indie studios are far more successful at producing games with great gameplay than AAA studios - since they avoid going for hyper-realistic looks and massive hand-crafted levels they can focus on the actual gaming much more, plus its way easier to pivot main aspects of a game if it turns out they're not actually fun if there isn't a massive amount of time sunk into visuals and level design linked to them.
Wow this is incredible. I get to reuse my meme I just made a few days ago! Now that's what I call value
I mean both are the problem, obviously. And they're both symptoms of tne larger problem, which is late stage capitalism slowly sucking every last drop of labor value out of everyone. Game companies are making more profits than they did 30 years ago, so you can't tell me they 'need' to raise prices. And their CEO salaries are higher than ever, and developer salaries have not risen accordingly to justify the price increase. If a game company said 'we're raising our prices from 60 to 90 dollars, but we're also giving every employee a 1/3 salary increase' people might not be happy still but it would be a different conversation. But why should people who are struggling have to pay more for nothing except an increase in 'shareholder value' and the c-suites salary package? Thats fucked.
The prices should go down to 40$(or stay 60$ based on inflation) if I dont actually own the game imo. If the company is going to be so bold as to sell "game keys" with no actual data on the cart, coupled with the fact that the EShop has been shut down on the WiiU and 3DS(you can redownload games still, but how long until that goes away?). To me is a huge middle finger, and basically planned obsolesence on the switch 2 since you will no longer be able to redownload your games once they stop supporting the consoles servers.
If i do the "smart" thing and get the switch 2 after a major price drop, every games lifespan will be even shorter. fuck nintendo, mod your switch & switch 2(when thats available) pirate everything from them and get your moneys worth for the overpriced hardware.
Laughs in v1 switch with active tinfoil eshop 🤘😸🖕
There are so many problems with the industry today, but the amount of venom in the discourse around $80 Mario Kart has felt bizarre to me. I do feel that there are much worse problems.
Like it's worth mentioning how a lot of games already are well above $80 after DLC anyway, but I guess those games get a pass? Or just how fucked up most F2P business models are, exploiting whales to subsidize everybody else. I'd rather play a game where everyone pays a fair price than one where addicts are taken advantage of and encouraged to financially ruin themselves.
I don't often buy games at full price myself. Only for a handful of IPs I really love, or multiplayer games I want to get in on the ground floor of, anything else I'll wait for a sale. But the way I see it, if Kirby Air Ride 2 costs $80, I'm willing to spend $80 on that game because I know I will get that much enjoyment out of it. I've waited 22 years for this sequel, it's worth it to me!
And I think ultimately, you gotta just buy the things that are worth it to you, skip the things that aren't, and then chill the fuck out.
Game price isn't a problem, just don't buy their games.
For £90 you could buy mario cart, or you would start a genocide in Rimworld and still have enough money left over for automated genocide in Factorio and if you are willing to go over by £3.48 you can also commit genocide from orbit in Stellaris.
Wow all that genocide for the low low price of $93.48 where do I sign?
Stellaris is like $200 if you don't want features pay-walled from you. And good luck playing a Paradox game the week it comes out - you get to add "Software Tester - Unpaid" to your CV.
RimWorld is $35 so for £90 ($119) you could buy three copies and give them to two friends so you all can make some hats (human leather).
I’ve considered this, especially after watching moistcritikal’s very sarcastic rant on the matter. Nowhere in it does he mention the living wages of the devs, artists, and creators of the games, just that the price increase seems insane. Fact is, I remember when a pack of unfiltered camels smokes would run you about 75 cents, and the prices now are near, if not double digits.
Gonna take a lot of work to shift the mindset from “games should never cost more than d dollars” to “we need to develop a financial system whereby inflation doesn’t matter to us”.
Wage stagnation is absolutely heartbreaking.
But even if I were making a livable wage, Nintendo's prices and other AAA are still ridiculous. The Steam wishlist sale life is the good life.
Jup, have had that thought before. And i think another Factor is that people now own more games than back then. Making their collection more expensive and equal to that what a few games cost in the past.
So we Always sortoff spend the same part of our budget for games, and only now when the price is rising it takes more out of our budget.
So we feel like the price is rising in an unfair manner .
The average quality of games has both gone up in terms of graphics and smooth gameplay but down on being interesting and innovative. I'd say this is also kind of part of the issue.
Baldur's Gate 3 in my opinion was allowed to cost more than 60 euros just because it was so well made and was innovative for the genre.
Mario Kart 9 Open World though? It's literally just mario kart again but with a kinda useless open world, why should that cost 80 euros?
35 years ago I didn't get a Super Nintendo or Sega because you could get 12 Commodore 64 games for the same price as a single Mario game. And a few years later my dad got hold of a 286 so we could play DOS games like Wolfenstein.
Huh, unpopular opinion.
Does Lemmy know that popular opinions need to be downvoted? Smh....
The unpopular part is that I disagree with the discussion which is microscopically focussed on raging at game publishers, citing corporate greedy as the only reason game prices are so high.
$80 should be an affordable amount of money to spend for someone on an average wage for a game (not unpopular).
Arguably, it's taxes on the wealthy that is the problem. That said. Nintendo can go felate themselves. Greedy, anti emulator dickheads.
Same with porn. But now, the only fans type sites are ridiculously expensive and you don't even know what the hell you're paying for until you pay.