I mean, this just isn’t true, though. You’re not wrong in pointing out that the scope of sales has changed, but so has the scope of development, as well as consumer expectation. I suspect if you compare the number of man hours spent on a title today vs an NES game, it’s not even a comparable discussion. And then there’s the matter of post-release support.
To be clear, I don’t think a $30 price hike for physical copies is at all sensible, but the arguments being presented both for and against it are incredibly poorly thought out. Everyone presents a single facet of videogame development today compared to years ago and then acts like it’s a “gotcha” that proves their point. The entire ecosystem of game development and consumption has changed so drastically, that any discussion comparing the adjusted for inflation price of games then vs now is just pointless. Art and entertainment are art and entertainment, and it’s impossible to create a de-facto value statement for them, because consumer subjectivity, bias, and valuation is too wide to make objective statements about.
Imo, the real criticism of the matter is that +50% cost during a time of economic upheaval, when the buying power of the middle class is approaching the weakest it’s been in a long time, is going to be received poorly, and probably result in a loss of Western sales. It’s a massive leap, in a single generation, at the worst possible time, regardless of what inflation adjustments tell us.
Game development now is cheaper and more accessible than ever before, blockbuster games with budgets in hundreds of millions should flop and never recoup money invested in them. Graphically games made last year and games made ten years ago are comparable, and on nintendo switch both would look horrible so graphics is out, games from nintendo often are entertaining, but simple-ish and not all that engaging to play them for months at a time (there are exceptions but they are extremely rare). Third party games can be bought two-three-four times cheaper while being better games. So unless you are very financially stable and $100 for a game is like a cup of coffee to you arguing for increase of price goes counter to your interest as a player.
Glide@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I mean, this just isn’t true, though. You’re not wrong in pointing out that the scope of sales has changed, but so has the scope of development, as well as consumer expectation. I suspect if you compare the number of man hours spent on a title today vs an NES game, it’s not even a comparable discussion. And then there’s the matter of post-release support.
To be clear, I don’t think a $30 price hike for physical copies is at all sensible, but the arguments being presented both for and against it are incredibly poorly thought out. Everyone presents a single facet of videogame development today compared to years ago and then acts like it’s a “gotcha” that proves their point. The entire ecosystem of game development and consumption has changed so drastically, that any discussion comparing the adjusted for inflation price of games then vs now is just pointless. Art and entertainment are art and entertainment, and it’s impossible to create a de-facto value statement for them, because consumer subjectivity, bias, and valuation is too wide to make objective statements about.
Imo, the real criticism of the matter is that +50% cost during a time of economic upheaval, when the buying power of the middle class is approaching the weakest it’s been in a long time, is going to be received poorly, and probably result in a loss of Western sales. It’s a massive leap, in a single generation, at the worst possible time, regardless of what inflation adjustments tell us.
nesc@lemmy.cafe 2 weeks ago
Game development now is cheaper and more accessible than ever before, blockbuster games with budgets in hundreds of millions should flop and never recoup money invested in them. Graphically games made last year and games made ten years ago are comparable, and on nintendo switch both would look horrible so graphics is out, games from nintendo often are entertaining, but simple-ish and not all that engaging to play them for months at a time (there are exceptions but they are extremely rare). Third party games can be bought two-three-four times cheaper while being better games. So unless you are very financially stable and $100 for a game is like a cup of coffee to you arguing for increase of price goes counter to your interest as a player.