You’re aware of the concept of inflation, no?
Yeah fair it is arbitrary, but the line in the sand must be drawn somewhere. So coming from PC platform and 59,99 being the agreed upon number for probably decade or more is a good enough arbitrary point to use as a line in the sand.
hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone 21 hours ago
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 20 hours ago
Are you aware of how much gaming has increased in popularity? Already this should cover the difference inflation makes over the years. When we add in profit form micro transactions and the only reason left to increase prices is greed.
hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
Are you saying that gaming increasing in popularity is a reason for companies to decrease the price? I’m not sure you know how this works.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 30 minutes ago
I’m saying that inflammation cant be used as a justification for increased prices when the profit has increased significantly.
architect@thelemmy.club 13 hours ago
My business has increased in popularity, too. I’m raising prices.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 13 hours ago
As is you’re right, I’m still not going to buy.
artyom@piefed.social 22 hours ago
There shouldn’t be an arbitrary “line in the sand” for games. Just like there shouldn’t be for any other product. Because products are not all the same. Some games might take an hour to beat and others have endless replayability and it shouldn’t be expected that these all cost the same.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 21 hours ago
No, there most definitely should, there should be a line or set point for everything. A point from which onward one no longer accepts any further abuse.
Yes sure we can have discussion on where that line stands with gaming, but there most definitely should be one and that should be upheld or else we do get current climate of AAA games riddled with mtx, psychological manipulation, getting more expensive yearly, no longer any long term guarantees either, while gameplay, story and performance quality dropping as well.
Without a set point or line, corporations wil keep on pushing the boundaries every single year as we keep allowing it.
artyom@piefed.social 20 hours ago
A higher price does not mean abuse. It very well could just mean its a higher quality game with more content.
How does a low price stop that from happening? If anything it’s the opposite.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 20 hours ago
I wouldn’t really use 60$ as a low price, but that’s beside the point.
Your missing the trees for the forest. It’s not the low price, but setting a line which one does not cross.
Not having that line and constantly accepting every subsequent new mechanic to extract more profit from us has resulted in the current state of AAA gaming industry.
As i said we can discuss where that line runs, 60$ is just my own personal line, but that line, not specifically price, should exist and should not be crossed.
architect@thelemmy.club 13 hours ago
I’d pay $150 for a great finished game. They don’t make that anymore, and you can’t make anything good and sell it for $60. So I’m not sure what you people want?! You want these companies to spend 3 billion making a game, making it perfect, and charging only $60 for it. Insane. No wonder why gamers get treated like entitled complainers.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 12 hours ago
Dude, really. Therer are uncountable numbers of good indy games way below 60. So it is possible to produce good games sven below that price point.
What i want is AAA games to stop implementing predatory tactics to squeeze out as much cash from consumers as possible while making games even more expensive. Once they do that we can start discussing price again.