That’s a movie ticket and a snack. Most games offer far more (or at least longer) entertainment than that. Even games I won’t finish.
Comment on V Rising has launched out of Early Access!
abbotsbury@lemmy.world 1 month ago“Compared to the rest of the industry” is damning with faint praise.
I’d say most games are maybe worth $20, more only for the ones filled with content that you can replay many times.
Don_alForno@feddit.de 5 weeks ago
abbotsbury@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The average movie isnt worth ticket price either IMO, and length certainly doesn’t equal quality.
And I’d certainly say “most games” are absolutely not worth it, as the majority of games are simply lacking in terms of inspiration, innovation, compelling gameplay or story, or anything else to set it apart and give me a reason to play.
Don_alForno@feddit.de 5 weeks ago
The average movie isnt worth ticket price either
The worth of a thing is determined by what people will pay for it.
length certainly doesn’t equal quality.
For any single product that’s true, statistically it makes the two classes (games and movies) comparable.
I don’t think you’ll earnestly want to argue that 1 hour of movie entertainment is in general worth multiple hours of gaming entertainment. There are good and bad movies and games, but if you compare those of similar quality, the fact stands that the game will give you more for your money. Whether you want more of course depends on you - I gather that gaming doesn’t seem to really entertain you for the most part.
abbotsbury@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The worth of a thing is determined by what people will pay for it.
No, that’s how price is determined, not worth.
I don’t think you’ll earnestly want to argue that 1 hour of movie entertainment is in general worth multiple hours of gaming entertainment
Depends on the movie and depends on the game. Some games with lots of content are good (if they’re well made), others are filled with trash content that is a waste of time to go through. Same with movies, there are some fantastic 75 minute cinematic experiences, and there are some that drag on for 3+ hours and do not successfully utilize their resources into a good movie. And vice versa.
but if you compare those of similar quality, the fact stands that the game will give you more for your money
If it’s a good game, sure, but we’re talking averages here and the average game is not good, so needing to play even more tedious uninspired levels doesn’t add any value, it in fact just makes it a bigger waste of time.
I gather that gaming doesn’t seem to really entertain you for the most part.
I actually love gaming, and I wish more consumers would have higher standards to not enable the terrible practices of the industry.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Fortunately there are enough people who value them more than you, because most games, even moderately budgeted ones, wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves at that price.
abbotsbury@lemmy.world 1 month ago
“Moderately budgeted” compared to what? Modern AAA game budgets have absolutely exploded and are not sustainable, turning game dev cycles into 5+ year marathons and giving it Hollywood Syndrome where every game needs to be a blockbuster to be considered a success and no risks are able to be taken because of the massive investment each project requires. Do you think that’s sustainable? Or do you think that perhaps things have gone out of control when a $90 price point is being floated, even in conjunction with money printing anti-consumer features like lootboxes?
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Let’s say that including benefits, a developer’s salary is about $100k. Maybe a small team of 8 people worked on a game like The Thaumaturge for 3 years. Before you even factor in contract work like voice acting, that would put the development budget at $2.4M. If the game cost $20, they’d have to sell about 120k copies to break even on that investment, which is far from guaranteed. By pricing the game at $35, their break even point is nearly half of that. This is a moderately budgeted game, not a AAA game with microtransactions.
Even an experienced team like Mimimi games, who made smart development choices by iterating on what they built before to keep costs down, releasing critical successes several times in a row, ended up closing down because the money coming in was too tight. Their games ranged from $30-$50 and had every sale, bundle, giveaway, and promotional opportunity you could think of.
Don_alForno@feddit.de 5 weeks ago
Far more actually. You have to deduct taxes, steam’s cut etc. from those 20$.
abbotsbury@lemmy.world 1 month ago
8 full time 100k salaried employees is quite a bit more than “small team.” Doom was 6 people. That many people are simply not required to make the games that are being produced; they can choose to size down any time they want. If they want to go “all in” on making a “AAAA” game, then they need to deal with that reality and make a game that is actually worth $60.
Perhaps that’s part of the problem? Maybe they should have priced their works more fairly from the start and not rely on bundles and givaways which surely aren’t going to make them more money.
My point is, the “average” game is absolutely not worth $30. Most games should flop because they’re overproduced trash, and we should return to smaller, more artistic-focused development with a smaller scale, more consumer friendly pricing, and where the (few) devs get more slices of their pie.