next »

[s0]

probably because they cost absurd amounts of money to make even when subsidised by mentally insane loot box addicts

if movies could be a success with only a million people watching them then the economics of making and marketing a film would be uh different

these posts are correct

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

http://info.digitalriver.com/rs/348-QUY-258/images/SuperData%20Research_Digital%20River%20Monetization_Sep%202017.pdf <- industry growth (is value, not profits, sry)

salaries are easy to get and relatively unchanged over the last few years.

[InfiniteStateMachine]

http://info.digitalriver.com/rs/348-QUY-258/images/SuperData%20Research_Digital%20River%20Monetization_Sep%202017.pdf <- industry growth (is value, not profits, sry)

salaries are easy to get and relatively unchanged over the last few years.

The growth on non-mobile platforms is virtually stagnant on their 5 year sample. Also I didn't bother to read any further but judging from those graphs it's predictive. It starts at 2016 and goes to 2020.

[Superb Joe]

game of the year is a tie between nier and yakuza 0 so i mean all the other guys fucked up really and need to have a long think about what their priorities are with their money

[InfiniteStateMachine]

also true

[Torchkas]

joe have you ever made a bad post?

[truewarrior]

Well, do you expect them to go down in price? That's not gonna happen. Unless you wait a few weeks and get it on Amazon or on sale.

[muki]

The price has actually gone down over the last 2-3 decades if you take inflation into account. I remember my parents having to pay $60-80 for a NES game in 1990.

AAA games are far more expensive to make now. Not saying they have to be, but it is what it is.

[quantumpotato]

A: Because people pay $60 for them.

[zizulot]

If you compare Indie game which costs 60$ and AAA game with the same price tag you will see why 

[Stokbrood]

Probably because some people are still willing to pay 60 bucks for a game day one that might not be finished yet, that it costs more and more to make. But mostly, because that it's one of the "cheapest form of entertainment" compared to music slash movies in terms of money/playtime, and this is why every pack of playing cards will now be sold 1000 bucks.

[Oskuro]

They don't.

Years back, the 60-70$ price tag got you a complete game experience with all the bells and whistles.

Today, if you add up the base price, plus the DLC, plus the season pass, plus the pre-order bonuses, plus microtransactions, loot boxes and all the crap that used to be part of the core game, you're paying over 100$ for the full experience, possibly a lot more in many cases.

And keep in mind that most games are digital now, so all the costs related to manufacturing and shipping should've been deducted from the price tag, but they didn't.

But then again, "AAA" is about the business, not the games.

[Cobralad]

And keep in mind that most games are digital now, so all the costs related to manufacturing and shipping should've been deducted from the price tag, but they didn't.

Im pretty sure burning files on dvd and printing a boxart flyers is not a major part of videogame development. It was also kinda cheaper than digital in some places because of lower manufacture costs.

[InfiniteStateMachine]

Yeah I'm sure those companies would much prefer paying the manufacturing costs if it means they can go back to development budgets that are roughly 5-10% of what they are today.

[Oskuro]

Considering that a very big chunk of "AAA" budgets is the marketing campaign, I fail to see how "going back to manufacturing" would help at all.

Mind you, if I recall correctly, the idea that digital distribution would be cheaper was touted by publishers back in the day as a way to lure people away from physical purchases. But I might be wrong on this.

My point anyways is that the whole "AAA" pricing and budgeting scheme is more a function of the business needs (appeasing shareholders and the like) than the actual cost or value of the produced games. Same as with movies and their ridiculous marketing campaigns that often dwarf the production costs.

Oh, and you can't believe anything the marketing talking heads from the industry say (the whole "cost of making games" and similar excuses), they're trying to sell an idea, not tell the truth. They are marketers! it's their job!

[InfiniteStateMachine]

(edit)I think you misunderstood my post. I said that facetiously. There's no way development budgets are ever going back to that level unless it suddenly becomes acceptable to make ps1 fidelity games again.

My point is that the development budget for a game like GTA3 is not the same as the development budget for GTA5.



edited from rant to a terse sentence 

[InfiniteStateMachine]

Also console games are not mostly digital only. Pretty much every console game I buy comes in a box with a bluray disc.

[s0]

publishers don't sell digital copies cheaper because if they did, retailers would boycott them. remember the PSP Go?

[woodsmoke]

On one side the audience has been growing fast and digital goods cost about nothing to reproduce.
On the other hand AAA games grow larger and more technically complex, costing more to create.

And then there's the people who do research on how much people are willing to pay.

[zizulot]

It have been , it is now, and it will be like that always, because they have money to lure gamers into it