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 << $80 and wait for sale the new releases, when they too are 5 years old)
You must log in or register to comment.
35 years ago I didn’t get a Super Nintendo or Sega because you could get 12 Commodore 64 games for the same price as a single Mario game. And a few years later my dad got hold of a 286 so we could play DOS games like Wolfenstein.
Wage stagnation is absolutely heartbreaking.
But even if I were making a livable wage, Nintendo’s prices and other AAA are still ridiculous. The Steam wishlist sale life is the good life.
Are the game developers and artists wages now being increased by the same percentage though? You are correct overall, especially in places like the UK where wages have been stagnant since like 2008 it feels like. But letting a company off the hook for raises “due to inflation” if they themselves are not raising their workers salaries to meet that inflation is bullshit.
Welcome to being an adult and finally realizing capitalism mainly involves screwing the workers and increasing product prices to make investors happy. We were never meant to be happy, just milked to death.
The math works out to be the CEOs pay raise is high enough, that on average with all the other 99.99% of the workers, it has kept up with inflation.
Good news, wages are no longer stagnant! Minimum wage has started to catch up to many professional jobs at this point. Outside of London anyway.
The prices should go down to 40$(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.
if i do the “smart” thing and get the switch 2 after a major price drop
No the smart thing is never giving Nintendo your money.
Laughs in v1 switch with active tinfoil eshop 🤘😸🖕
Arguably, it’s taxes on the wealthy that is the problem. That said. Nintendo can go felate themselves. Greedy, anti emulator dickheads.
Huh, unpopular opinion.
Does Lemmy know that popular opinions need to be downvoted? Smh…
The subreddit has the same problem.
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).
There are certain games - like the Grand Theft Auto series - that could easily charge 300 bucks and still offer insane value to the player. Given how many hours a typical person puts into a game like that, the cost per hour ends up being practically nothing. I think game pricing only becomes an issue for people who can’t stay entertained by a single title for more than a few dozen hours before needing to move on to something else.
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.
Yep, and truth be told if I had the option of paying 90 € for an actual physical copy without microtransactions, DLC instead of having all content in the game from launch, no online access required and no copy protection on the disc, I’d gladly pay that. 100 € even, if it’s a particularly good game.
But I have zero trust in that being the case with the increased prices, it’s just going to be the same thing we now have, more expensively.
Hell ya, I would, too, 100%. Imagine actually owning a game with all of the content on a disk you can share and resell.
I agree with you, though; there is no incentive for companies to do this; they would make less money and have less control over the content. They can’t stand that.
You’re not wrong. I believe I paid $44 for Ultima for the NES back in 89. I’ve personally never paid more than $49 for a game since then. Of course at this point I have like 2500 Steam games I haven’t really played and access to a butt-ton of retro-gaming so I’ll probably never spend more than $49 for a game.
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
Stylized graphics can look great for cheap, but they aren’t a shortcut to instant success. For every successful indie, there are a thousand more that never sell more than a handful of copies.
So?
Doesnt mean expensive ones are an instant success either, if anything I’m agreeing with you that graphics are irrelevant to sales
if anything I’m agreeing with you that graphics are irrelevant to sales
I didn’t say this.
Yes, the point was that having real-time raytracing and realistic ultra-resolution rendering is not worth the cost either, when games with cheaper graphics are doing better (and also require less expensive hardware)
As gamers have called for more and more unrealistic standards of graphical fidelity
Been around long enough to remember it wasn’t the gamers doing that, it was the game makers. Specifically the c-suites
There’s 0 justification for games going up in cost other than the c-suites, end of story
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.
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.
The fact that they’re moving more units doesn’t matter, everything, including things for which the price followed inflation, sells more units than it did 40 years ago just because there’s more people on the planet and globalism is a thing.
What matters is that that money goes to enrich billionaires and not the developers making the product people are buying.
Steam takes a 30% cut on the first $10m in sales (then 25% until $50m and then 20%) and they pay their employees a lot more than industry average and the owner is a multi billionaire with a yacht collection. Same shit for publishers, the c-suites are rich from “managing” the intermediary between the development studio and the retailers, they don’t give a crap about the product as long as it sells.
Meanwhile the devs making the games have a hard time affording housing, need to deal with crunches and get laid off once the game they were working on is completed.
And what about us, the consumers? Well we’re no better off than the developers and we’re still enriching a bunch of billionaires while most of us struggle to afford basic needs.
Both publishers and retailers could afford to reduce their cut and lower prices OR to reduce their cut and leave more money to the people making the products they sell and the impact would only be felt by a handful of people (in Steam’s case, by a single person).
Just as a sidenote here, the “issue” with steam is that it doesn’t have any real competition. Steam just does everything better than any other game launcher and that’s probably in part because of their policy.
On the gamedev side they allow you to market to a huge audience as a small creator and give you a chance to make it big (think Balatro, Signal 1, and a lot of other indie games as of recent)
On the gamer side they’ve made buying, updating and doing anything around the games so much easier than it used to be and not a single launcher has been able to do it as good as them. They’ve released one of the best VR headsets on the market that still hasn’t been beaten years later. They’ve released the first good Linux based PC handheld both giving a huge boost to that market and improving proton so gaming on Linux is actually possible (outside of games with anti-cheats that don’t allow linux)
I’m not saying them taking 30% from almost any sale done on steam is good, but at least they are able to give a service for it that not a single other company has done, they’re probably the most pro gamer company in the industry right now (together with game studios like Larian)
Also, yes devs should be paid a lot more for their work and the average person should also have a higher salary to beat inflation cause life is just too damn expensive!
Competition or not, the guy at the top still decided that being a multi billionaire was more important than the quality of life of his clients or the world poorest. No one forces anyone to own a yacht collection. No one forces anyone to be a billionaire. At any point he could have decided to stop accumulating wealth and to give away what he would otherwise gain to charities.
Remember when Musk said if he could fix world hunger for $6B he would do it and then he didn’t? ALL billionaires are guilty of the same thing.
Edit: keep downvoting guys, I’m sure Gaben will be glad you defended him
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.
Completely agree, for every case where the increased price may makes sense, there are dozens (if not hundreds) where it makes no sense at all (other than increasing the profit of shareholders, which makes complete sense).
One thing that was different in the 90s was that even though games were expensive to buy outright rental shops were common. I played loads of N64, SNES and Mega Drive games for paying £2.99 for the weekend. Plus games were more stand alone as well so you got more for your money.
