Why Haven't Video Game Prices Gone Up

[Slick_36]

Yes and almost none of those games released with DLC or season passes are released as half of a game or 5/8ths of a game. They are full games that the delvopers later add on to it.

Horizon Zero Dawn. I played a full 30+ hours of it and got the the full main story, they later released DLC guess what I still got a full game and if I want to hop back in to that world I can purchase the DLC. It is no required in order to get the full experience. Same with Pillars of Eternity, Zelda BOTW, I could go on and on. The Witcher 3 had DLC but the full game was still released and it was a full game. There seems to be this knee jerk reaction to any DLC. DLC is not the problem it's companies that abuse it that are the problem.

Well the 3DS has been out for like 7 years now and even then just a quick google shows the emulator still needs some work as popular games still don't work on it. That to me is still an emulator that needs work done. When I think of fully functional emulators I think of the SNES ones and even the PSX emulator is great.

Sony exclusives tend to avoid going too hard on the microtransactions since they boost the brand and drive hardware sales. Not every single game relies on the practice, but the vast majority of them do and their incentive is profit at the cost of the game, they're breaking up what used to be a in a game in the beginning, so they can sell it later at an additional price. You can say you're satisfied with games without buying DLC, that's fine. But that isn't the problem, the games could be better and more complete. You can split hairs and argue that anything that works and is longer than an hour or two is complete, but that's arguing semantics.

Fair enough about the emulators. I'm not a fan of using them for new stuff, but I think the Pokemon battle videos at higher resolution are really incredible.

 

[Slick_36]

$50 in 2001 would be $70 today if you account for inflation.

Also in the late 90s AAA game budgets were in the low 7 figures, with development teams of around 30-40.

Today a AAA game cost 100 times more to make, and team size is approaching 1000.

Great games can still be between a handful of people at a reasonable cost. I'd argue that the best games are cheaper games with small crews that are forced to focus on getting the most out of the product and their time. The AAA developers are spending an exorbitant amount of money and inflating their staffs tremendously, but it's not leading to better games. What's actually happening is that amount of money forces the developers to take far less risks and we end up with polished remakes of the games that came before them that have obscene amounts of money pumped in to their marketing.

 

[method115]

Sony exclusives tend to avoid going too hard on the microtransactions since they boost the brand and drive hardware sales. Not every single game relies on the practice, but the vast majority of them do and their incentive is profit at the cost of the game, they're breaking up what used to be a in a game in the beginning, so they can sell it later at an additional price. You can say you're satisfied with games without buying DLC, that's fine. But that isn't the problem, the games could be better and more complete. You can split hairs and argue that anything that works and is longer than an hour or two is complete, but that's arguing semantics.

Fair enough about the emulators. I'm not a fan of using them for new stuff, but I think the Pokemon battle videos at higher resolution are really incredible.

Pretty much all games rely on DLC now and days and that's fine but saying they are releasing half a game or 5/8ths of a game is just flat out false. If you want to say they are releasing 90% of a game ok I can maybe understand that. Since the inception of DLC I can't even think of 1 game that was only half a game. I'm sure they exist but that has to be so rare. Releasing half a game or even 5/8th's of a game is just to much of a risk of destroying your game at this point. We've already seen the kind of back lash games get when they got to far with DLC. Evolution was dead on release because of it, Star Wars BF2 received so much negative press that Disney had to talk with EA because they didn't like the bad press surrounding the Star Wars name. The sales were also much much lower than the first title.

 

[Lone Coyote]

Since the inception of DLC I can't even think of 1 game that was only half a game.

I believe Mass effect 3 had this specific issue, players had to pay to reach the definitive ending.

Destiny is also guilty of this, if you don't have the last content, you can't play dailies, weeklies, nor raids, because the server only supports the latest version.

 

[Zer]

I believe Mass effect 3 had this specific issue, players had to pay to reach the definitive ending.

They botched the ME3 ending big time and everyone got salty, so they released free DLC that expanded on the ending to try and make good, but didn't really address any major issues. ME3 still had a bunch of DLC available at a cost, but it was all additional side quests (Which tbf were awesome, and made for some of the best content in the game)

 

[method115]

I believe Mass effect 3 had this specific issue, players had to pay to reach the definitive ending.

Destiny is also guilty of this, if you don't have the last content, you can't play dailies, weeklies, nor raids, because the server only supports the latest version.

Mass Effect was my favorite game series. So I know for a fact your wrong. They did release some free DLC to change the ending a bit but other then that it was a complete game.

 

[Bob Gray]

I believe Mass effect 3 had this specific issue, players had to pay to reach the definitive ending.

Destiny is also guilty of this, if you don't have the last content, you can't play dailies, weeklies, nor raids, because the server only supports the latest version.

Re: Mass Effect. Part of the problem with DLC is people can say things like this that are completely and utterly false, but somehow they believe it. Theres no reliable source saying anything like this regarding the ME 3 ending, so the question becomes how did it even develop into a thought that someone has? It's because, generally speaking, often people will believe anything negative about DLC simply because it paints DLC in a negative light. Doesnt matter how true or accurate it is. What matters is how damning the accusation is.

 

[Prefect]

Great games can still be between a handful of people at a reasonable cost. I'd argue that the best games are cheaper games with small crews that are forced to focus on getting the most out of the product and their time. The AAA developers are spending an exorbitant amount of money and inflating their staffs tremendously, but it's not leading to better games. What's actually happening is that amount of money forces the developers to take far less risks and we end up with polished remakes of the games that came before them that have obscene amounts of money pumped in to their marketing.

This is why I have always thought big budget 3d games were the boon of gaming. It isn't cheap to craft out 3d worlds and you can't risk a game being shitty when you spent a metric asston making it. There is a lot of stuff on steam by indie developers that is very novel and reasonably priced. I think you would be hard pressed to run up the budget on anything that isn't 3d rendered.

I think that another thing that needs to be bared in mind is the marketing budget for games. You have games were 75% of the budget was tied up just in marketing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

 

[Slick_36]

Pretty much all games rely on DLC now and days and that's fine but saying they are releasing half a game or 5/8ths of a game is just flat out false. If you want to say they are releasing 90% of a game ok I can maybe understand that. Since the inception of DLC I can't even think of 1 game that was only half a game. I'm sure they exist but that has to be so rare. Releasing half a game or even 5/8th's of a game is just to much of a risk of destroying your game at this point. We've already seen the kind of back lash games get when they got to far with DLC. Evolution was dead on release because of it, Star Wars BF2 received so much negative press that Disney had to talk with EA because they didn't like the bad press surrounding the Star Wars name. The sales were also much much lower than the first title.

You're taking those numbers too seriously, they're not literal. The thing is, you have this new model where instead of releasing the best game possible, developers make the base of a game, then divvy out content that goes in the game and what becomes DLC, then you also hold back if there's a plan for a sequel so there's new content for that. In the case of yearly franchises, you end up being charged for content that will be obsolete in another year. It's not just story stuff either, games used to have things to unlock, a sense of progression, as well as cheats that played with modes, weapons, unlockables, and more. Now those things are all gone in favor of the microtransaction model. It's disingenuous to say that games aren't currently being held back for maximized profit, and I think that's at the cost of the industry but that's another debate entirely.

 

[method115]

You're taking those numbers too seriously, they're not literal. The thing is, you have this new model where instead of releasing the best game possible, developers make the base of a game, then divvy out content that goes in the game and what becomes DLC, then you also hold back if there's a plan for a sequel so there's new content for that. In the case of yearly franchises, you end up being charged for content that will be obsolete in another year. It's not just story stuff either, games used to have things to unlock, a sense of progression, as well as cheats that played with modes, weapons, unlockables, and more. Now those things are all gone in favor of the microtransaction model. It's disingenuous to say that games aren't currently being held back for maximized profit, and I think that's at the cost of the industry but that's another debate entirely.

If he wasn't being literal then ok but honestly I think this is being made a bigger deal than it is. I play video games all the time and there still fun as hell and amazing. Sure they are probably doing a lot of the stuff you said but at the end of the day tons and tons of great games are still being made every day and while DLC will fuck up a game here or there it's not destroying the industry or even coming close to doing much damage at all.

Honestly from the way you talk about games I'm wondering how much actual gaming you do. The number of games that have a sense of progression is endless I wouldn't even know where to start with that list. Things you unlock games still have this as well. Cheats has been the only thing that's really been removed and I don't think that has anything to do with DLC. Cheats in game has been gone for a long time now.

 

[Renard]

Video games are mainstream now, so they have a much larger consumer base to tap from. Maybe they can more easily cover the production costs of the games.

The DLC is bullshit though, especially when they hold back 1/3 of the game on release just so they can nick and dime us.

 

[Bob Gray]

You're taking those numbers too seriously, they're not literal. The thing is, you have this new model where instead of releasing the best game possible, developers make the base of a game, then divvy out content that goes in the game and what becomes DLC, then you also hold back if there's a plan for a sequel so there's new content for that. In the case of yearly franchises, you end up being charged for content that will be obsolete in another year. It's not just story stuff either, games used to have things to unlock, a sense of progression, as well as cheats that played with modes, weapons, unlockables, and more. Now those things are all gone in favor of the microtransaction model. It's disingenuous to say that games aren't currently being held back for maximized profit, and I think that's at the cost of the industry but that's another debate entirely.

Thats not how the process works, though. As game dev time has gotten longer, and specialization has grown, game development can no longer be done by a bunch of people in their garage like the old school days. Now you can have literally hundreds of people across several departments all doing profoundly different jobs. So if the game is nearing release, all the employees that are normally involved in pre production would have nothing to do if they just "stopped" development to refrain from releasing early or "day one" DLC. Games development is essentially a conveyor belt process like in a factory, but over a much large course of time and specialization.

This is a pretty good write up about it:

https://www.giantbomb.com/downloada.../day-one-dlc-not-as-evil-as-you-think-539098/

In games development it’s not simply the case that all employees of a studio work on a game, that game releases, and then they can move onto other projects. With on-disc games there is a significant amount of time between the development on a game being finished and that game seeing release, where the game must go through approval, the physical boxes, discs and manuals must be manufactured, and the game must be distributed to retailers. This leaves a lot of time during which developers are potentially sitting around and doing nothing. Even during development of the game it’s not as if every person on the team is constantly working at all times. Obviously, after the initial bulk of design work that goes on nearer the start of the project, a designer has significantly less work to do, and a full team of artists isn’t a great deal of use during the bug-fixing stage. I think you can see where this is going.

When you think about it, most people dont really know much about the process of how these things are created. Not just games, but movies, television or basically any consumer product like electronics, cars, etc. We have this sort of abstract idea but it's not really as perceptive or accurate as we think. The process of all of these things is so profoundly different than what exists in our heads.

 

[Slick_36]

Thats not how the process works, though. As game dev time has gotten longer, and specialization has grown, game development can no longer be done by a bunch of people in their garage like the old school days. Now you can have literally hundreds of people across several departments all doing profoundly different jobs. So if the game is nearing release, all the employees that are normally involved in pre production would have nothing to do if they just "stopped" development to refrain from releasing early or "day one" DLC. Games development is essentially a conveyor belt process like in a factory, but over a much large course of time and specialization. This is write up about it

https://www.giantbomb.com/downloada.../day-one-dlc-not-as-evil-as-you-think-539098/

There are plenty of great games coming out with small teams. You can do it like the old school days. Just because major developers choose to spread the games out and invest primarily and production and advertising, doesn't mean the games require that to be good games. In fact it's those games that tend to have the most generic gameplay that does nothing to contribute to the industry. Day one DLC is nothing compared to the loot boxes at the moment where you can't even be sure you'll get what you're paying for. Choosing a proven cashcow IP, giving it a pretty coat of paint, and shoving it down the throats of the masses with marketing costs a lot of money, but it's also the most reliable way to make a ton of money and is the reason corporate executives choose it as their business model. If you want that to drive the industry as a whole, fine. But I'm idealist and think we can do better with less.

 

[Slick_36]

If he wasn't being literal then ok but honestly I think this is being made a bigger deal than it is. I play video games all the time and there still fun as hell and amazing. Sure they are probably doing a lot of the stuff you said but at the end of the day tons and tons of great games are still being made every day and while DLC will fuck up a game here or there it's not destroying the industry or even coming close to doing much damage at all.

Honestly from the way you talk about games I'm wondering how much actual gaming you do. The number of games that have a sense of progression is endless I wouldn't even know where to start with that list. Things you unlock games still have this as well. Cheats has been the only thing that's really been removed and I don't think that has anything to do with DLC. Cheats in game has been gone for a long time now.

How can you even take that literally? Every game's different from genre to content, how do you even quantify what a game is made up of to actually give it concrete numbers in that regard? Bad practices are definitely damaging to the market, just look at what happened to EA after the Battlefront II fiasco. There's now legislation being proposed to fight the practices that are becoming common place in video games. Of course there will be good games made still, and we can enjoy them. No one is saying video games are shit now. The point is they could be better and they're being held back for profit. Games will always have progression, but it's not like it used to be. You used to unlock characters, costumes, and modes. Now those things are held behind a paywall instead of being something you play the game for. It's a slippery slope, just look at the latest Forza game locking the ability to modify racing conditions behind a paywall with their "mods" system. If you don't think that's damaging, I don't know what to say.

 

[Fuzzybabyducks]

The game wasn't free, it was free with a PS+ subscription for a single month and you have to have the subscription to continue playing it. I love the game, and I was happy to throw money at them for content, but their new system cuts off a lot of content for money and forces you to spin a wheel at the cost of real money for a chance at something you want. Plus they have timed events that pressure players to spend more on their wheel spins for a chance to win something that's about to disappear.

That produces an incentive for developers to hold back content so they can charge for it later. It's guaranteeing that games will never be finished on release now and it will cost more than the base price.

99.999% of games are finished on release, you are paying for extra content. The game was free with ps4 subscription, they do two free games a month. Plenty of free games like fortnite out there also. You are acting like games are getting released at 50% and you have to pay for the other 50.. this isnt true at all. Games now are much cheaper then they use to be and tons of free ones out there. I havent spent a dime on rocket league and still enjoy it.

 

[Slick_36]

99.999% of games are finished on release, you are paying for extra content. The game was free with ps4 subscription, they do two free games a month. Plenty of free games like fortnite out there also. You are acting like games are getting released at 50% and you have to pay for the other 50.. this isnt true at all. Games now are much cheaper then they use to be and tons of free ones out there. I havent spent a dime on rocket league and still enjoy it.

This conversation is pointless if you can't grasp the simplest concepts of it. Sure a game can be "finished" in that it technically functions and and has any content. It's not like anyone is arguing that the developers are refusing to texture the games or add audio without an extra fee. To be fair, very few games are actually "finished" on release, and they go through a lot of patching afterwards, but I digress. The point is that what's considered extra content now used to just be considered content that you'd expect with the $60 price of the game. If you prefer that games be broken down entirely and sold in chunks, that's fine, but don't argue that it's a complete package.

I don't know why you reiterated it, but I said that it was free that month with the PS+ subscription. You're actually understating it, that goes beyond the PS4 and actually includes free PS3 and Vita games as well. They're not technically free though since they won't continue to work without continuing the subscription, so you're paying monthly for that as well multiplayer. The majority of my PS4 library has been built up that way, I appreciate the service, I'm just pointing out that it's not technically free. And just because you enjoy a game and what the base is, doesn't mean they're free of criticism for business practices. I love the game too and I bought all the original DLC they released to support the studio. It's the loot boxes that Rocket League went wrong with.

 

[Fuzzybabyducks]

This conversation is pointless if you can't grasp the simplest concepts of it. Sure a game can be "finished" in that it technically functions and and has any content. It's not like anyone is arguing that the developers are refusing to texture the games or add audio without an extra fee. To be fair, very few games are actually "finished" on release, and they go through a lot of patching afterwards, but I digress. The point is that what's considered extra content now used to just be considered content that you'd expect with the $60 price of the game. If you prefer that games be broken down entirely and sold in chunks, that's fine, but don't argue that it's a complete package.

I don't know why you reiterated it, but I said that it was free that month with the PS+ subscription. You're actually understating it, that goes beyond the PS4 and actually includes free PS3 and Vita games as well. They're not technically free though since they won't continue to work without continuing the subscription, so you're paying monthly for that as well multiplayer. The majority of my PS4 library has been built up that way, I appreciate the service, I'm just pointing out that it's not technically free. And just because you enjoy a game and what the base is, doesn't mean they're free of criticism for business practices. I love the game too and I bought all the original DLC they released to support the studio. It's the loot boxes that Rocket League went wrong with.

just about everyone is telling you that you are wrong and complaining about nothing... you are paying for extra content you dont have to.. thats your fault. You get all that you use to, you still unlock stuff. Games are much cheaper today than they use to be. The games are free, you are paying to play them online with ps4 subscription. Fortnite and many other games are free as well.Tons of games are. Writing walls of text doesnt change the FACT that you are wrong and being dramatic which just about everyone is telling you. 3 other people besides me have told you that you are wrong, if you dont get the point no reason to continue this convo as you are just whining about something that is your fault. you can write back another wall of text but I Wont be reading it as you arnt worth talking to, you are just here to complain about something that is easily avoided.
I spent 50 hours on HZD, that was enough. They added a new story which was 20 bucks. It was an add on in between games to keep people happy until the next game comes out. I bought that, was first time I spent extra money on a game. People like you are spoiled and would complain this wasnt in the already huge game.. Most people are happy new content came out so they didnt have to wait years to play a new game.
I play rocket league all the time, havent dropped a dime on it. You spent lots of money so you could have a skull on the top of your car or something stupid like that, that is on you.

 

[Bob Gray]

There are plenty of great games coming out with small teams. You can do it like the old school days. Just because major developers choose to spread the games out and invest primarily and production and advertising, doesn't mean the games require that to be good games. In fact it's those games that tend to have the most generic gameplay that does nothing to contribute to the industry. Day one DLC is nothing compared to the loot boxes at the moment where you can't even be sure you'll get what you're paying for. Choosing a proven cashcow IP, giving it a pretty coat of paint, and shoving it down the throats of the masses with marketing costs a lot of money, but it's also the most reliable way to make a ton of money and is the reason corporate executives choose it as their business model. If you want that to drive the industry as a whole, fine. But I'm idealist and think we can do better with less.

Oh, sure. I should have said AAA games. Lots of indie games exist, but they also tend to have the least DLC.

My only point was regarding early and "Day One" or "On Disk" DLC being a practice of cutting up a core game into segments and distributing it in pieces. Thats not the case. Stuff like loot boxes and their contents are a whole other topic with positives and negatives.

For me personally it always comes down to personal choice. If something isnt worth my money, Im not buying it. On the other hand Ive put it more hours into the War of the Chosen DLC for Xcom 2 than I have in most games Ive bought in the last ten years. So its almost always a case by case basis.

The point is that what's considered extra content now used to just be considered content that you'd expect with the $60 price of the game. If you prefer that games be broken down entirely and sold in chunks, that's fine, but don't argue that it's a complete package.

To be fair, I just gave a breakdown earlier of why I think that's not the case. Did you read the write up I linked?

 

[Slick_36]

just about everyone is telling you that you are wrong and complaining about nothing... you are paying for extra content you dont have to.. thats your fault. You get all that you use to, you still unlock stuff. Games are much cheaper today than they use to be. The games are free, you are paying to play them online with ps4 subscription. Fortnite and many other games are free as well.Tons of games are. Writing walls of text doesnt change the FACT that you are wrong and being dramatic which just about everyone is telling you. 3 other people besides me have told you that you are wrong, if you dont get the point no reason to continue this convo as you are just whining about something that is your fault. you can write back another wall of text but I Wont be reading it as you arnt worth talking to, you are just here to complain about something that is easily avoided.
I spent 50 hours on HZD, that was enough. They added a new story which was 20 bucks. It was an add on in between games to keep people happy until the next game comes out. I bought that, was first time I spent extra money on a game. People like you are spoiled and would complain this wasnt in the already huge game.. Most people are happy new content came out so they didnt have to wait years to play a new game.
I play rocket league all the time, havent dropped a dime on it. You spent lots of money so you could have a skull on the top of your car or something stupid like that, that is on you.

You realize this post is more of a wall of text than any of the ones I made, right? It's not my fault you can't read more than a couple sentences without getting a headache. I personally don't pay for the extra content, I'm not sure why you assume I do. I'm not really being dramatic either, it's a forum and we're here to discuss shit, I'm sorry if that's upsetting to you but I'm totally calm and just enjoying the conversation. You're exceptionally stupid though if you think breaking games up with base products and selling "extra" content are something that don't affect you if you don't buy it. Now if a large enough amount of people don't buy it, then they would have incentive to include it in the base game if they want the best product and you'd have a point.

I'm just talking about business practices and how it affects the prices of games. You're putting words in my mouth and projecting arguments on to me that I'm not making. And just because some people disagree and responded, that is very different from "just about everyone", you knucklehead. EA just broke the record for the most downvoted comment in Reddit history because people were upset with their business practices, even if they're wrong, that still means there's many people who agree with me as well. And you're wrong about the games being free, they are locked off without a subscription to PS+. I'm not sure you're actually literate, which explains why my posts are a problem for you.

 

[Bob Gray]

Video games are mainstream now, so they have a much larger consumer base to tap from. Maybe they can more easily cover the production costs of the games.

The DLC is bullshit though, especially when they hold back 1/3 of the game on release just so they can nick and dime us.

Even if you take into account the increased sales numbers, their still dwarfed by the skyrocketing production costs. Back when Doom was released, a million copies was a huge deal. Also the budget was around a million bucks. Compare that to something like Skyrim, which sold over 20 million copies. So twenty times the sales. But the production cost was literally 80 times higher than Doom (something like 85 million).

But just put that in perspective. Youre getting twenty times the sales at 80 times the cost. Thats one example but you get my point, I think.

DLC/Loot boxes, etc are an inevitability unless we want the price of the core game to double. Personally, I'm fine with DLC because it's completely my choice as to whether or not to purchase it. If it looks like it sucks or it's too expensive, I don't buy it. Plus we live in an era of steam sales and sites like CDkeys that have insane price drops within a reasonable amount of time from release.