Can we be mad about monetization/DLC when demand for game pricing to stay low is rampant? How else can games be $60 at launch for 15 yrs straight?

[BAD]

I have a simple question. Games have been up for $60 preorder and launch since 2005, right?

To maintain this illusion of game value, games have kept the $60 price despite rising costs by introducing DLC, Deluxe editions, and other monetization and microtransactions.

We have all seen this meme:

But it is such a poor depiction of what really happens. It ignores digital price drops that are rampant, and how games have kept launch prices low for so long.

Surely we realize demand for games to stay cheap has cause the rising costs to be offloaded onto extra content and microtransactions?

Am I perceiving this right? Would games have been better off at $70 with less microtransactions? Not that it's possible now that Pandora's box is open. But still...

 

[nsilvias]

good luck getting consumers to pay more especially when games go on sale faster than ever.

 

[HockeyBird]

That assumes that the microtransactions exist to offset not raising game prices. But many $60 games sell tons of copies and still had monetization. If game prices were to increase to $70, I predict that we would still have the same monetization as we do now.

 

[JayCeeJim]

Maybe I'm being naive, but alongside the rising development costs there has been a growth of the audience too. A game selling a million copies was a big success in the year 2000, but now it's ordinary business for many games.

So I think the healthy way for the industry should be increasing their budgets proportionally to this growth, and not raising the base price of a game, which is the highest among most entertainment media with a big margin.

 

[Lant_War]

1) While in some cases monetization is introduced for sustainability reasons, not every game needs them. I don't believe that Rockstar really needed to turn GTA Online into what it is today to keep the servers running. It can have some nice side benefits though, like them being able to focus on Red Dead 2 for 8 years.

2) Not all monetization is bad. I find Overwatch's and Siege's monetization to be quite fair.

 

[Deleted member 135]

There is no ethical monetization.

There is only "less unethical" in that items are sold on platform stores for set amounts of real money and not via in-game stores with a virtual currency middleman.

 

[Deleted member 1476]

Nice try, EA/Take Two/Activision/Ubi.

 

[Kinsei]

The onus here isn't on consumers, it's on developers/publishers and their massive budgets.

 

[LossAversion]

If game prices were to increase to $70, I predict that we would still have the same monetization as we do now.

Click to shrink...

YEP.

We're already spending a hundred dollars on AAA games to get all of the "DLC" and yet those games are still stuffed with microtransactions. Black Ops 4 literally employs every monetization scheme under the sun. Activision would do the exact same bullshit regardless of how much the "base" game costs.

 

[Fliesen]

Maybe I'm being naive, but alongside the rising development costs there has been a growth of the audience too. A game selling a million copies was a big success in the year 2000, but now it's ordinary business for many games.

So I think the healthy way for the industry should be increasing their budgets proportionally to this growth, and not raising the base price of a game, which is the highest among most entertainment media with a big margin.

Click to shrink...

Yup, i'd guess the video game market / audience has probably grown significantly.
Also, with over 30% of all copies sold digitally now, a way bigger chunk of those $60 stays with the publisher. Wasn't retailer margin + physical distribution around 25-30% or so?
So, on 30% (that number's growing larger by the day) of all games sold, the publisher makes like 45 instead of 30 bucks.

 

[Roy]

Hate the feeling that you're playing with a gimped version of a game.

 

[burgerdog]

You would still get your 3 pieces of dlc for $15 each even if games were $90. Publishers are always going to want more money out of you.

 

[Eumi]

Game prices have increased in the UK this last gen so yeah I'm not gonna gonna swallow that argument.

Plus if anyone thinks that raising the base price of a game would stop devs from putting in micro transactions then they're delusional.

 

[BumbleChump]

If there was a "I dont buy games with lots of monetization", I'd vote for that.

 

[alr1ght]

Why can I buy a phone for $200 that's more powerful than a $4,000 computer in 2000?

 

[zombiejames]

None of the options in the OP say what everyone knows would happen: Prices go up, nothing changes.

 

["D."]

Because nobody is asking for superficial shit like celebrity voice actors and models, and real-life graphics that cost whatever "money" they claim is needed, then turn around say they can't afford stuff or need more money and want to shoe horn in MTs and whatnot without asking the consumer

We just want to play video games. If we like something and want more of it, we'll let you know with our wallets. All this stuff you doing to the game to try to cry about "we should consider raising base prices" or "heres a bunch of side stuff to spend extra money on that could have easily been in the base game" is their problem they created and theirs alone, why should we suffer

 

[Alex840]

The problem is, only the US has kept prices constant.

In the UK, games have gone from £35 last gen to £45 this gen.

In Europe, games have gone from €60 to €70.

 

[hikarutilmitt]

If taking away the "standard" pricing model for games actually, truly, and forever got rid of the piecemeal monetization of games I'd be all for it. Japan has had a loose pricing model in place for games since forever.

 

[Deleted member 8593]

$60 at launch, $40 two months later and off to Game Pass in less than half a year.

 

[Astra Planeta]

Games should cost $80 today after inflation. So even if you HAVE to buy $20 DLC you are breaking even if you paid 59.99.

 

[Pooh]

They can price them whatever they want to price them at. It's competition with others that is making them do it this way.

Honestly the indie game market has a lot better handle on how pricing should be done than AAA pubs which are afraid to go higher than $60. If they want to make a $100 game nobody is stopping them.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

It depends on the game and what the DLC/monetization is.

If you paid $11.99 for the bundle ($7.99 for each separately) in Mario Kart 8, you got 6 new characters, 16 new tracks and 8 new vehicles...plus the 200cc mode was free for all users.

Conversely, in Fallout 76:

 

[PSqueak]

Yes we can, because the value of a game is not measured by how much money it cost to make, a mid tier game can provide you the same entertainment value as a AAA game, so you can damn well be mad about DLC monetization if a dev is trying to squeeze extra money because the game was to expensive to make.

What im trying to say here is, this is why AAA has become unsustainable.

 

[Pillock]

Why can I buy a phone for $200 that's more powerful than a $4,000 computer in 2000?

Click to shrink...

cheap Chinese labour.

 

[Deleted member 32374]

I used to argue that games should cost more if we want to get rid of MTX, or that we'd get more SP AAA games if we just paid $80 per game at launch.

Not anymore. MTX, GaaS and other monetization practices bring in too much money. We've reached the tipping point. Some of the most profitable games in the world are F2P experiences. The ship has sailed.

 

[Hippopuncher12]

I would wager to bet that even if they upped the price of the actual game by whatever, it would still have the microtransactions and DLC. It's just the industry at this point, maybe it will change one day but it's probably past that point now.

 

[Arsene no Kiseki]

I already have to pay $90 for retail + Switch digital games at launch. I'd rather not have to pay 100+

 

[Loanshark]

Great thread OP, I agree with you. Gamers are primarely the ones who have been reaping the rewards of the unsustainable trends of AAA development. We pay less for games today than we did 10 or 20 years ago, but everything about game development has increased in complexity and workload, and the games themselves are bigger, better and more ambitious than ever. We want those qualities, but we dont want to pay extra. When it comes down to it, gamers are spoilt as hell.

 

[Niosai]

If devs/publishers weren't so focused on squeezing out the craziest, bleeding-edge fidelity out of games and just focused on fun experiences with good art direction, I don't think budgets would be as much of an issue. But I understand that the general audience seems to care more about how photo-realistic games are these days over actual substance and so they will continue to push the budgets higher and higher, leading to more attempts to squeeze money from that audience.

 

[AntiMacro]

There is no ethical monetization.

Click to shrink...

What a great open-minded way to approach the topic.

 

[GameShrink]

Jim Sterling has like 8 videos on this topic and why it's largely a falsehood. Adding MTX to $60 games isn't about recouping development costs, it's about milking every last cent out of consumers.

EA and Activision's CEOs are among the most grossly overpaid in the world. If these companies are seriously concerned with the rising cost of development, start cutting those $30,000,000 salaries.

 

[Vic Damone Jr.]

Even if they raised prices they'd still pull the bs mtx.

 

[PenultimateFantasy]

Because nobody is asking for superficial shit like celebrity voice actors and models, and real-life graphics that cost whatever "money" they claim is needed, then turn around say they can't afford stuff or need more money and want to shoe horn in MTs and whatnot without asking the consumer

We just want to play video games. If we like something and want more of it, we'll let you know with our wallets. All this stuff you doing to the game to try to cry about "we should consider raising base prices" or "heres a bunch of side stuff to spend extra money on that could have easily been in the base game" is their problem they created and theirs alone, why should we suffer

Click to shrink...

You do understand that making bigger game worlds with higher resolutions and detail is where most of the extra dev costs go, right?

 

[carlsojo]

No one's asking for state of the art graphics? Am I reading some of these comments right? Consumers want this. They buy new TVs for this.

 

[Deleted member 32374]

No one's asking for state of the art graphics? Am I reading some of these comments right? Consumers want this. They buy new TVs for this.

Click to shrink...

Holy shit do graphics ever sell games.

And systems. PS4 Pro and XB1X anyone?

 

[PenultimateFantasy]

The problem is, only the US has kept prices constant.

In the UK, games have gone from £35 last gen to £45 this gen.

In Europe, games have gone from €60 to €70.

Click to shrink...

That's not the face value of games in the uk though. There's a very competitive retail market here. Every £45 game should be £55

Look at psn or xbox store to see what publishes are actually charging

This is why I fear the digital future

 

[Dekuman]

No one's asking for state of the art graphics? Am I reading some of these comments right? Consumers want this. They buy new TVs for this.

Click to shrink...

Some do for sure, but I suspect this is largely the devs themselves who want it.

You can have good looking games without breaking the bank.

 

[tmarg]

The publishers are profitable. The reason they are ramming in more monitization (and also doing things like mass layoffs, tax evasion, etc.) is because it's profitable and they can.

If we gave them more money for the base game, the result would not be them deciding to stop introducing more monitization systems, it would be shareholders demanding even more growth.

 

["D."]

You do understand that making bigger game worlds with higher resolutions and detail is where most of the extra dev costs go, right?

Click to shrink...

Maybe

But at the same time there's companies out there making decent game worlds in decent detail on whatever budget they have that aren't AAA titles and they enjoy whatever sales they are looking for. And it also doesn't help that the corporate suits command such a obscene salary...with money that could be used to funnel right back into the actual gears that make the company move...the employees that are MAKING these games

 

[astro]

Cosmetic monetization is okay with me if it's done well.

That means, imo, allowing people to buy items directly from a store front, not via RNG.

 

[cowbanana]

But games aren't 60 bucks anymore. Most new games on PSN are €73 and PC games that used to cost around €47 are now €60 on Steam.

Can we kill this false premise now?

 

[cw_sasuke]

AAA games sell much more than they used decades ago though. Sure there were always some exceptions - but nowadays shipping +5m is pretty much a given for a big release since the market has grown alot since then.

 

[TheSubsequentStrajack]

100% agree OP, this is the root cause of game monetization getting WAY out of control, and AAA game development being strained to the point of breaking.

We need to raise the cost of games like $20. $80 for brand new titles is totally fine I think.

 

[Musubi]

I'm fine with whatever if the offering and the monetization model is fair the game will flourish. Like its that simple. If a game offers something appealing I'll buy it if I don't find it appealing then I don't buy it. The market decides what lives and dies.

 

[Loanshark]

If devs/publishers weren't so focused on squeezing out the craziest, bleeding-edge fidelity out of games and just focused on fun experiences with good art direction, I don't think budgets would be as much of an issue. But I understand that the general audience seems to care more about how photo-realistic games are these days over actual substance and so they will continue to push the budgets higher and higher, leading to more attempts to squeeze money from that audience.

Click to shrink...

No one's asking for state of the art graphics? Am I reading some of these comments right? Consumers want this. They buy new TVs for this.

Click to shrink...

Graphics isnt whats making these games unfeasibily expensive. Content, scope and complex game systems is way more resource intensive. Repeating the tired, old gamer slogan "i dont care about graphics" is just a cheap way of trying to have the cake and eat it too.

 

[TheSubsequentStrajack]

Jim Sterling has like 8 videos on this topic and why it's largely a falsehood. Adding MTX to $60 games isn't about recouping development costs, it's about milking every last cent out of consumers.

EA and Activision's CEOs are among the most grossly overpaid in the world. If these companies are seriously concerned with the rising cost of development, start cutting those $30,000,000 salaries.

Click to shrink...

The salary's aren't $30 million, or anywhere close. That money usually comes in the form of stock options / incentive bonuses.

 

[cowbanana]

100% agree OP, this is the root cause of game monetization getting WAY out of control, and AAA game development being strained to the point of breaking.

We need to raise the cost of games like $20. $80 for brand new titles is totally fine I think.

Click to shrink...

Imagine paying 80 bucks for Anthem or Fallout 76. Both games from poor, suffering publishers who have to turn to further monetization to keep creating such amazing quality games.

 

[Bigwombat]

After Spider-Man I dont pre-order games. Spider-Man was great and I definitely got my money's worth but I had gotten burned by me:A so that was an exception to the rule. With games going on sale pretty quickly I can wait.

I guess Nintendo is the black sheep cause Zelda is still $60 so they play by their own rules. The only game I'll be getting day one this year is last of us. Naughty dog earned my trust years ago

 

[Mirage]

Games effectively have raised their price from $60 though, that's just the bare minimum for most big games these days.