I dont think avoiding a problem just makes it go away. The industry should've fucking regulated itself if it didn't want government intervention but like the fools they were they just kept chasing every last $. Also the slippery slope argument is one I think is pretty bad because if they could implement something worse than lootboxes and p2w, whats to think that might not be acted on if the former does? I don't think using what ifs to justify unethical shit is ever a good idea.
how can they be "far worse" if they follow the exact same formula?
If the goes through they wouldn't label it as m it would be ao. M can still be sold to age 17 folks.
They wouldn't be able to enforce that, the Supreme Court already shot down government enforcement of the ESRB.
I know what I was saying is going by the esrb's own rating system there is only one that would completely prohibit children from buying it.
Yeah, exactly. Remember when God of War launched at an inflated price? And Bloodborne? All because they didn't have microtransactions and loot boxes?
Ignoring the points people have already made, people outside the US are fully aware that game price have increased a lot outside of the US yet we still get this lootbox crap? Here in the UK, last gen a new standard game about £39.99, now between can be anywhere between £44.99 - £54.99 and this is true in a good chunk of the world. Why do so many ignore this when they pull the "games never raised their prices crap?"
Probably because they live in the US? I didn't know that game prices rose, what was the explanation besides they could get away with it? Currency rates?
Yep plus inflation... Which doesn't really explain why physical releases here are way cheaper then Digital ones, especially on consoles (Spider-Man PS4 at launch was £49.99 in physical form but £54.99 on PSN)
Are you sure? Indie games have more or less doubled their launch price in the last decade, while AAA games have stayed flat, making up the lost revenue from not raising prices with inflation or increasing development costs via MTX. Of the AAA publishers, there's a long list of them who went bankrupt last gen or left AAA gaming. The publishers like Sony and Nintendo have a different business model to third parties, so e.g. they make 42% more revenue from each digital game sold.
...because of MTX, in some cases. If you look at EA's numbers, the revenue from Ultimate Team is almost as high as the entire company's net income, and since most of UT revenue is probably income, that means if you removed that today then their profit margins would collapse from the current healthy levels of 20%-30% (same as they were in the peak PS2 years), to 5%-10%. As for Assassin's Creed, the amount of content in these new games, and the quality of that content, is truly staggering compared to last gen and yet they're actually much cheaper at launch inflation adjusted. $60 in 2006 is worth $77 now.
lmao I love this post so much. You have a blessed day my man/woman
I'm open to paying more for my games if that's what it takes. These corporations have an obligation to their shareholders from what I read/watched is my understanding. So my only thought is the government has to step in. Because these corporations seem to just have no choice but to go for full 100% greed.
Sure, OK. It's a fair assumption that since people can make a lot of money when stock prices go up, they've already thought about that, but OK. Are gamers willing to accept less content and less quality? Not really, no. Should employees be whipped harder to work extra hours for free? No, that's not accepted. There's a lot of support for unionizing the industry, which would more than likely drive costs higher. Year after year, employees expect cost of living raises to keep up with inflation, yet game prices don't go up (US, I realize other countries have seen price raises in line with their currency losing value).
I'll accept this subjective definition of lesser quality for less bullshit in my games, yes.
