Wall Street will only improve games, just look what they've already done for SWBII & NFSP.

When you consider that some NES and SNES games sold for $80, which is the equivalent of ~$110-$130 now, yeah, AAA games have actually become a real value.

Some will argue distribution has gotten easier and cheaper (though development on AAA titles has gotten exponentially greater), or that they'd never buy if games kept with inflation, but the simple point is that games have become significantly cheaper now than the late 80s and early 90s.

Hell, check out this issue of CGW from 1990. Some games are $59.99, which is $116 today. Most are more $39.99 or $49.99, which is $75 and $96 today. Older games are regularly $33, which is $61 today.

There's an online game, playable via email, on page 61, which charged $3 per turn. PER TURN! I get that playable via email was mind-blowing back then, but $3 per turn. That's $6 now. How much would Civ cost you if you had to pay $6 per turn?

This October 1997 one is fun, too. An ad for Interstate 77, which I don't think ever came out, for $47, or $72 today. Microprose's Magic: The Gathering, then 6 months old, was $51, or $78. Unreal is a $60 preorder, or $92.

We're definitely paying way less. People will also argue they're getting less out of the games, and I'm not certain that isn't rose-colored glasses from people who are no longer the target audience.

Feel perfectly free to raise the prices, publishers/wall street dipshits. I will feel perfectly free to ignore you and either wait until your shit goes on sale, or just ignore gaming altogether.

Games certainly should be less expensive because the market for them is at least 20x bigger than it was in the 90's--maybe 50x. Duh. "Analysts" seem to understand less and less as time moves on. Back then 100,000 copies sold was a giant blockbuster--today it isn't unheard of to see a game sell 5,000,000 or more copies. I guess this "analyst" isn't familiar with the term "economies of scale"--which is the whole story behind all computer tech.

WaltC wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 11:38:
Games certainly should be less expensive because the market for them is at least 20x bigger than it was in the 90's--maybe 50x. Duh. "Analysts" seem to understand less and less as time moves on. Back then 100,000 copies sold was a giant blockbuster--today it isn't unheard of to see a game sell 5,000,000 or more copies. I guess this "analyst" isn't familiar with the term "economies of scale"--which is the whole story behind all computer tech.

When games are taking 100x the amount of people to create, and it's the manpower that's the primary expense...

Movies are on average about an hour an a half. Some longer, some shorter but that's the average. Games vary wildly and most of them are never fully played or finished by most players. It's also a lot harder to discern a bad game from a bad movie where a simple 2 minute trailer can camouflage the former and reveal the latter. And ultimately the reason piracy is so rampant with TV and movies, same with more and more people cutting the cord, is that people feel they're being vastly overcharged for the quality of product they're receiving.

Another useless analyst who can't get it right. Who the fuck pays these assholes?

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 10:13:
Wall Street will only improve games, just look what they've already done for SWBII & NFSP.

Absolutely, and they're working with Microsoft on Windows 10 to improve gaming even more.

Beamer wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 10:32:
When you consider that some NES and SNES games sold for $80, which is the equivalent of ~$110-$130 now, yeah, AAA games have actually become a real value.

Some will argue distribution has gotten easier and cheaper (though development on AAA titles has gotten exponentially greater), or that they'd never buy if games kept with inflation, but the simple point is that games have become significantly cheaper now than the late 80s and early 90s.

Hell, check out this issue of CGW from 1990. Some games are $59.99, which is $116 today. Most are more $39.99 or $49.99, which is $75 and $96 today. Older games are regularly $33, which is $61 today.

There's an online game, playable via email, on page 61, which charged $3 per turn. PER TURN! I get that playable via email was mind-blowing back then, but $3 per turn. That's $6 now. How much would Civ cost you if you had to pay $6 per turn?

This October 1997 one is fun, too. An ad for Interstate 77, which I don't think ever came out, for $47, or $72 today. Microprose's Magic: The Gathering, then 6 months old, was $51, or $78. Unreal is a $60 preorder, or $92.

We're definitely paying way less. People will also argue they're getting less out of the games, and I'm not certain that isn't rose-colored glasses from people who are no longer the target audience.

Good points all around for everyone, games do take way more people to make these days so it does cost more.

But, Video games are under priced.. we're just used to 60$ basically and most hardcore video gamers are poor and sometimes unemployed so lots of room for bitching.

I mean, name me something else that you get 100+ hours of enjoyment out of that's 60$. It costs me 100$ to cab from my house to downtown and back again to go out with my buddies for drinks/football/etc. Parking downtown is 26$ a day, 32$ if you get there past 7 am.

I'll tell you right now, the 90$ price tag for some of these games is well worth it for my canadian ass.

Beamer wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 10:32:
When you consider that some NES and SNES games sold for $80

Trying to think what games I bought back in the day for absurd prices... I know I got Sword of Vermillion for the Genesis for $70 and Ultima VII for $70. SNK released their games for the "hundreds of dollars" on the Neo Geo.

The reality is that the game industry in monumentally larger today, so even at lower prices there's much larger profits to be made.

BIGtrouble77 wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 13:21:

Beamer wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 10:32:
When you consider that some NES and SNES games sold for $80

Trying to think what games I bought back in the day for absurd prices... I know I got Sword of Vermillion for the Genesis for $70 and Ultima VII for $70. SNK released their games for the "hundreds of dollars" on the Neo Geo.

The reality is that the game industry in monumentally larger today, so even at lower prices there's much larger profits to be made.

For some. Games are also monumentally more expensive to make. Here are the credits for the original Doom. 14 people, I think. Here it is for Doom 2016. Hundreds. Hundreds!
Anecdotally, I'm pretty certain games also go on sale and have price drops more frequently now, too, but I have zero data for that.

I'm not saying that we need lootcrates, or that we should be paying $90. But we're definitely enjoying games being cheaper than ever, and it's bound to be corrected at some point. Loot crates were an awful way to do that. Beyond awful. Companies are afraid to increase prices, though. $70 is bound to happen at some point. Hell, the next Elder Scrolls can probably pull it off (or it will just get ported to every single console for two generations, getting people to buy it multiple times at full price, haha.)

Tipsy McStagger wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 13:15:
I mean, name me something else that you get 100+ hours of enjoyment out of that's 60$.

I can pick up a lot of books for $60 at a second hand bookstore that will provide me with 100+ hours of enjoyment easily.

WaltC wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 11:38:
Games certainly should be less expensive because the market for them is at least 20x bigger than it was in the 90's--maybe 50x. Duh. "Analysts" seem to understand less and less as time moves on. Back then 100,000 copies sold was a giant blockbuster--today it isn't unheard of to see a game sell 5,000,000 or more copies. I guess this "analyst" isn't familiar with the term "economies of scale"--which is the whole story behind all computer tech.

Games are also orders of magnitude more expensive to make. In 1995 the gaming press was astounded by the cost of making Wing Commander IV: $10M. Today, AAA games are much more expensive: a Call of Duty costs around $100-150M to make, Knights of the Old Republic cost $200M, Battlefield 4 cost $100M, etc. And none of those numbers includes marketing, which typically double the cost.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 15:07:

Tipsy McStagger wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 13:15:
I mean, name me something else that you get 100+ hours of enjoyment out of that's 60$.

I can pick up a lot of books for $60 at a second hand bookstore that will provide me with 100+ hours of enjoyment easily.

$60 is the introductory price for most games. The books you’re talking about sell for $15 or more brand new. Let’s not compare used, older titles to brand new.

HoSpanky wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 15:38:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 15:07:

Tipsy McStagger wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 13:15:
I mean, name me something else that you get 100+ hours of enjoyment out of that's 60$.

I can pick up a lot of books for $60 at a second hand bookstore that will provide me with 100+ hours of enjoyment easily.

$60 is the introductory price for most games. The books you’re talking about sell for $15 or more brand new. Let’s not compare used, older titles to brand new.

Now you're moving the goal posts. You said "...name me something else that you get 100+ hours of enjoyment out of that's 60$". So I did.

Moreover, I can pick up several used console titles (but not from Gamestop) for that $60 that will deliver more hours than most new single titles will.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 16:19:

HoSpanky wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 15:38:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 15:07:

Tipsy McStagger wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 13:15:
I mean, name me something else that you get 100+ hours of enjoyment out of that's 60$.

I can pick up a lot of books for $60 at a second hand bookstore that will provide me with 100+ hours of enjoyment easily.

$60 is the introductory price for most games. The books you’re talking about sell for $15 or more brand new. Let’s not compare used, older titles to brand new.

Now you're moving the goal posts. You said "...name me something else that you get 100+ hours of enjoyment out of that's 60$". So I did.

Moreover, I can pick up several used console titles (but not from Gamestop) for that $60 that will deliver more hours than most new single titles will.

I don't read for enjoyment/fun anymore so I'll give you that answer as true... I read all day at work, 400 page engineering documents, 100 page measurement manuals, 100's of emails.. I don't want to read books when I go home.

Also, I don't remember the last time a book made my heart pound or my hair stand on end...

But it's still a valid response.. I prefer audio/visual to just plain visual.

“Despite its inconvenience to the popular press narrative, if you like Star Wars and play video games at an average rate, you’re far better off skipping the movie and playing the game to get the most bang for your buck.”

Nice example of how disconnected these analysts are from how people actually live their lives and make decisions. Who the fuck calculates price per hour before deciding whether to see a Star Wars movie.

Lots of thoughtful replies in this thread. Pretty much already made all the points I was going to make... So I'll play Devil's advocate a little responding to this:

Beamer wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 11:51:
When games are taking 100x the amount of people to create, and it's the manpower that's the primary expense...

You're right, Assassins creed games rely on like 8 global studios, and a network of producers in many countries, the end-credits sequence never ends. BUT I still don't think this is the #1 cost in AAA games nowadays.

If I'm paying all my employees $100,000 per year, and it takes 2 years to make a game. If it takes 300 people to get it done, that's $60 million in development costs. For a game like CoD, Battlefront, Battlefield, Destiny etc.

I posit that the marketing costs are definitely higher than that, probably 2x as much. 120 million for a game that will generate a billion in sales seems about right. Advertising is FUCKING expensive but does translate into more revenue.

Still, it's hard to argue that games are a lot better nowadays, they're comparatively cheaper, and people are disproportionally angrier. I can only imagine how HAPPY the bloke who was paying $3 a move to play an e-mail game was. I doubt any modern gamer will ever get that feeling of pure happiness from a game.

Want to reiterate, in general, that I'm not arguing that I want games to be more expensive (and no one seems to think I am, but that surprises me.)

I just feel like we're on borrowed time with this pricing and recommending people enjoy it. It's one of those times where you realize you're kind of getting away with something and it won't last.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 15:38:
Games are also orders of magnitude more expensive to make. In 1995 the gaming press was astounded by the cost of making Wing Commander IV: $10M. Today, AAA games are much more expensive: a Call of Duty costs around $100-150M to make, Knights of the Old Republic cost $200M, Battlefield 4 cost $100M, etc. And none of those numbers includes marketing, which typically double the cost.

Not necessarily true. Some games are more expensive to make now than before. Other games are far cheaper. Shiness was made for under $200,000 while Final Fantasy VII was made for $45 million and both of them are large-scale RPGs. Shiness had a tiny team and managed to make a fairly impressive looking game.

Tech has gotten way cheaper, licensing has gotten cheaper, distribution has gotten cheaper. Thanks to advancements like photogrammetry and 3D scanning you can create photorealistic graphics with a few tools and a small team, as evident with games like Obduction and Hellblade (the latter of which only had to sell around 50,000 to break even).

Also, Call of Duty's $100 million budget isn't all in the game production. Activision spends between $50 and $100 million to market the game. Same thing with EA and Battlefield. Back in 2011 both companies spent upwards of $100 million to market Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3. There's a Forbes article that breaks down the financials.

Most mid-budget games that are still magnitudes bigger and better looking than games made back in the 1990s can be made for anywhere between $1 million and $10 million. A lot of games reaching up into the $50 million+ territory are oftentimes leveraged by Hollywood talent, expansive marketing budgets or pure mismanagement like in the case of Mass Effect: Andromeda.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 15:38:
Knights of the Old Republic cost $200M

REALLY? They must have paid $190M for the license back in 2003. I doubt this number.