Quinn wrote on Mar 8, 2021, 19:39:
This online discussion about increasing the base price of games.. The way companies are transparent in maybe going to do that... In The Netherlands this would probably be considered an attempt of "cartel pricing" -- the act of companies uniformly raising the price of their products/services so they can start competing again from a higher default position. In The Netherlands and I think Europe, this is illegal. Isn't this the case in the US?

Just up your fucking price if you want to and see if other publishers follow or not. If they don't, you're the fucker that thinks your games are worth more than the market standard. If that's the case, good for you and your raising the price will probably turn out great for you. If not, too bad. Capitalism.

I think it's only illegal in the US if you do it behind closed doors, i.e. collusion and an antitrust violation. There's nothing wrong with announcing a price hike in a free market. Other companies are free to follow you, or not. If they can maintain a profit at a lower price point, then the lower priced game could experience increased sales. The other thing to consider in the US: if you made it illegal to announce price increases, it would be challenged in court under First Amendment grounds, and such a law would be thrown out by the courts. In general, transparency, whether by a corporation or by the government, is typically something that is promoted here.

This online discussion about increasing the base price of games.. The way companies are transparent in maybe going to do that... In The Netherlands this would probably be considered an attempt of "cartel pricing" -- the act of companies uniformly raising the price of their products/services so they can start competing again from a higher default position. In The Netherlands and I think Europe, this is illegal. Isn't this the case in the US?

Just up your fucking price if you want to and see if other publishers follow or not. If they don't, you're the fucker that thinks your games are worth more than the market standard. If that's the case, good for you and your raising the price will probably turn out great for you. If not, too bad. Capitalism.

Ah, I see now. I overlooked your subtle point.... thanks, Prez.

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 8, 2021, 15:08:

Prez wrote on Mar 8, 2021, 14:34:
I wasn't going to say anymore on this but I do need to dispel a myth. Games generally cost more than $60. I don't think anyone expects everyone to just pay the base price anymore. A lot of people here do (me included) but SO many people don't. The idea that the same number of people buying the game today would net 2K the exact amount of money as in 1997 is ludicrous. They've found ways to increase the base price substantially, either by content carving then reselling it back as DLC, microtransactions out the ass, or any number of other ways. The base price is not what many, maybe even most, people will pay. I can't believe we're still having this debate.

Wait, I am confused. You say you are going dispel a myth and then claim "lot of people here do (me included)" conform to the myth. Which is it?

Obviously Bluesnews doesn't represent the games market at large. I will even spend extra money on certain games, just not sports games because they should cost ZERO up front and just make their money from microtransactions. If I look at how much playtime I got out of the Baldur's Gate series or X-Com for example, I could have paid triple what I did and it still would have been a bargain. To Verno's point, it's not a bad thing at all that generally AAA games cost more than 60 dollars nowadays for most people. I was just dispelling the myth that it is time for a price hike.

Prez wrote on Mar 8, 2021, 14:34:
I wasn't going to say anymore on this but I do need to dispel a myth. Games generally cost more than $60. I don't think anyone expects everyone to just pay the base price anymore. A lot of people here do (me included) but SO many people don't. The idea that the same number of people buying the game today would net 2K the exact amount of money as in 1997 is ludicrous. They've found ways to increase the base price substantially, either by content carving then reselling it back as DLC, microtransactions out the ass, or any number of other ways. The base price is not what many, maybe even most, people will pay. I can't believe we're still having this debate.

A standardized price isn't a bad thing but the industry has just found creative ways around it and to be fair to the industry, cost of development have ballooned over the past 10 years. I hear people still make cracks about how the industry won't pass on the physical packaging savings to them, as if that wasn't already surpassed many times over by the sheer cost of labor. Sure the industry has grown a lot too and that is a factor but overall it is still prohibitively expensive to produce AAA games.

I actually don't mind paying more for a game. I paid $70 for the Demon Souls remaster and already got more than my moneys worth out of it. I think I've played and replayed Xenoblade to the tune of like 300 hours now, they could've charged me $200+ and I still would've come out ahead. Me buying DLC and other stuff is my way of trying to get more of what I like made in the future.

TorTorden wrote on Mar 8, 2021, 07:15:
It's a simple solution.

Don't buy their games for full price.

I think the only 'game' that I paid even near $70 for was Heatblurs F-14 middle for dcs.

And DCS has got sales for half off every few months.

Yeah, for a niche product like the F-14 module with high development costs but low sales, I'd expect the price to be high. And if that's your jam, you should be happy to pay it in order to ensure future modules along the same lines.

Prez wrote on Mar 8, 2021, 14:34:
I wasn't going to say anymore on this but I do need to dispel a myth. Games generally cost more than $60. I don't think anyone expects everyone to just pay the base price anymore. A lot of people here do (me included) but SO many people don't. The idea that the same number of people buying the game today would net 2K the exact amount of money as in 1997 is ludicrous. They've found ways to increase the base price substantially, either by content carving then reselling it back as DLC, microtransactions out the ass, or any number of other ways. The base price is not what many, maybe even most, people will pay. I can't believe we're still having this debate.

Wait, I am confused. You say you are going dispel a myth and then claim "lot of people here do (me included)" conform to the myth. Which is it?

Yeah, there are a lot of DLCs and micro-transactions out there. Companies are making a ton of money from them. And obviously any game with a subscription cost should be included with that. But you know what? Outside of WoW & Path of Exile, they didn't get my money for that either. So, again -- maybe "SO many people" pay more than $60 for a game but I rarely have, and don't expect I will often any time soon. Am I odd man out? Maybe. In this case, I'd be fine with that.

This comment was edited on Mar 8, 2021, 15:42.

Jonjonz wrote on Mar 8, 2021, 06:25:
Considering the fact that wages in general have been in a nosedive since the 70s, as the primary cost to create and sell games, the corporations are making out like bandits.

"We think consumers were ready for it"

Korpo translation: "We have had them bent over and taking it up the ass for 30 years, another thrust won't phase them, oh and Covid too."

In fairness, the cost of developing games has gone up exponentially in the past 20 years. Wing Commander 3 cost $10M to develop. Today, a AAA game can cost $100M or more to develop, and marketing budgets are also about the same for a game of that caliber. Yes, the market is much larger than it was back then, but so is the industry, with exponentially more entrants competing for customer dollars. I have no idea if the "increase" to $70 is justified or not since I haven't seen Take-Two's books, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. There's also inflation: $50 in 2000 is the same as $77 today.

I wasn't going to say anymore on this but I do need to dispel a myth. Games generally cost more than $60. I don't think anyone expects everyone to just pay the base price anymore. A lot of people here do (me included) but SO many people don't. The idea that the same number of people buying the game today would net 2K the exact amount of money as in 1997 is ludicrous. They've found ways to increase the base price substantially, either by content carving then reselling it back as DLC, microtransactions out the ass, or any number of other ways. The base price is not what many, maybe even most, people will pay. I can't believe we're still having this debate.

BIGtrouble77 wrote on Mar 7, 2021, 19:54:
Back in 1992 I paid $70 for Ultima VII. Worth every penny. $70 for a sports game, the biggest shovel-ware genre in existence, is a really bad look.

Gotta pay those NBA royalties, doncha know.

I have a VERY small amount of sympathy for the game companies, there has been inflation over time as there generally is and $60 has been a major price point for a LONG time now while their labor and other costs have risen. Even so, I am reluctant to acquiesce to their higher price demands. Perhaps that puts me in the, "Get off my lawn!" zone -- if so, so be it.

Xero wrote on Mar 8, 2021, 09:30:
They're nuts with 70 dollar games. I don't even buy them at 60. Call me cheap, but I call myself patient. I typically do not need to have a game at launch and am happy to just sit it out for that price drop.

This will definitely apply to the ones that buy at launch and there are plenty who do so I can see it as a win win for Take-Two no matter what. I just think it's getting crazy how pricey things are these days. Though if someone will pay, everyone else will follow shortly after.

There's a perceived intrinsic maximum value someone is willing to pay for just about anything. For example, it used to cost $7 to see a movie at a cinema. Before the pandemic, last I remember, it was $15 and change. Would that go higher? I don't know, but I'd imagine at some point people won't be willing to spend more than whatever that is and will wait to rent. I suspect the same is true with video games. $50, $60, $70, but at some point, publishers will set the price beyond what people are willing to pay. For me, my maximum is $80. But it also means I won't buy too many new titles near their release, or I'll look for alternatives like CD Keys.

I'm dying to know how (let alone why) you think Biden has any relevance to video game prices.

MrBone wrote on Mar 8, 2021, 10:50:
Please stop the crying and wailing. This is the new normal so you need to sit back and adjust your high-chair for it. Besides, with Biden in office, these things are only going to escalate.

The easiest and surest way to get them to back off from high prices is to not buy them at those prices. Isn't that what capitalism is supposed to do?

And, yes, we shouldn't put down real money for preordering, which only incentivizes poor quality.

Please stop the crying and wailing. This is the new normal so you need to sit back and adjust your high-chair for it. Besides, with Biden in office, these things are only going to escalate.

For me, it just means I will wait for the inevitable sale. Which also means that I will also benefit from patches already applied and the fact that my "new" game will run on my actual new hardware well.

I can see this, however, also bringing back some of the pirate and cracking groups out in force, or back from the dead.

They're nuts with 70 dollar games. I don't even buy them at 60. Call me cheap, but I call myself patient. I typically do not need to have a game at launch and am happy to just sit it out for that price drop.

This will definitely apply to the ones that buy at launch and there are plenty who do so I can see it as a win win for Take-Two no matter what. I just think it's getting crazy how pricey things are these days. Though if someone will pay, everyone else will follow shortly after.

WaltC wrote on Mar 7, 2021, 18:02:
Many motion pictures cost more to make than the majority of computer games, employ and pay more people in the making, and don't cost anything close to $70 to see--or buy, even, in a 4k disk!

The other way of looking at it -- I'm guessing the average cost of seeing a film in a theater is at least $10 a person (less in some places, more in a lot of others). That's $10 for 1.5-3 hours of entertainment. If I bought a game and got three or less hours of entertainment out of it I'd give it a failing grade. Since I take some care in the games I buy, that's an extremely rare event (might have happened once). Instead I often get many dozens of hours of entertainment. In some cases literally thousands of hours. So, the cost over time for games outreaches even the best films easily in almost all cases.

It's a simple solution.

Don't buy their games for full price.

I think the only 'game' that I paid even near $70 for was Heatblurs F-14 middle for dcs.

And DCS has got sales for half off every few months.

Considering the fact that wages in general have been in a nosedive since the 70s, as the primary cost to create and sell games, the corporations are making out like bandits.

"We think consumers were ready for it"

Korpo translation: "We have had them bent over and taking it up the ass for 30 years, another thrust won't phase them, oh and Covid too."

Sounds like all these companies are coordinating this price increase together indirectly through public opinion. Looks like cartel pricing to me.