Current Events > in response to gamers upset at EA, analyst says game should cost more

(+) Yeah! (+)

The analyst can say the game should cost more, doesn't mean anybody will buy it though. It's simple economics.
---

EA admitted that taking lootboxes out of the game is not going to affect their profits.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

what is disingenuous is ignoring the ballooning cost of making a smart phone when previously un-smart phones costed much much more...
because it is hardware

I don't think this sentence makes any sense bro

darkphoenix181 posted...

and then ignoring software trends that are similar enough to this hardware, because it is a principle of tech as well

I am just reiterating to you that it is a bad comparison.

darkphoenix181 posted...

so games according to you both are neither hardware, nor software
are they even technology?

no, not really. I mean they utilize technology, but you're selling an interactive experience, not a physical object or the ability to do a task.

like a movie almost.

darkphoenix181 posted...

that is the loops you have to jump through to argue that the costs should go up and not down because the facts are against you

I don't see how it is at all even confusing, much less contradictory.

darkphoenix181 posted...

hmmmm.....who is being, disingenuous...

https://dotesports.com/call-of-duty/cod-wwii-sales-opening-weekend-18571

$500 million opening

those poor devs :(

why do I need to be considered sympathetic to them to understand why their costs are what they are? not every game makes half a billion opening weekend, but they are increasingly reliant on their games selling enormously because they have increasingly enormous costs

even that video someone posted about this topic recently (game development and microtransactions) just showed a flat overall game budget but like 1/5 the number of games between 2007 and now. That means games are becoming more expensive, and there are less of them
---

Balrog0 posted...

why do I need to be considered sympathetic to them to understand why their costs are what they are? not every game makes half a billion opening weekend, but they are increasingly reliant on their games selling enormously because they have increasingly enormous costs

even that video someone posted about this topic recently (game development and microtransactions) just showed a flat overall game budget but like 1/5 the number of games between 2007 and now. That means games are becoming more expensive, and there are less of them

1. your last statement is incorrect, there is more games now than ever, not just counting indie games as published games are aplenty too, but you should count them as well which makes the amount explode exponentially

2. they put the money in to distract your attention from all these indie games that are enticing
it isn't about sympathy, it is understanding that their rising costs are because they want to beat their competition, not because of inflation or because it is costing more to make games today

it actually costs less to make games, but when you throw in Kevin Spacey and try to recreate his face, that will cost alot yes, but that has no bearing on the rising cost of games since it is something super extra they throw in it to wow you
---

and here is the question

is Kevin Spacey and his face thrown in so you will pay more money than the standard price?

or is it thrown in there so you will buy their game instead of their competitor?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

1. your last statement is incorrect, there is more games now than ever, not just counting indie games, but you should count them as well which makes the amount explode exponentially

I'm just going by this, which shows a chart with a precipitous drop in number of games developed since 2010 across three major developed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qq6HcKj59Q

idk his source, if you have a better one I would look at it though

I actually thought you posted this video lol

darkphoenix181 posted...

2. they put the money in to distract your attention from all these indie games that are enticing
it isn't about sympathy, it is understanding that their rising costs are because they want to beat their competition, not because of inflation or because it is cost more to make games today

it actually costs less to make games, but when you throw in Kevin Spacey and try to recreate his face, that will cost alot yes, but that has no bearing on the rising cost of games since it is something super extra they throw in it to wow you

I don't understand the distinction you're making, though. You're telling me they could make better games but in a way that would expose them to competition from other game developers. Okay. That's not a better game for them, so what does that change? It seems to me your argument pretty much relies on viewing games narrowly as a technological device, and I don't think that is the right way to view them.
That's all.
---

like in that one instance, sure, kevin spacey's face probably isnt worth a ton

having professional voice actors almost definitely is, though, for instance. that is one new development cost games of today have that even 10 years ago were less prominent.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I don't understand the distinction you're making, though. You're telling me they could make better games but in a way that would expose them to competition from other game developers. Okay. That's not a better game for them, so what does that change?

Because the argument that games need to go up in price is because:

1. inflation
2. games are harder to make now then before

But the problem is #2 is not true. Making CoD back in the day was much more difficult than it is now.
What makes a new CoD game more expensive to make than the first CoD game is because of fluff that is meant to capture a gamer's attention from a trailer.
Basically you could say it is more advertising that makes the game more expensive except it is in the game so it isn't entirely advertising.

So in other words #2 is actually competition is tougher
which is different then saying the costs have gone up
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

So in other words #2 is actually competition is tougher
which is different then saying the costs have gone up

obviously not
but I doubt we're going to come to any agreement, our differences are irreconcilable
---

(and we're gamers)

Yeah, sure you are. Let's move along.
---

Balrog0 posted...

our differences are irreconcilable

they really aren't

back in the day to make a 3D model you need 3D max studio which at time would cost like $1000 to use and to understand how to use it might be an expensive class since you wouldn't have anyone but pirates really owning a copy to play around with (some schools might have had it)
and to run 3D max studio required a pretty powerful computer which at the time was also drastically more expensive
also programming knowledge

today your computer costing maybe $300 should be able to run such a program or at least the plethora of free modeling programs you can use now
blender is one you can download and here is the requirements

32-bit dual core 2Ghz CPU with SSE2 support.
2 GB RAM.
24 bits 1280768 display.
Mouse or trackpad.
OpenGL 2.1 compatible graphics with 512 MB RAM.

which would been quite pricey a decade ago

and you can download free game making software that is designed for people who don't know programming, like the one the guy who made FNAF used

fundamentally throughout the game making process there are things like this where tools have got cheaper, resources have got cheaper, methods have got cheaper
it is like the difference between C, C++ and now C#

C# does a lot of thing for you

what is expensive about the AAA game making process is advertising, hiring actors and trying to use cutting edge things to give you an edge over the other AAA guy and all the tons and tons of other games grabbing at people's attention

but none of this is necessary
the whole point of them doing all this is to have that $500 million opening
---

So $80 as standard but $20 DLC that would have been sold for a $60 game comes as part of the $80 retail game instead of being DLC.

Or to put it in even simpler terms...

You can pay either $80 retail or $60 retail + $20 dlc for the same content.

But that $80 game will come down in price whereas the $20 dlc rarely will. So wait a while you could get an $80 game for $50 whereas otherwise you would get a $60 game for $40 but still have to pay $20 dlc.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

they really aren't

they really are

you keep referring to things as fluff or a distraction -- or talking about them not being 'necessary'-- none of which are meaningful classifiers to me.

darkphoenix181 posted...

fundamentally throughout the game making process there are things like this where tools have got cheaper, resources have got cheaper, methods have got cheaper

what is expensive about the AAA game making process is advertising, hiring actors and trying to use cutting edge things to give you an edge over the other AAA guy and all the tons and tons of other games grabbing at people's attention

but none of this is necessary
the whole point of them doing all this is to have that $500 million opening

I just don't understand your argument. Keeping an edge over your competitors is necessary, not fluff or a distraction. I guess you're calling them those things because in your view you can make games that are just as good for a lower cost, but all the stuff you're pointing out as fluff is literally what differentiates AAA games from non-AAA games. to the extent that AAA games are a market at all they seem obviously relevant to me.
---

I mean I am replaying Donkey Kong Country and I had no idea what a risky investment they made with SGI technology to make those faux 3D sprites. To me, that seems like the kind of thing you would be calling fluff in today's world, but it was a huge selling point and made it one of the best selling games on the platform

I just don't think it's as easy to distinguish between fluff and not fluff as youre making it out to be at the very least
---

it goes like this

I can make a burger and I charge you $5 for it

my costs to make the burger have gone down, but I don't lower the price

instead I slap some guacamole on it made from imported avocados
I bring in chef ramsey to make the bun
the plate I serve the burger on has gold lining
I stick a flag in the burger licensed by Marvel with Iron Man on it

I ask you to pay $25 because it cost so much to make said burger

you tell me no way, it should only cost like $5, like it did before

I say that is ridiculous, look at all the cool stuff it has on it

you say, "but I can go across the street and get a burger just as good, actually no that tastes better than your burger for $5"

you say that isn't fair because the guy across the street doesn't have all this cool stuff

Balrog0 posted...

I just don't understand your argument. Keeping an edge over your competitors is necessary, not fluff or a distraction. I guess you're calling them those things because in your view you can make games that are just as good for a lower cost, but all the stuff you're pointing out as fluff is literally what differentiates AAA games from non-AAA games. to the extent that AAA games are a market at all they seem obviously relevant to me.

See, what you want is a good tasting burger
Why then throw all this junk on it?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Why then throw all this junk on it?

cuz people like guac and artisan bread?

like I just said, to the extent the AAA market exists at all, the stuff you're saying is extra is the entire point of it

at least that's what it seems to me
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

it goes like this

I can make a burger and I charge you $5 for it

my costs to make the burger have gone down, but I don't lower the price

instead I downsize the product and ask you to pay $25 because i want money

you tell me no way, it should only cost like $5, like it did before

I say that is ridiculous, look this google link

you say, "but I can go across the street and get a burger just as good, actually no that tastes better than your burger for $5"

you say that isn't fair because the guy across the street is hurting the industry

---

Balrog0 posted...

Keeping an edge over your competitors is necessary, not fluff or a distraction.

Not in the gaming industry. A huge majority of gamers buy the majority of games that they want. Buying video games is not like buying a house or car or phone or choosing a utility supplier. It's unlikely that you are going to buy one game for the whole year or two.

Just to add to this, for certain genres like sports, yes a company would like to keep an edge over their competition as it's unlikely someone is going to buy NHL 18 and NHL 2k8 but those kinds of situations are few and far between.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Not in the gaming industry. A huge majority of gamers buy the majority of games that they want. Buying video games is not like buying a house or car or phone or choosing a utility supplier. It's unlikely that you are going to buy one game for the whole year or two.

idk how true this is

I personally buy about that many games a year, excluding older games that have dropped in price at least (and that is less relevant to the discussion imo) and even then the number isnt much higher
---

Balrog0 posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Not in the gaming industry. A huge majority of gamers buy the majority of games that they want. Buying video games is not like buying a house or car or phone or choosing a utility supplier. It's unlikely that you are going to buy one game for the whole year or two.

idk how true this is

I personally buy about that many games a year, excluding older games that have dropped in price at least (and that is less relevant to the discussion imo) and even then the number isnt much higher

First of all, what I am hearing you say is anecdotal evidence is anecdotal and secondly, has that been the way it was for you your entire life? I can admit that I certainly buy much less games now, than I did when I was younger and my income was much more disposable.
---

if a gamer spent $60 for the game, an additional $20 per month for loot micro-transaction boxes and played around 2.5 hours a day for one year, it comes out to roughly 40 cents per hour of entertainment. This compares to an estimated 60 cents to 65 cents per hour for pay television, 80 cents per hour for a movie rental and more than $3 per hour for a movie watched in a theater

Not a bad argument if gamers only bought one or two games per year. But most gamers buy multiple games.

He also excluded a lot of other costs such as the console/PC, controllers, PSN/Xbox live subscriptions, etc.

His numbers are flawed.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

First of all, what I am hearing you say is anecdotal evidence is anecdotal

well yeah you didnt cite any numbers either so Im assuming you are just using your instincts too

IfGodCouldDie posted...

has that been the way it was for you your entire life? I can admit that I certainly buy much less games now, than I did when I was younger and my income was much more disposable.

no, but I'm not sure what % of their sales are to infrequent buyers vs frequent buyers at all, especially for AAA games.

First of all, I am assuming both exist. And second, my hunch is that AAA games try to draw in people who buy fewer games overall in addition to those who buy lots of games.
---

The attach rate for the PS4 is 7.51. That's high for a console too.

I'm not sure if most gamers buy a lot of games every year. Which is why you're seeing more games go for a games as a service model.
---

Who tf plays one game 20+ hours a week? Good Lord lol
---