$$$ PUBLISHERS HAVE TRIED MULTIPLE WAYS TO AMORTIZE EXPENSE $$$

July 9, 2020 11:51 AM

The return of the $70 video game has been a long time coming [Ars Technica] “Last week, 2K made waves by becoming the first publisher to set a $70 asking price for a big-budget game on the next generation of consoles. NBA2K21 will cost the now-standard $60 on the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, but 2K will ask $10 more for the upcoming Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 versions of the game (a $100 "Mamba Forever Edition" gives players access to current-generation and next-generation versions in a single bundle). It remains to be seen if other publishers will follow 2K's lead and make $70 a new de facto standard for big-budget console game pricing. But while $70 would match the high-water mark for nominal game pricing, it wouldn't be a historically high asking price in terms of actual value. Thanks to inflation and changes in game distribution, in fact, the current ceiling for game prices has never been lower.”

• Other publishers are considering raising game prices for PS5 and Xbox Series X [Games Industry Biz]

“Speaking with GamesIndustry.biz, IDG President and CEO Yoshio Osaki says that game pricing has remained flat since 2005, whereas TV and movie pricing has increased significantly. "The last time that next-gen launch software pricing went up was in 2005 and 2006, when it went from $49.99 to $59.99 at the start of the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation," he says. "During that time, the costs and prices in other affiliated verticals have gone up." Osaki says that next-gen console game production costs have increased by 200% to 300%, depending on the IP, studio and genre, but the prices have remained at $59.99. Meanwhile, cinema ticket prices have risen 39%, Netflix subscription costs have gone up 100%, and Cable TV packages have risen by 105%. "Even with the increase to $69.99 for next-gen, that price increase from 2005 to 2020 next-gen is only up 17%, far lower than the other comparisons. While the cost of development and publishing have gone up, and pricing in other entertainment verticals has also gone up substantially, next-gen software pricing has not reflected these increases. $59.99 to $69.99 does not even cover these other cost increases completely, but does move it more in the proper direction."”

• NBA 2K21 Will Cost $70 On PS5 And Xbox Series X [Kotaku]

“Gaming is quickly becoming a prohibitively expensive hobby. A $10 increase might not sound like much, but with the overwhelming cost of new consoles themselves and the price of online subscriptions for multiplayer capabilities, working-class families might already be priced out of the fun. And, with record unemployment numbers due to the coronavirus, less people than ever might have the money to afford a new console or a $70 dollar game anyway. A Take-Two’s PR spokesperson told Kotaku, “We believe our suggested retail price for NBA 2K21 on next-generation platforms fairly represents the value of what’s being offered: power, speed and technology that is only possible on new hardware.” It’s worth noting the nice $69 dollar number is the “suggested” price, meaning retailers like Gamestop and Wal-Mart could sell them for more or for the standard $60 bucks.”

• Video Games Were Due for a Price Increase, but Not Quite Like This [The Escapist Magazine]

“The way we react to the price of a video game is also dependent on the experience itself. Having the news come from a game like NBA 2K21 — which is notorious for making a huge amount of revenue off of its microtransactions and MyTeam purchases — does feel a bit gross. There’s no denying that NBA 2K21 is a AAA experience, but given how much money is in play after the initial buy-in, it’s clear why this is leaving a sour taste is so many people’s mouths. For me, I would personally have no problem paying $10 extra for meaty, singular experiences like The Last of Us Part II, Death Stranding, God of War, Persona 5, etc. The cost of game development has grown so much in order to provide these types of game, so it only makes sense that the cost of entry goes up as well. And honestly, who isn’t going to buy Grand Theft Auto VI just because it costs an extra $10? But the problem comes when you introduce a price increase but still keep the same microtransaction-heavy business model that we see in the 2K series, especially when so many other games that are built that way are free to play, like Fortnite and Call of Duty: Warzone.”

• The $70 video game is inevitable [Polygon]

“While games have stayed at $60 for 15 years, inflation hasn’t slowed down for anyone. A loaf of bread and a gallon of milk cost more today than they did in 2005. Video games soon will, too. Is $70 unfairly high? The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics says that $59.99 in January 2005, when adjusted for inflation, is the same as $81.15 in January 2020. So, by that measure, $79.99 doesn’t seem unfair on its face. A cynic might say that console gamers are actually getting a deal. However, according to the Pew Research Center, the purchasing power of the average American has stagnated for decades. Despite increases to the minimum wage — both on the federal and state levels — purchasing power has hardly budged in 40 years. That could put $70 video games out of reach for many consumers. Pile on the fact that we’re experiencing rising income inequality, as well as political and social upheaval — not to mention the global pandemic, which has led to historic rates of unemployment — and increasing the price of video games feels like adding insult to injury.”

posted by Fizz (71 comments total)

The $70 video game is inevitable

Not for me. Steam sales FTW!
posted by Splunge at 11:53 AM on July 9, 2020 [12 favorites]

15 years ago, the $60 game was sold to the retailer for $30, and likely cost approximately $5 to press the disc, package, and ship to the retailer. Net revenue was (very roughly) $25.

Today, the $60 game is sold through an online storefront (PSN, XBox Live, Steam) that takes 30%, and costs maybe a dollar in bandwidth to transmit to the user. Net revenue is roughly $40.

At some point inflation comes for us all, but they don't *need* to raise the price. They're just trying to prime the customer's expectations for the price increase that they'd like to get.
posted by explosion at 12:00 PM on July 9, 2020 [4 favorites]

Thanks to inflation and changes in game distribution, in fact, the current ceiling for game prices has never been lower.

On the other hand, due to {sterling} liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive serrrrrrrrrrrvices {/sterling} microtransactions and early access, the value of the product sold for $60 has never been lower.
posted by Sockdown at 12:15 PM on July 9, 2020 [21 favorites]

I mean I definitely would pay more if it meant I got the full game instead of part of a game that I then had to pony up more for through microtransactions and various dlc. It's frustrating that certain types of games have such a content grind. I guess to me it's the difference between say the CKII model and EA's model. I don't have to buy any or all of the expansions for Crusader Kings, but they all do something unique and really can flavor a particular kingdom. EA for the most part is buy this for 20 bucks every X moths or you can't play multiplayer which was the big selling point.
posted by Carillon at 12:18 PM on July 9, 2020 [2 favorites]

I remember paying at least $40 for C64 games in the mid-eighties which would be about $100 now and those cost far less to produce than games do now.
posted by octothorpe at 12:19 PM on July 9, 2020 [3 favorites]

The games might come out at this price but how long before they're on sale for $40 or make it onto something like Xbox Game Pass? People will pay more for the premium of being the first to play a game but if you don't mind waiting you shouldn't have to pay that much. The only exception is Smash Bros. which still hasn't gone on sale since coming out in December 2018.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:23 PM on July 9, 2020 [2 favorites]

I remember saving up and buying Secret of Mana for $120 (CAD) in 1994, which would be almost $200 today. I think it was from Sears. I can't say I regret it, that game was totally worth all my childhood savings.
posted by oulipian at 12:26 PM on July 9, 2020 [2 favorites]

How much of the price hike is to offset the cost of astroturfed reviews and opinions?
posted by Godspeed.You!Black.Emperor.Penguin at 12:29 PM on July 9, 2020 [1 favorite]

I know this isn't really helpful advice in the grand scheme of things, but if you build in at least a five-year lag on your purchase of video game stuff, you get so much bang for your buck.

I just spent $30 on Steam last week for something like seven games, including Skyrim Game of the Year edition, which, yes, came out nearly a decade ago, but I never played it, and for $17 I got the game and all the DLC, and it plays like a dream on my dated Dell desktop running with a former-flagship video card I paid about $100 for. It's just as expansive and kind of mediocre as it was in 2011 when it was released! Come to think of it, 2011 might have been when I bought this Dell.

If it's not obvious, it would be a stretch to call me even a casual gamer. I pick something up every three or four years and chew through it in a weekend or two, but after working really hard to stay productive through the lockdown, with the weather turning hot and muggy in Philadelphia (later than usual!) it was the perfect time to grant myself some video game escapism.

I never created circumstances where I could excuse spending $70 for a game on a $500 console. Lest you think I chide people for expensive hobbies, that's not the case at all - but let's not turn this into a derail about synthesizers :|
posted by Leviathant at 12:32 PM on July 9, 2020 [6 favorites]

If you do it right, astroturfed reviews and opinions pay for themselves.
posted by Hatashran at 12:34 PM on July 9, 2020

They can charge $1000 for new games if they want, I don't buy them now, and I won't buy them then. But I will buy them in the discount bin (online or brick-n-mortar) if they're any good in a few years.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:41 PM on July 9, 2020

I know I'll be paying for the next generation console and all the games and I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is how the increased cost of games, that extra $10, it's unlikely that any of that will go to the actual programmers who develop these games under brutal conditions (crunch, overtime, harassment, *gestures at all of gaming*). I'm sure most of this extra revenue will be felt only at the top, up in those corporate high-rises.
posted by Fizz at 12:45 PM on July 9, 2020 [15 favorites]

The $70 video game is inevitable

Not for me. Steam sales FTW!
posted by Splunge at 2:53 PM on July 9

---

I know this isn't really helpful advice in the grand scheme of things, but if you build in at least a five-year lag on your purchase of video game stuff, you get so much bang for your buck.

[...]
posted by Leviathant at 3:32 PM on July 9

Fizz and I had a bet going on how many people would say one or both of these things ("wait for the Steam sale" and "Wait 5 years to play the game") within the first 10 comments.

I just lost $50
posted by nightrecordings at 12:51 PM on July 9, 2020 [45 favorites]

I'm okay with this. Triple-A games are absurdly expensive to produce these days, and I very rarely buy such things at launch anyway (if I do buy something at launch, 90% of the time, it's a niche Japanese game, or an indie, or both, which typically cost less). The last time I preordered a triple-A game was Doom Eternal, and that was for the Digital Deluxe Edition, which ran me $90 plus tax.

One mostly-academic question for me is how an across-the-board price hike will affect PC games, especially since I'm not planning on getting a new console (or PC, for that matter) anytime soon.
posted by May Kasahara at 1:02 PM on July 9, 2020

15 years ago, the $60 game was sold to the retailer for $30, and likely cost approximately $5 to press the disc, package, and ship to the retailer. Net revenue was (very roughly) $25.

You forgot the license fee that the publisher pays Sony or MS; $5-20(?). At lease for XBox, the scale slid from new release to bargain bin, and console generations. Haven't read the articles but there might price increase there too.
posted by achrise at 1:08 PM on July 9, 2020

Relevant Jim Sterling videos:

The Sixty Dollar Myth.
NBA 2K21 Is $69.99 On Next-Gen Consoles While 2K Spews Vague Nonsense About "Value".
posted by Pendragon at 1:08 PM on July 9, 2020 [4 favorites]

It's funny how they're doing this with one of the huge licensed sports games, which are known for churning out new versions every year with essentially very few changes except for rosters, and have been criticized for charging too much for the same product over and over again as it is.

Then again, gamers who play sports games are not, well, my kind of people. I don't know many, they don't seem to play many other games, and are often kind of separate from other gamers (although I'm wary to call myself a gamer at all, but I do at least play quite a bit). So I don't understand the consumer psychology there, and who knows if this will hold up for other genres.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:13 PM on July 9, 2020

I don’t have a big problem with this. The videogame market is pretty competitive compared to a lot of other digital content, with a very wide variety of price points, game sizes, monetisation models, and storefronts. Sure, I wouldn’t personally buy NBA2K21 for $70 (or more like, £70) but if the next Animal Crossing is as good as New Horizons, I’m happy to part with the cash.
posted by adrianhon at 1:20 PM on July 9, 2020

, it's unlikely that any of that will go to the actual programmers who develop these games under brutal conditions

A friend of mine worked on a recently released free to play game, and I asked about that. And it does go (in some amount) to them -- once the costs of making the game have been covered in sales, they get, essentially, royalties on the sales (purchases or various kinds of microtransactions) past that (as bonuses) while they are still employed at the same company (in any role or location). Plus there is usually an overall bonus for all employees if the company does well.

I'm sure it isn't a LOT of the sales, and it's shared among a lot of people, but yes, if games cost more AND they do well, programmers get more.
posted by jeather at 1:35 PM on July 9, 2020 [1 favorite]

Come to Europe, where games at their launch are regularly above €70. Which is more than $70.
posted by chavenet at 1:41 PM on July 9, 2020

I guess to me it's the difference between say the CKII model and EA's model. I don't have to buy any or all of the expansions for Crusader Kings, but they all do something unique and really can flavor a particular kingdom. EA for the most part is buy this for 20 bucks every X moths or you can't play multiplayer which was the big selling point.

Paradox, the makers of CKII, go even further with their DLC model when it comes to multiplayer games: in a multiplayer session, all players have access to the DLC of whoever is hosting the game. It's great for the community and likely helps drive further DLC sales.
posted by nathan_teske at 1:52 PM on July 9, 2020 [4 favorites]

The value of the product sold for $60 has never been lower.

I think the opposite is true. From a quick glance over my hours-played numbers in Steam compared to the cost of those games, I'd say that in terms of dollars per hour of entertainment obtained, video games of all kinds at just about any price point are astoundingly cheap.
posted by mhoye at 1:53 PM on July 9, 2020 [7 favorites]

"15 years ago, the $60 game was sold to the retailer for $30, and likely cost approximately $5 to press the disc, package, and ship to the retailer. Net revenue was (very roughly) $25.:"

A few things... there are still retailers, % of games sold online has been increasing every year, but due to various reasons like download limits from ISPs its not 100% yet. Also for console games, a share of this will go to Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/Google/etc... which also explain why you can buy a console at basically the same cost as its manufacturing price.

Also.... everything in AAA games budget EXPLODED during those 15 years. It means you have to sell a lot more copies to be profitable. Which leads to the same phenomenon you see in movies, put more eggs/dev/marketing in fewer/less-riskier titles and hope that they sell 8 millions copies so that you can recoup your investment. Your other option is to sell subscriptions/DLC/micro-transactions to your online player base.

Its a minor mirable games still cost 60$ considering how much more they cost to develop.

it's unlikely that any of that will go to the actual programmers who develop these games under brutal conditions

Don't forget animators, modelers, sound people, level designers, etc..... it's not 1982, there's more than programmers! I'd say there's less crunch now than it used to be (for various reasons), but I think that's one of those things that vary a lot depending on project/studio.

A profitable game can lead to bonuses for its developers, or the studio not closing and them keeping their job, raises, or the publisher taking more chances or projects since it has the financial margin to do it, so more opportunities. It's not all for the publisher there's a lot in it for the developpers too.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 1:54 PM on July 9, 2020

Don't forget animators, modelers, sound people, level designers, etc..... it's not 1982, there's more than programmers!

I apologize if my comment came off as only referencing programming jobs. I shouldn't have lumped all of these other creators who are very much a part of the game development process into one catchall term. I was just trying to comment on the fact that there's a disparity in work/value/payment from those at the top versus those who are on the working floor doing the daily grind/crunch/work.
posted by Fizz at 2:01 PM on July 9, 2020

so they're raising working conditions

Lolsob

(My friend is fairly high up, his pay is fine, but the hours my god)
posted by jeather at 2:14 PM on July 9, 2020

If I'm being genuine instead of snarky, I'll admit that it's nigh-impossible for me to engage in these conversations, because I honestly believe that the revenues and budgets drive the costs, and not vice-versa.

There is no reason why the games need to have the budgets they do or be as costly as they are. Saying "they've got so many people" is begging the question.

Some of the best games I've played in recent years are games from small studios that weren't constrained by a need to make work for hundreds of employees. Celeste, Dead Cells, Hollow Knight? These are masterpieces.

I'm not trying to be an elitist indie-game snob about it, but why can't a AAA title be artistic instead of pain-stakingly realistic? It doesn't need to be pixel art 16-bit graphics, but it doesn't need to be a Marvel movie's worth of staff either.
posted by explosion at 2:17 PM on July 9, 2020 [5 favorites]

I apologize if my comment came off as only referencing programming jobs. I shouldn't have lumped all of these other creators who are very much a part of the game development process into one catchall term. I was just trying to comment on the fact that there's a disparity in work/value/payment from those at the top versus those who are on the working floor doing the daily grind/crunch/work.

No worries, probably needed a bunch of smileys in this. I just wanted to emphasis a lot of crafts are involved and all of then are necessary to create the product.

There is a disparity on how that profit (when it's there) is redistributed, and a lot of it stays at the top, and for myself I don't think you could state that he distribution is fair for everybody. I just wanted to provide a bit of examples on how a profitable project can benefit its developers (in both direct & more subtle ways). Also if profit per project stays the same but you split it between 10x more people... there's less per person.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 2:26 PM on July 9, 2020 [2 favorites]

I'm not surprised that the game hitting this new price point is one of the annual sports franchises. The pricing on these is inelastic and time sensitive - the target market will buy this game at almost any price at release. The target market will not buy this game for any price after a year (the 2020 version right now is a whopping 85% off on Steam right now), because all the rosters are old and the graphics are 'dated'.

The same is mostly true for games whose playtime is mostly measured in multiplayer. When the new Call of Duty comes out, the people playing multiplayer will jump ship for the new one, because they don't want to be left behind. Wait long enough and the company will close down the multiplayer servers for the "obsolete" games, because they're not making any money from it.

There's a very small window where the developers and publishers will make the most amount of money, unlike single-player games where you can port a 13-year old game or reskin a 26-year old game.
posted by meowzilla at 2:46 PM on July 9, 2020 [1 favorite]

Has anyone broken down how much AAA games get from full sales, versus DLC and microtransactions and special editions? Without that analysis, the initial sales point doesn't mean much. I suspect there's just as much a case for a lowering of the initial price as for raising it.

My personal present annoyance: I got Borderlands 3 at half price, but the DLC have never been on sale, and they add up to the price of the full game. I would give them more money just because I liked the game, but it really feels wrong to pay $15 for a few hours of content.
posted by zompist at 2:55 PM on July 9, 2020

the value of the product sold for $60 has never been lower

Certainly pay to win and unregulated gambling are terrible. But on the overall, I have to disagree. I'm 50. So I look at, say, Fallout 4 and ask: is this better value for money than Pool of Radiance in 88 for now-$100? Than Chopper Command in 82 for now-$50? lana_yup.gif
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:45 PM on July 9, 2020 [4 favorites]

They'll lower the prices when people stop buying NBA 2K21 like it's a ventilator and they've got covid-19.

The only limit on the price of a videogame is people's willingness to pay it and these top-tier franchises have no visible limit.
posted by GuyZero at 3:51 PM on July 9, 2020

I just lost $50

Shoulda bet $70, Fizz, you'd have enough for a new game.
posted by axiom at 3:51 PM on July 9, 2020 [15 favorites]

$70 a game seems harder to swallow if one just got over 1500 games on a donation basis from that itch.io Bundle for Racial Justice and Equality.
posted by Hicksu at 4:00 PM on July 9, 2020 [6 favorites]

I guess I live on Steam, and tend to think of game prices as cheaper than they used to be but with more sales and no physical packaging/shipping to deal with.

To me, the idea of a $70 game seems kind of ludicrous when it is the 21st entry in a series that has basically the same gameplay, incrementally improved graphics, and different names on the jerseys.

I tend to buy games in Steam sales and then play the heck out of them. I paid $26 for Dirt Rally in 2015 and got 693 hours of entertainment out of it (before moving on through other on-sale rally racing games and playing for hundreds more hours). A more typical example is Noita, which I paid $18 for and have 177 hours in it so far.
posted by Foosnark at 4:01 PM on July 9, 2020

I mean yeah the Fizz/nightrecordings bet aside this did leap out at me:

Gaming is quickly becoming a prohibitively expensive hobby.

because I think this is true only for a very specific definition of leading-edge AAA-titles-at-launch gaming?

Steam sales, the rise of bundlers like Humble and Fanatical, the Epic store giving away games like candy for the last 18 months as it tries to grow its customer base, the spectacular value of the recent itch.io Racial Justice bundle; it feels like it's never been cheaper to acquire more games than you'll ever play.

(Also one that gets overlooked a lot: Amazon Prime qualifies you for free Twitch Prime membership which also comes with a bunch of claim-once-own-forever free games each month.)
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 4:07 PM on July 9, 2020 [3 favorites]

because I think this is true only for a very specific definition of leading-edge AAA-titles-at-launch gaming?

Yes, this is turning into a discussion about why anyone would listen to new music releases when there's already a catalog of a million albums out there.

For whatever reason, people buy NHL/NFL/NBA/MLB/Ghost Recon games with seemingly no price sensitivity. Although apparently publishers (well, probably just EA) is clearly trying to find the actual ceiling.
posted by GuyZero at 4:11 PM on July 9, 2020 [1 favorite]

There is a very vocal user segment of gamers who want more and more stunning production values in their AAA games, which require more and more money to produce, but don't want to pay more money for them either upfront or through microtransactions. They are also sick of sequels and instead want original IPs, which are a far riskier business proposition.

If gamers want blockbusters, then they will have to deal with the inherent downsides of being a consumer of blockbuster content.

Gamers want it to be one way. But it's the other way.
posted by Ouverture at 4:13 PM on July 9, 2020 [2 favorites]

and costs maybe a dollar in bandwidth to transmit to the user. Net revenue is roughly $40.

Yes, because the dozens (if not hundreds) of people that build/maintain those storefronts all work for free.
posted by sideshow at 4:28 PM on July 9, 2020 [1 favorite]

Yes, because the dozens (if not hundreds) of people that build/maintain those storefronts all work for free.

That was factored into the marketplace cut of 30%.
posted by explosion at 4:53 PM on July 9, 2020

The economics I don't quite understand of these is how the branding works when a separate, non-video game franchise gains such a benefit from the existence of a game—there's a difference between a generic sport game and the FIFA franchised one (where you can play in the official strip of your team, and as your star player), and between any given space opera RPG and a Star Wars one. It seems to me as though there's always been the impulse to tie-in but the links between content brands is stronger than ever because IP is so much stronger than it was in the heroic era of 8 bit games. And what's not being considered when we're thinking of prices relating to closely to labour/distribution costs, or bidding game-per-game is the effect of monopolies by these brands—there's effectively no competition to make or sell the next NBA game, the price will be what it is, and consumers will be price-takers. Disney is pretty well known for amortising their expenses over multiple decades, predatorily—try making a M*ckey M*use game on the sly and see how far you get.

The economics are fundamentally different to producing a one-off indie game, or for a big studio to make a new title untied to anything else, because the power relations over intellectual property are so different.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 4:58 PM on July 9, 2020

Also, raising prices for games that run on the next-gen hardware make sense. If someone just paid $400-500 for a PS5 or Xbox X, they probably want to buy some games with it. At release, there aren't a whole lot of options, so just being a known franchise means that you'll get sales even if you price your games at $70. Are you really going to pause over $10 when you've just paid hundreds, and let your new toy collect dust?
posted by meowzilla at 5:11 PM on July 9, 2020

Something I‘ve been thinking about recently is how I’ll pay $2.50 for a slice of cake, which will please me for about half an hour and then be gone forever. So, $5 for an hour of enjoyment.

And yet I complain about a game costing $60+ when it entertains me for 150+ hours (and may do so again years later). My enjoyment costs less than 50¢ an hour. Really, at the $60 price point, anything over 12 hours is a steal in terms of price per hour, if we are comparing it to the slice of cake.

So while as a poor person I will likely continue to gripe when I can’t afford a game, I am trying to appreciate the value of the ones I do own a bit more.
posted by brook horse at 5:17 PM on July 9, 2020 [3 favorites]

I will admit it's a lot easier to complain about the price of games now that I buy them and then either play free games or scroll through MetaFilter instead of playing them.
posted by ODiV at 5:38 PM on July 9, 2020 [9 favorites]

I've posted this before and nobody read it then, and I don't expect anyone to read it now: Raph Koster on the Cost of Games. It's mentioned in passing in the Polygon article. Koster actually thinks in the long term that the price of games will fall toward zero as more publishers go to a subscription model. If this happens then gamers will of course deride this as greed when it's about survival.

Also, Jim Sterling has nothing valuable to contribute to these discussions. He's a youtube loudmouth.
posted by um at 5:50 PM on July 9, 2020 [5 favorites]

May be the Canadian exchange rate, but it seems that all the games for my kids Nintendo console have been CAN$70 for years.
posted by fimbulvetr at 6:53 PM on July 9, 2020 [1 favorite]

Videogames have an insanely high hours:dollars ratio compared to other forms of entertainment
posted by Jacqueline at 7:59 PM on July 9, 2020 [1 favorite]

Videogames have an insanely high hours:dollars ratio compared to other forms of entertainment

When you take the titles on their own sure, but how well does that hold up if you've got to purchase a latest-gen console or competent gaming pc? I mean obviously those devices are used to play multiple titles, but they don't get any cheaper if you don't.
posted by juv3nal at 9:15 PM on July 9, 2020

Eh, consoles are sunk costs, not incremental or marginal costs, so that doesn’t really figure into the calculation. In theory the console is good for thousands of hours of use making its hourly cost negligible.
posted by GuyZero at 9:53 PM on July 9, 2020

I think ultimately this is unsustainable. I agree that AAA games these days are very expensive and resource-intensive to make. But we're also talking about a consumer base that has stuck resolutely to a specific price point. I'd be curious to hear how game purchasing habits have changed up here in Canada, where we went from $60 games in 2011-2012 to $80 games just a few years later. My guess is that the people who always just bought one game a year don't care, and see it as the natural inflation that everything gets, while the people who buy lots of games are making hard decisions about what they're willing to buy and when.

The reason this feels unsustainable to me is because if more and more people decide they're going to buy fewer games, that ultimately means a bigger chunk of the same pool of revenue going to fewer publishers. And if instead people wait for fire sales to buy the same games they always have, then that negates the additional revenue publishers might have expected to get from raising the price. So this only really works for games where you expect a lot of people to pick it up at launch, either because you don't want the story spoiled for you (The Last of Us Part II says hello), because there's some intrinsic benefit to jumping in at launch (sometimes a thing with multiplayer or service games , but not always), or because you're just so darn excited for the game that you need to play it as soon as possible. There aren't a lot of games that fall into those categories.
posted by chrominance at 10:20 PM on July 9, 2020 [1 favorite]

Well I guess I’m definitely done with playing the hot new AAA games if this happens. I’ve gotten increasingly disinterested in giant sprawling piles of Content over the past few years, playing through AssCreed Ancient Greece after it was on sale in the beginning of the year really reminded me how *thin* these things can feel after a while, with a *ton* of more of the same stuff to do before I get to the end of the (almost always predictable) narrative.

Price like that, there’s gonna be even *more* of a push to pad them out so the Gamerz won’t get their Gates in a wad about how they’re being ripped off. “It costs $70 but it takes 100h for the first play through, even if you skip every cinematic we worked so hard on!”
posted by egypturnash at 10:38 PM on July 9, 2020

It really depends on what you are comparing it to. $70 seems expensive compared with other video games (especially if you're used to PC games, Steam sales, itch.io bundles, and Epic giveaways).

But if you're a sports fan comparing it to the price of a couple tickets to see a single 2-hour NBA game, $70 seems pretty cheap.
posted by straight at 11:39 PM on July 9, 2020

What I'm wondering is whether Stray will be one of the $70 AAA titles, or if they're just talking about the Maddens and Call Of Duties.

Also, whatever Keita Takahashi comes up with next.
posted by acb at 2:42 AM on July 10, 2020

I actually have sympathy for studios trying to make games and having to compete with AAA quality games that get released for free, which are dominating viewership / play time. I think this more than anything else is what has been holding the price of games down.

Destiny 2 - the base game is a free to play MMO, containing lavishly designed world with a decent single player campaign, end game instancing and fascinating raiding content that will challenge your teamwork

League of Legends / Legends of Runeterra / Valorant - all free to play at the highest levels of AAA quality, arguably competitive with the very best in their genre - MOBA, Digital CCG, FPS.

Apex Legends / Call of Duty Warzone are also similarly high budget free to play battle royale games following in the footsteps of PUBG and Fortnite.

The single player campaign in Star Wars the Old Republic (also free) is awesome but kind of dated by today's graphics standards given how old it is.
posted by xdvesper at 3:07 AM on July 10, 2020

May be the Canadian exchange rate, but it seems that all the games for my kids Nintendo console have been CAN$70 for years.
posted by fimbulvetr

It is the conversion. You can now expect to pay $80 CDN with this price increase.

Canada: come for the socialized health care system, stay for the higher standard of living and more expensive day to day shopping.
posted by Fizz at 4:37 AM on July 10, 2020 [2 favorites]

$60 USD is over $81 CAD right now. Brand new PS4 games (like Last of Us 2 or Ghosts of Tsushima) retail for $79.99 CAD. That's not more expensive day to day shopping. unless you want to dive into a discussion on American vs Canadian salaries and purchasing power.
posted by thecjm at 6:45 AM on July 10, 2020

Also, Jim Sterling has nothing valuable to contribute to these discussions. He's a youtube loudmouth.

Well, that's your opinion, but I value his contribution to these discussions.

And regarding your linked article, it doesn't mention season passes, micro-transactions and lootboxes once. As explained in the first Jim Sterling video I posted, a lot of triple AAA games cost a lot more than the sale price of 60 dollars. Season passes, micro-transactions and lootboxes increase the cost of a game a lot.

But if Jim Sterling wrote a blog about this instead of his "loudmouth" youtube videos, you would value his opinion more ?
posted by Pendragon at 7:23 AM on July 10, 2020 [5 favorites]

I'd value his opinion if he ever showed any evidence of doing some research. He won't because he isn't interested in understanding why publishers use season passes and micro-transactions. He's just interested in being mad about it and making his viewers mad about it, because that's how he makes money.
posted by um at 8:07 AM on July 10, 2020

This is going to border on a derail but that ISN'T how he makes money. He doesn't monetize his YouTube videos.

And we all know why triple AAA publishers use season passes, micro-transactions and lootboxes, because they are greedy as fuck.

You don't have to look further than 2K, EA, Ubisoft and Blizzard Activision to see the worst excesses of late-stage capitalism.
posted by Pendragon at 8:45 AM on July 10, 2020 [3 favorites]

$60 USD is over $81 CAD right now. Brand new PS4 games (like Last of Us 2 or Ghosts of Tsushima) retail for $79.99 CAD. That's not more expensive day to day shopping. unless you want to dive into a discussion on American vs Canadian salaries and purchasing power.

Oh that's definitely a discussion that I'd love to have, but for another thread or DM. Hehe.
posted by Fizz at 9:17 AM on July 10, 2020

MetaFilter: the worst excesses of late-stage capitalism.
posted by Fizz at 9:18 AM on July 10, 2020 [1 favorite]

The elephant in the room in video game journalism/discourse is that the game industry as a whole caters to addicts. I am certain there is a large group of NBA fans who will go out and buy an entire console just to buy and play just this one title and will happily keep throwing money at it.

What surprises me is not that this game costs $70, but that they haven't gone with some sort of subscription based model at $5-20 per month. A multi-player game like this could permanently win over a critical mass of super-loyal NBA fans on a global scale for a very very long time.

I refuse to get worked up about the 'greed' of these companies. They're just corporate structures of people doing everything they can to maximize extracted value in a booming market. Addictive gaming mechanics aren't illegal. But as games mature we really need to start talking about how these mechanics work and how they can be regulated. This requires sophisticated academic study and discourse and regulatory oversight...
posted by mit5urugi at 9:32 AM on July 10, 2020

My takeaway from this thread is that it is literally same arguments over the prices of games that has been had for years now, and the $10 price hike has literally no bearing on any of the arguments made here. People are either satisfied with the Fun/$ they get out of video games, or happily playing while still feeling like they're being upsold by a used car salesman when they get into a game that comes with season passes, dlcs, lootboxes, or the need to buy a new version every year for what is often a glorified DLC to the game they bought last year. Nothing in this thread hinges on the extra $10 per game in upfront cost.
posted by jermsplan at 9:42 AM on July 10, 2020 [1 favorite]

What surprises me is not that this game costs $70, but that they haven't gone with some sort of subscription based model at $5-20 per month.

Subscription services haven't really been feasible before. That's changing now, but it's been a hard thing to get consumers to buy into previously. Even if the math works out, people really dislike the idea of a continual payment.

They're just corporate structures of people doing everything they can to maximize extracted value in a booming market.

Nah, they're not doing everything they can. They have a long track record of shielding powerful abusers from consequences which causes lawsuits, settlements, and boycotts, plus drives out talent who are either victims themselves, spoke up for victims, or just can no longer stomach being around that shit anymore.
posted by ODiV at 9:43 AM on July 10, 2020 [1 favorite]

What surprises me is not that this game costs $70, but that they haven't gone with some sort of subscription based model at $5-20 per month.

The console manufacturers are already dipping into that well (XBox Live / PS Plus / Nintendo Online). Even your "addicts" aren't likely to pay for two subscriptions just to play a game.
posted by neckro23 at 9:57 AM on July 10, 2020 [1 favorite]

The idea that games have to cost more because they have fancier graphics and more in-depth gameplay than ever is pure company bullshit. This isn't increasing the price to give more, better content.

I'm perfectly happy to support higher prices if the industry is improving, moving away from constant crunch, unionizing, etc. But they aren't, so, fuck them. This is about making money.

Gamers have a tendency to say "I have 250 hours in ____ so what a great value it was", but I don't really understand that need to justify purchasing decisions. I can't compare Civilization 4 to Firewatch to Fortnite. Enjoy what you want.
posted by graventy at 10:23 AM on July 10, 2020 [1 favorite]

This isn't increasing the price to give more, better content.

"Better" is obviously subjective (there are plenty of people who would say all else being equal fancier graphics is better than less fancy graphics). But these games definitely have more content whether you measure the size of the data on disk, person-hours needed to create it, or just look with your own eyes at how much more artwork there is than in previous games. Keeping up on the graphics upgrade treadmill definitely costs developers more money.
posted by straight at 10:58 AM on July 10, 2020

The elephant in the room in video game journalism/discourse is that the game industry as a whole caters to addicts.

I don't know, addicts is a little bit of a harsh word. I mean, someone pays $60-$70, they not only get a game but to continue to be in that community of people who play that game. That's something to play with actual other people and socialize over. That's something to talk to your friends about. And they get a familiar and comforting experience, which in present circumstances I can totally understand why people would want that.

I'm not really AAA game person and I'm not trying to be patronizing, but this is me trying to understand what drives people to make those decisions based on what I know and my experiences. For example, pre-Endgame, I'd ask myself, "Why am I seeing Marvel movies?" or when I used to go the county fair, I'd also wonder "Why am I going to the fair? It's nearly the same thing every year".
posted by FJT at 11:44 AM on July 10, 2020

As an actual AAA game programmer of some years, a lot of this thread is crazy to me.

But then I've been working in an unsustainable industry, that's going to crash like Atari, and be replaced by FaceBook games, for long enough now that I'm used to it. I'm not even sure what the current mortal threat is anymore. It never pans out as predicted.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:56 AM on July 10, 2020 [2 favorites]

What surprises me is not that this game costs $70, but that they haven't gone with some sort of subscription based model at $5-20 per month.

XBox GamePass (download), Playstation Now (download and streaming), EA Access (download) are all subscription based game library services.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 12:03 PM on July 10, 2020

May be the Canadian exchange rate, but it seems that all the games for my kids Nintendo console have been CAN$70 for years.

I seem to recall buying Super Mario 3 for $70 in 1989 or whenever that was.
posted by emeiji at 12:56 PM on July 10, 2020

What surprises me is not that this game costs $70, but that they haven't gone with some sort of subscription based model at $5-20 per month.

They are _much_ worse than a subscription based model. The NBA 2K games use the loot box (gambling) model: NBA 2K20’s loot boxes aren’t gambling? You wouldn’t know from this trailer.

It's the "whale" approach - extract a higher amount of profit from a smaller customer base.
posted by meowzilla at 2:36 PM on July 10, 2020