Up For Debate - Will next-gen games increase in price?

Written by Chad Norton on Sat, Jun 20, 2020 5:00 PM
System Requirements Optimum 1080p PC Build Low vs Ultra Screenshots GPU Performance Chart CPU List That Meet System Requirements GPU List That Meet System Requirements

It’s been a week since we got the official reveal of Sony’s upcoming next-gen console, the PlayStation 5. Not only did we get to see some actual gameplay from some of the games on show, but we got a good look at the system’s design too. But one thing has yet to be revealed that everyone is anxiously waiting… the price. How much is this thing going to actually cost us?

We’ve had some alleged leaks come out about the actual price of the console being around the $500 mark. But no one has been talking about quite possibly the more important question: the actual prices of next-gen video games themselves. Are they going to increase with next-gen consoles and tech coming out? Or will they decrease from a looming recession on our doorsteps?

Game prices have always been a bit fiddly, especially when it comes to regional pricing in different countries, Death Stranding recently got a lot of flack for insane regional pricing, and one quick google search online will display a game’s price in all their available regions, with adjusted currency conversion rates.

There’s also the worry of a looming recession following the awful COVID-19 pandemic around the globe, less people with jobs and less money to spend means less revenue for these companies to receive. So oftentimes prices will drop to account for it and allow more people to purchase their goods. It’s not a nice thing to talk about, especially with how devastating this situation has been already.

The manufacturing cost for the PlayStation 4 was estimated to be around $380, and the PlayStation 5 is estimated around $450, and that’s not counting any additional costs that come from marketing, shipping etc. And we talk about this a lot but we all know that Sony and Microsoft sell their consoles at a loss in order to get a larger consumer audience, then make their money back through games sales and online subscription services. So surely that should mean that game prices would increase then?

Yet right now, of the few next-gen games we can actually pre-order, the prices haven’t changed at all from the usual current-gen prices, or at least that’s what we can see with current US game prices. So we want to hear from you and if you’ve noticed any major pricing changes for games recently, especially any next-gen titles that we can pre-order already.

Games like Assassins Creed: Valhalla or Dirt 5 haven’t changed from the typical AAA price points. But could this be a calm before the storm? To release the next-gen games at the same price in order to give everyone a chance to buy the console, then increase the game prices after a while to account for larger advancements in tech/console manufacturing?

So what do you think? Have you noticed any price changes in your region? Will game prices increase a lot for the next generation? Or will they stay the same? Or will they even possibly decrease in price? Let’s debate!

Do you think next-gen games will increase in price?

Have you noticed any game prices increase in your region?

If they do by how much will they increase in US dollars?

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
34
Offline
15:10 Jun-22-2020

Hope not.

0
Rep
8
Offline
01:55 Jun-22-2020

In UK, games used to cost £40 on release during last gen, then at some point it went up to £45 and now all new releases cost £50. So yeah, probably. At least in some regions.

1
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
13:11 Jun-23-2020

Yeah, the £39.99 price tag isn't often seen anymore, at least for the "AAA" games...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:24 Jun-23-2020

That's because te value of the British Pound droped.
until 2011-12, 1 british pound = 1.4 euro, now 1 british pound = 1.1 euro

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:25 Jun-23-2020

People check the value of currencies now and throughout the years before you start going on how it's more expensive or cheaper in your country.

0
Rep
24
Offline
01:26 Jun-22-2020

They better not, but then I don't remember the last game I was willing to pay full price for. So, I just wait for a Steam/GOG sale.

1
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
13:12 Jun-23-2020

The best way to do it! AND you get a product that has more bugfixes than it would have at launch :)

0
Rep
9
Offline
22:45 Jun-21-2020

a huge portion of players are only getting games on sales or simply pirating them. increasing game prices will make pirating skyrocket (for the not so wealthy population)

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
22:11 Jun-21-2020

Let the prices hike up... I'll just wait for a sale and get a better (patched) version for cheaper :D
I have patience.

2
Rep
17
Offline
07:54 Jun-21-2020

The playerbase keeps growing, there shouldnt be a need to charge more to ramp up earnings. Once stuff reopens, home entertainment will still be a lot more commonplace as a lot of people wont risk going to the movies, or going out to bars and clubs due to the risk factor.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
13:29 Jun-21-2020

Yeah the player base keeps growing and 99% of people are in 1% of the games.
Just look at franchises. Their sales have either plateued or have fallen compared to previous years, regardless of how good the products is.
And then the majority of AAA games haven't been profitable enough or aren't profitable at all.
People always look at Activision-Blizzard, EA, Rockstar, Epic and Ubisoft, which are the exceptions, there are many other companes and games that don't recouperate their development cost even though they sold millions of copies.

2
Rep
17
Offline
14:15 Jun-21-2020

I'm not saying game companies are immune to the market, quite the opposite in fact. That 1% sets the industry standard price basically, because why would you pay more for one game when others are offering theirs for less? Also, having and being selective when you buy forces companies to compete, which is always, always, always good for the end user.


If you sell millions of copies and dont recover your money that's just bad management. You spent too much doing too little.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:18 Jun-21-2020

Well if you want modern graphics, AAA games have to cost 75-200 million dollars as of 2014-2019, but with new gen consoles that development cost will double in the following couple of years.


Graphics aren't cheap, they currently take 90-95% of the budget of an AAA game and with next gen consoles that Percentage Point will increase on top of increasing the overall budget.


I'm all for staying at the 2004-2006 level of graphics, this will keep AAA games costing under 50 million dollars pretty much guaranteed and then even if they sell "only" 1.2-1.6 million copies at 50-60$, they will be successful. Right now that's impossible and in the future even less so.

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
17:11 Jun-21-2020

Actually I miscalculated. I always tend to forget that the company(developers + publishers) gets only 27-32$ out of 60$ per game sold, so they do have to sell a bit more than 1.2-1.6 million copies with a 50 million dollar budget, but hey with 2004-2006 graphcis, that'd be an extremely high budget, something like 10-20 million is more realistic.

0
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
23:49 Jun-20-2020

Knowing all these companies, they'll increase the price of games to $100 USD and have even more microtransactions and bad DLCs.


With that in mind, games would cost over $150 in AUD. wtf

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:41 Jun-21-2020

dude, just because it's called a dollar, doesn't mean that 150$ AUD has higher value to 100$ USD.

2
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
05:51 Jun-21-2020

All games right now in Australia cost $100 when released.


It's more expensive.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:21 Jun-21-2020

1 usd = 1.5 aud, thus 60 usd = 90 aud, so indeed if games cost 100 aud they are 6.7 usd more expensive(66.7 usd total), you probably have a 10% tax of some sort.

0
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
22:49 Jun-21-2020

10% GST included in prices yeah.


AUD money is bad

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:18 Jun-22-2020

Don't worry 1$ USD = 1.82lv, but then add the 20% VAT and 20% Tax and you get the price in my country. 110-140lv for physical games, 120lv for digital. Now happily, physical games have their price reduced within 2-3x months after release, so if I'm short on cash I just have to wait a little while. After 2-3x months the price is usually drop to around 60-90lv(30-45 euro).

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:19 Jun-22-2020

For digital games, I usually get them from gog or steam, or their respecitve exclusive DRM, but I've bought some keys from key sites. Sure beats giving those DRM companies 30% extra money for them just lending me the game.

0
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
23:14 Jun-22-2020

oof damn.


Alright. And I usually wait for the games to become cheaper anyway. I buy digital mostly.

0
Rep
24
Offline
23:34 Jun-20-2020

No, they'll continue to recoup losses due to inflation and higher development costs through increased monetization. Just like now, but increasingly worse.

0
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
22:22 Jun-20-2020

Considering current trends, I doubt they will increase price of game. I mean we all know they don't want to move from 60USD base price, because that is highest most widely accepted good price. Instead they already get more money out of you via DLC, season pass, microtransactions,... Not to mention that full version is already around 100USD give or take 10 or 20.

0
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
22:24 Jun-20-2020

But then again, we have yet to see which "get rich quick scheme" is next. Live services aren't really working that well for them. But I still doubt they will increase price directly, if they will, they will use some sort of indirect method that is less directly visible.

0
Rep
7
Offline
21:24 Jun-20-2020

Considering that inflation still is going up, I am kinda surprised seeing that games for the last 20 or so years cost 60? bucks or so. But still more people buy these games, so they probably have biggers margins so it probably doesn't matter.

0
Rep
105
Offline
22:35 Jun-20-2020

For me games were from 40 in 2010 and now they are at 60 buck, complete edition cost up to 100 bucks which is insane if you think about it

0
Rep
28
Offline
22:55 Jun-20-2020

Where were new games $40 in 2010? Is this a regional pricing thing? In the US at least, new games have been $60 since 2005, and $50 since the era of the Super Nintendo. I guess maybe DS/3DS/Vita games were in the $40 range in the 2010s?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
13:26 Jun-21-2020

actually pre-2005 there were games that costed more than 60$.

0
Rep
28
Offline
14:00 Jun-21-2020

Sure, occasionally (see: Steel Battalion) but by far the most common price was $50 from the SNES-era on until 2005. N64 prices were somewhat variable at launch before settling into the $50 range for most of the console's lifespan, and NES-era game pricing was the wild west, but I'm more interested in talking about the price of an average new release over long periods of time, not occasional outliers.

0
Rep
1
Offline
admin approved badge
20:33 Jun-20-2020

no they wont selling 100 units at 60 dollar is far better than selling 50 units at 90 dollar and also games are not consoles,phones... were price depends more on the cost of production like materials used and that sort of things...

0
Rep
1
Offline
admin approved badge
20:38 Jun-20-2020

unless you want game devlopers to add money for quality of texures,light,story ? like hey story used now costs more than story used in last gen games XD

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:44 Jun-20-2020

The story costs more when they hire more writers.
Also 90-95% of the budget of AAA games is in the visuals department. And with this generation even more. And in 2005 AAA games costed 5-25 million dollars, in 2014 AAA games costed 75-200 million dollars and now with this gen of consoles and even crazier graphics, AAA games will at the very least double in cost to 150-400 million dollars.


And you can't ignore the development cost. For games(or any other software) R&D and manufacturing are the same thing. Just because it's software doesn't mean you shouldn't treat it like a an actual product.


That's like wanting a ferrari to cost 20,000$ because a toyota corolla costs 20,000$... can't happen.


They have to cover their costs and make a profit to grow and compensate.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
03:24 Jun-21-2020

Wow... Imagine that.... Then you turn around and cry about hardware companies doing the same thing. Funniest **** I've seen all day.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:35 Jun-21-2020

Yeah AMD's total Operating Yearly expense for 2019 is 650 million dollars... in 2006-2007 it was almost 8 BILLION. Go figure... they are spending so much more money, cuz you now 650 Million is totally more than almost 8 Billion... oh wait, it's the other way around.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:38 Jun-21-2020

Oh and AMD's most expensive GPU in 2007 was the HD3870 at 199$... when they spent almost 8 billion dollars in operating expenses(that means all their expenses).

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:39 Jun-21-2020

Adjusted to inflation it's 252$, but still.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:47 Jun-21-2020

almost 8 billion adjusted to inflation is almost 10 billion in 2020 btw.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:45 Jun-20-2020

And games were 60$ in 2005, inflation alone should have increased their price to 81$ in 2020.
Cars have scaled with inflation and rising R&D and manufacturing costs, so have buildings, land, and pretty much everything.

0
Rep
1
Offline
admin approved badge
20:57 Jun-20-2020

you didnt understand my first message do you ? selling 1 millions more copy cost them almost nothing so they will sell it as cheap as they can it not like phones if you sell 1 million more phone you will spend money to make them then sell

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:35 Jun-20-2020

Except that their sales haven't gone up... so yeah.
If you look at franchises with sequels, you'll see that sales have dropped, even if the seaquel is better than the prequel. Why? Well there is more and more and more competition every year. Compared to 15x years ago, nowadays there are about 5x more AAA games and overall there are probably around 20x times more games released a year.


Very few games manage to sell more than before and as I said they usually start selling a little less and a little less less, while their budget is going up and up and up and away.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
03:30 Jun-21-2020

The average price per acre is higher relative to inflation. Building materials have scaled with inflation but the cost of labor has gone up and thus the pricing of building anything has gone up relative to inflation. Cars are a whole different story.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
03:34 Jun-21-2020

Here's to counter your point about cars but nice try


https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2014/10/17/ford-mustang-cost/amp/

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:37 Jun-21-2020

Well we get more, because the quality of most of the parts and the materials used now are much cheaper. the 65 mustang is a metal beast, the modern mustang is full of plastic parts, so that makes it cheaper, whereas the extra technology and mechanical parts added increase the cost back up.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
03:42 Jun-21-2020

My phone copies and pasted the wrong stuff around.
Metal beast? You realized under the front and rear bumper covers (hint) is the actual bumper. There is actually more metal and more of everything in the newer cars. It's the real reason a stripped 2013 mustang body weights more than the previous bodies.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:46 Jun-21-2020

I don't know if there is more metal, but I do know that the body itself is metal, duh. Usually steel or aluminium.


But water pumps, fuel pumps, reservuars, and many other parts are plastic. Injectors have plastic parts, even the pulleys have plastic parts. Plastic crap left and right. And the soft connections are of wrose quality too, usually degrading, low quality rubber or plastic. The body itself isn't that expensive afaik.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
03:46 Jun-21-2020

Old engines were cast iron with iron heads which put on 3-4 hundred pounds MORE over the front axle. That was a lot of the weight the old cars had. Vinyl wrapped plastic dashes in the 60s weren't cheap? Long before you were walking, those dashes were considered cheap. Check out crash videos of those cars too

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:49 Jun-21-2020

Yeah I don't doubt the safty of the new fat cars, that's why they are fat. :D
And american cars aren't really the best example, european and Asian(specifically Japanese at the time, but now Hyundai-Kia-Genesis is doing amazingly well) are good example of cars in the 70s, 80s and 90s(and early 2000s really). The 50s and early to mid 60s do go to the USA though.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
03:49 Jun-21-2020

Fuel pumps are plastic casing with metal internals, water pumps on cheap units are plastic impellers with metal bodies, you can't make everything metal. Just like carbs had rubber and plastic in them along with fuel pumps. You think we got higher fuel pressure from plastic parts?

0
Rep
-19
Offline
03:53 Jun-21-2020

You want safety? Korean cars are partially subsidized to make them competitive. That allows them to include more stuff from the start. Ford likes to hide extra behind options because low costs stuff provides high margins, McLaren has some of the most advanced bodies but lacks other crap like cameras ...

0
Rep
-19
Offline
03:55 Jun-21-2020

And other safety features while using a modified Nissan engine to power it's cars to keep costs down.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
03:56 Jun-21-2020

My p1 has an engine that dates back to a 90s Nissan race car. But it cost as much as a f40 without the cache of a Ferrari.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
03:59 Jun-21-2020

And AMD's operating costs went down because they sold their fab. Come on, that was an easy one. They are a smaller company.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:26 Jun-21-2020

Ok they sold their fans in 2008-2009, their expenses in 2010 were around 4 billion... and that's after they started selling almost no server cpus andnlost a ton of cpu market share to intel, and thus their expenses went down due to getting less chips.
Because when you sell a fraction of the volume you used to sell, your expenses obviously go down.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
13:55 Jun-21-2020

They sold their fab in 2012. Like holy ****, Google this stuff if you don't know it. You brag about using it to come up with the information you need but you can't use it here and keep missing a huge part of AMD's history.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:37 Jun-21-2020

They sold 86% of it in 2009... they sold the last 14% in 2012... it's not the same. They had no controll over their foundries after 2009, because well, they weren't theirs anymore.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
23:54 Jun-21-2020

@psychoman
"Yeah AMD's total Operating Yearly expense for 2019 is 650 million dollars…" i guess another way to say that is annual operating cost. looks like a lot more than you claim. (roughly 10.7x more)
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/operating-expenses

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
08:44 Jun-23-2020

6.7 billion was their revenue.
And yes my bad, I opened AMD's 1st quarter financial report of 2020 instead of the annual of 2019, the annual Operating expenses were were 2.338 Billion. Still not much compared to 8.1 billion 2007 and 7.6 billion in 2006.
Q1 2019: 584 million operating expense
Q2 2019: 562 million
Q3 2019: 591 million
Q4 2019: 601 million
I got them all from AMD's website, NOT a 3rd person website, syntisized them into pricutres for you:
https://imgur.com/a/9Lh5MLi


Also there is that 45% quaterly profit margin(Q4 2019) I calculated with only 1% off. :P

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
08:44 Jun-23-2020

6.7 billion was their revenue.
And yes my bad, I opened AMD's 1st quarter financial report of 2020 instead of the annual of 2019, the annual Operating expenses were were 2.338 Billion. Still not much compared to 8.1 billion 2007 and 7.6 billion in 2006.
Q1 2019: 584 million operating expense
Q2 2019: 562 million
Q3 2019: 591 million
Q4 2019: 601 million
I got them all from AMD's website, NOT a 3rd person website, syntisized them into pricutres for you:
https://imgur.com/a/9Lh5MLi


Also there is that 45% quarterly profit margin(Q4 2019) I calculated with only 1% off. :P

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
11:25 Jun-23-2020

The revenue adds up to 7.23 billion though.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
04:06 Jun-24-2020

You are so full of . A simple "I ed up, my bad" would suffice. Somehow you still try to claim you are right and know more, again.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
04:20 Jun-24-2020

That link literally tells you their operating costs for 2019 were $6.1billion. I linked right to all of that. At the bottom it states that all of 2019 their operating expenses were never below $1 billion. That last time it was, was 3/31/2016 at $900 million.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
04:29 Jun-24-2020

Their revenue was $6.731B for 2019.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/revenue
Their gross profit was $2.868B for 2019.
Their operating expenses for 2006 were $5.6b. 2008 was $7.7b, 2009 was $4.7b.
Your 1% isn't even ****ing close. Your math can't be trusted when you are arguing with printed facts.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:04 Jun-24-2020

I literally sent you all 4x quaterly reports from AMD, NOT from a 3rd party sites, from AMD themselves. I even cut them into pictures to put them into a single link. And I focus on the Operating expenses, because that's what we are paying. Their debts are their own, customers shouldn't be paying the company's debts, but now that they are paid, their profit margins for 2020 haven't gone down...


And yet you still look at a 3rd party site, when AMD have OFFICIAL reports on their site.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
23:28 Jun-24-2020

https://ir.amd.com/financial-information/fundamentals/income-statement
"And yes my bad, I opened AMD's 1st quarter financial report of 2020 instead of the annual of 2019, the annual Operating expenses were were 2.338 Billion."
total operating expenses right from amd are a lot higher. so please try again with your bull**** math. (24th line down since apparently math isnt your strong suite)

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:23 Jun-20-2020

An increase to 90-100$ for the base game would be great, IF there are no DLCs and micro-transactions, only proper Expansions to the game.


Otherwise with all the DLCs games cost around 90-120$ anyway, then add in micro-transactions which are usually an unlimited source of money, only limited by the customer's wallet.

1
Rep
11
Offline
19:22 Jun-20-2020

I would like to have regional prices on all games if they going to do that.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:43 Jun-20-2020

Regional prices sure, but only based on the taxes, not on living standards or average/mode salaries or anything like that.

0
Rep
45
Offline
admin approved badge
18:18 Jun-20-2020

I don't know, on average I end up spending like $70-$80 on most AAA games anyway because of DLC. I'm okay with that for now but I think it would suck if the cost of games went up.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:14 Jun-20-2020

They should.

1
Rep
28
Offline
18:47 Jun-20-2020

You're absolutely correct. $60 became the average price point during the 360/PS3 generation in 2005, an increase of $10 from the $50 price point the previous gen. Even ignoring increasing dev costs, $60 in 2005 money is worth $81 today due to inflation, but new games still only cost $60. An increase to $70 would certainly be fair at this point, although I do wish they'd give us whole games and stop charging extra for DLC if they're going to do so.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:39 Jun-20-2020

I'd say we get the WHOLE game for 90-120$ depending on the budget of the AAA game. And the only extra content should be proper Expansions.
What I define as a minimum proper expansion: 25%+ of the game length with 75%+ of the content and potentially some new content type.
The easiest example I can give is a racing game. An exapnsion would have at least 25% more circuits of every race type(or 75% of the race types), with at least 25% more cars and potentially a new racing type.


That's just an example of the bare minimum in MY opinion for an expansion that costs 25% of the price of the game.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:44 Jun-20-2020

And yeah inflation alone should bring the price of games to what you said(81$).

0
Rep
55
Offline
17:41 Jun-20-2020

Why should they? With digital distribution increasing year-on-year and companies already giving just a base experience for $60 USD with enhanced digital versions costing as much as $120, there is no justification for games to get a price hike. For a moment, just stop and think, what other mediums of media entertainment cost that ludicrously much?

7
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:20 Jun-20-2020

If we have to talk about cost, then we should talk about how many hours you get per dollar. What other entertainment media gives you between 20 and 2000 hours of entertainment for 60$?


Also AAA games now cost 75-200 million to develop, with next gen consoles that price will most likely double at the very least 2-3x years into the life cycle of consoles at the latest. Back in 2005 when that 60$ standard was set, AAA video games used to cost 5-25 million dollars


And yes overall sales are increasing, but compared to 15 years ago, the amount of competition is incomparable. Back then there were 20x times less games. And this reflects. It's easy to see it in franchises with sequels. Many have plateued, while many others have also dropped in sales count, while their budget is getting bigger

0
Rep
10
Offline
21:01 Jun-20-2020

Problem is most of 60 bucks games aren't worth that much money, and if they are long they are usually just bloated

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:47 Jun-20-2020

I'd say if there is 4 hours of quality content or more they are worth it at 60$.

0
Rep
10
Offline
11:07 Jun-21-2020

Bruh I don't know a single AAA game with 4h length that's worth 60 bucks.

0
Rep
55
Offline
15:26 Jun-21-2020

Dude I am sorry but I have to disagree on your comment reply to The8man. 4 hpurs is in no way worth $60! Yes quality matters over quantity but The Order 1886 is not worth $60. AC Odyssey gave me 156 hours of content but boy that could have been trimmed to 35 hours and it I would have paid $60. AC Odyssey was all about quantity. A game has to be balanced.


A very good game that went under the radar is A Plague Tale: Innocence with about 11 to 12 hours of content and would have been worth $60 as it is balanced in terms of quality and quantity.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:50 Jun-21-2020

But games in the 90s and early 2000s were 50-60$ and they were about 4-6 hours(some even less). I don't see the problem.

0
Rep
55
Offline
07:17 Jun-22-2020

It was the 90s is not a valid excuse for a lot of the wrong practices that occurred in the naughty 90s my man

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
14:28 Jun-23-2020

Plus the often-forgotten fact that video games aren't just for nerds and boys anymore - video games sell to a MUCH wider audience these days, so that money goes much further.

1
Rep
39
Offline
17:23 Jun-20-2020

Will my Boss increase my salary too because of that? One can only hope...

9
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:21 Jun-20-2020

Will you do more productive work and make your boss more money per hour so that your salary can increase?

1
Rep
32
Offline
19:32 Jun-20-2020

It's not always like that though. In a lot of occations companies had amazing profits, yet they decided to reduce the salaries due to the crisis (some years ago) or covid now. As well as there is a great profit to some companies due to the automatization process of production and people get fired cause their salary was too high. And there are also occations (talking from experience) were I was working 14-16 hours and I got nothing as I should.

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:41 Jun-20-2020

Then you should ask for more money, or if they screw you over you should start looking for another job on the side and then when you find one, resign from the current one. Don't be a boomer stuck at the same place regardless of how the conditions change(specially to worse) and how much they screw you over.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:42 Jun-20-2020

The way my father pays his workers is like this:
Base salary(with pension and health care included as a bonus) + 30% of the money they earn him.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:42 Jun-20-2020

Also I'm researching how to work WITH companies, instead of FOR companies.

0
Rep
116
Offline
00:02 Jun-21-2020

Oh if everything were that easy and everyone had a luxury to do that. Once you actually start living for yourself you figure out how monumentally difficult it can be to willingly resign from the financial security provided by your current job for a chance of trying out somewhere else. Especially when you live in a place where you don't have many other opportunities to chose without traveling or moving to a different part of the country.

3
Rep
116
Offline
00:06 Jun-21-2020

You only work with companies if you yourself own a company of a similar stature, otherwise you either work for them or don't work at all, and the latter one is likely not a choice you'd make. It's a game of lesser evils, and only few are the lucky ones who get to stick themselves with where they want to be. Chances that you're going to end up working a job you never planed to are much higher than the one you planned and expected for.

1
Rep
116
Offline
00:14 Jun-21-2020

"Just quit your job if you don't like it" sounds like an absurdly obvious thing to do, and very straightforward, but only for those who've never actually had to 'fend for themselves' so to say. Once you actually have to worry for your food and the roof over your head, just quitting that job becomes a monumental task and a huge gamble, with your own life on the stakes, or your whole family if you have one. The world is not so black and white.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:14 Jun-21-2020

My friend changed his job 3x times in 2x years, until he found a company he liked. Didn't seem all too hard. But hey he is overqualified for all the programming positions, so yeah. He is now leading a team, I think his title is software architect or something like that. He is the same age as me btw, 21.


So yeah if you make sure to know how to do your job it shouldn't be hard.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:15 Jun-21-2020

On the other hand if you don't have many options, because well there aren't many companies in your sphere of expertise, then I can understand and that sucks tbh.

0
Rep
-6
Offline
17:18 Jun-20-2020

since the buttons on the price increase doesn't work xd I would say it would increase by 10 dollars but that should happen cause a lot of poeple who will by a console for 600 dollars won't be happy to pay extra I think, it's jsut not fair, the performance is always increase and we never needed to pay more

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:31 Jun-20-2020

No, we needed to pay more and have needed to pay more since 2013, but we didn't.
When the 60$ per game standard was set AAA games costed 5-25 million dollars to develop on average.
From 2014-2020 AAA games now cost 75-200 million dollars to develop on average. The sales have NOT incresed 7-25x times per game at all.


The price of the base AAA game should be 90-100$(hell maybe even 120$, depends on the budget of the game), but without any micro-transactions and without DLCs, only proper Expansions.

0
Rep
-6
Offline
22:15 Jun-20-2020

I mean some people can't even buy a new PC build for 500-600eur so imagine paying for such game like Fifa or Nba the 100 or more euros every year when it's going to cost 1/5 of your possible new PC, that would be an insane person

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:26 Jun-20-2020

When you buy a 50 euro pritner the ink ends up being more expensive after the 2nd refilling, but you don't stop buying ink, now do you?
Same with games. Weather a game is 60 euro or 100 euro, your games will become more expensive than your PC even if you buy one game a month at 60 euro.

0
Rep
7
Offline
23:41 Jun-20-2020

Yeah but all of the AAA titles that spend so much money on development usually make their money tri fold. Take RDR2: it took 644 Million dollars to make the game and it 3 months it sold 29 million copies. That's over a billion and a half dollars, without accounting for MTX and the re-release on PC.

0
Rep
7
Offline
23:46 Jun-20-2020

My point is that nobody is crazy enough to sale a game for 100-120$ (base price) because nobody will spend that much money on a game. Even though the price we pay for games hasn't changed, their profits have increased thanks to Live Service games, DLC, Expansions, MTX, etc. so why should we pay more?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:08 Jun-21-2020

Except that those games that make their money tri-fold are the exception to the rule. Not every game is GTA V or Call of Duty. True those games can even sell at 30$ and be financially successful, but again those are the exceptions.


Square enix lost money on all of the Tomb Raider Trilogy(keep in mind they can't wait years to break even and profit, they need to profit within a month to a quarter at the latest), the lost money on Hitman 2012 and Hitman 1 reboot.


Crysis 2 and 3 weren't successful enough, neither was Ryse son of Rome, so Crytek had to close most of their studios. Including the one in Bulgaria(me crying inside as a future game/engine developer).

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
03:10 Jun-21-2020

Like the reason there are so few AAA companies left is because the rest fail. Sure they own tons of studios, but they own those studios because those studios failed on their own. And they close many of them down because they are NOT profitable or NOT profitable enough.


Keep in mind a AAA game is a big risk to take for a company, and companies are non-stop developing projects of potential games that don't get greenlight, on top of having to compensate for another game potentionally flopping, they need to make more money than the game costed. At the very least they need more money than the game costed, because the next one will be more expensive.

0
Rep
7
Offline
10:34 Jun-22-2020

Square Enix did not lose money on Tomb Raider.
Tomb Raider (2013) cost 100M$ to make and sold 1M copies within 48 hours and 6.5 within the month-290M profit in just a month.
Shadow Of The Tomb Raider cost 135M$ pet total and sold 4.5 M copies
From what I heard the game was pretty bad and it launched at the same

1
Rep
7
Offline
10:41 Jun-22-2020

As Just Cause 4 so you can see why it underperformed. It's SE's fault for not making a better quality game, not ours for not paying more.
I couldn't find any exact numbers for Rise of The TR , but judging from the other 2 games I'd say it took somewhere around 100-140$ to make and with it selling 7M copies, I'd say it

1
Rep
7
Offline
10:47 Jun-22-2020

Did pretty good. One reason for gaming studios to close is because their games aren't as profitable, like Visceral Studios (Dead Space) which was shut down by EA because they couldn't implement MTX, or other monetization schemes.That's the same reason we haven't seen another Splinter Cell game from ubisoft

1
Rep
7
Offline
10:51 Jun-22-2020

Overall all the Studios that spend hundreds of Million of Dollars on games are studios that have a lot of money to spend on games and know they can make a good profit from them (provided they don't f it up like TLoU 2 or Ghost Recon BP), and those that can't, result to kick starters or other studios for help

1
Rep
7
Offline
10:55 Jun-22-2020

It's a harsh market, but us consumers can't afford to spend 100+ dollars on a game, and Game Studios can't afford to lose their costumers.


Sorry for the long list of replies, but I wanted to explain my point as clear and explicit as possible while trying to answer all your counter arguments.

1

Can They Run... |

| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i7-870 Quad 2.93GHz GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Edition 12GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i9-10900X 10-Core 3.7GHz GeForce RTX 2070 Super Gigabyte Gaming OC 3X 8GB 32GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-7700K 4-Core 4.2GHz Intel HD Graphics 630 Mobile 32GB
0% No [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-4770K 4-Core 3.5GHz GeForce RTX 2080 EVGA XC Gaming 8GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Zotac Gaming 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-11400H 6-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile 8GB
| 30FPS, 720p
Core i7-5500U 2-Core 2.4GHz GeForce 940M 2GB 8GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-3770 4-Core 3.4GHz GeForce GTX 1070 Gigabyte G1 Gaming 8GB Edition 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-10750H 6-Core 2.60GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-6400 2.7GHz GeForce GTX 1050 8GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Core i5-9600K 6-Core 3.7GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Asus ROG Strix Gaming OC 6GB 32GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
FX-6300 GeForce GTX 760 24GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 30FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i5-11400H 6-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile 8GB
| 30FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-11400H 6-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile 8GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-11400H 6-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile 8GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-11400H 6-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile 8GB
100% Yes [3 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 720p
Athlon II X4 640 Radeon RX 470 Asus ROG Strix Gaming OC 4GB 8GB
100% Yes [2 votes]