this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
13 points (93.3% liked)

Xbox

5273 readers
24 users here now

An Xbox community for Lemmy!


UNIVERSAL XBOX SUBSCRIBE LINK - CLICK HERE

Click this to open this community in your Specific Instance, then click Subscribe


Rules:


QUICK START GUIDE AND RULES:

New to Lemmy?

View the Getting Started Guide

Community Finder


Attributions:

Xbox Logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XBOX_logo_2012.svg

Banner : https://www.xbox.com/en-us/wallpapers/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 23 points 1 year ago

I'm already not buying $70 games, I'm not gonna buy them at $80 or $90 either.

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Interestingly other publications have an additional quote

“Just as the recession doesn’t stop people from going to the cinema or going to their favourite artist’s concert, high-quality games will continue to sell well,” he said.

Kind of embarrassing to have a company president who doesn't understand the Econ 101 concept of normal goods.

[–] arashikage@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Give us less and charge us more, that's the big gaming company MO

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't even mind if I was given less and charged more if the fucking industry didn't push devs to suicidality every time the execs overpromise on release targets.

[–] McScience@discuss.online 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but I kinda agree.

I paid $60 for games back when a bottle of coke in a vending machine was 25 cents. Now I regularly see sodas in vending machines at $1.50 but games are still $60? Don't get me wrong I'm grateful, but when you have a 0% price increase over a period of time where inflation increases by 150%+ everywhere else, it's hardly surprising the companies are looking for new ways to monetize.

[–] lustyargonian@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

Devil's devil's advocate; gaming has grown many times over. GTA 3 sold 15M copies in 7 years, GTA 4 sold 6M copies in a week, GTA 5 sold 11M copies in 24 hours.

[–] Rough_N_Ready@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The sheer volume they sell now compared to previously does way more than make up for inflation.

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What you're missing is that you don't simply buy a $60 game anymore. You used to buy a $60 and that was that. Now you buy the game and have to $5 or $20 here and there for half of the content.

He said " The company's major releases this year - Exoprimal, Resident Evil 4 Remake, and Street Fighter 6 - were priced at $60 at launch. " Meanwhile just the TMNT content of Street Fighter 6 costs $100 to get all of it.

Zero reason to increase game prices unless they want to get rid of MTX. Even single player games have MTX. They're making more money than ever.

[–] Crystal_Shards64@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Maybe not the best comparison considering in the past couple years inflation on food has been artificially inflated due to corporate greed.

I wouldn't mind paying slightly more for games if the money was actually going into developers pockets.

All that being said though, unless it's a very specific title, I've been waiting for sales for the past decade. I only buy a game or two for full price a year (usually Nintendo because they rarely do sales)

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The $60 price tag has not kept up with inflation. I'd gladly pay more if it meant I got a better game.

If $60 dollars was fair for a game in 2013 $80 should be fair in 2023.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

it's only an acceptable trade if the games then also don't have micro transactions. it's not like these companies aren't profitable...

[–] slimerancher@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I agree with you. The development cost is constantly increasing. Games are taking hundreds of millions to make, so his quote makes sense. Wasn't Phil talking about something similar in the leaked email, that people were talking about a day or so ago.

Though, as consumers, I understand people's reaction to this too, no one wants to pay more when they can pay less. But I would rather they increase the cost, instead of going the micro-transactions route (for single player games).

Must be time for a yacht upgrade

[–] ppb1701@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@lemmy.world While their costs have increased dramatically, wages have overall not kept up. Food or game, people will pick food. As a side pet peeve, how about more companies actually release a non broken day 1 game that doesn't need a zillion patches to be playable first?

[–] AlexanderTheGreat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I'm even okay with it being a little broken (very little) as long as everything in the game is included in the price and I don't have to microtransaction my way to a full game.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Salaries are too low, say employees everywhere.

Game prices are too high, say gamers everywhere.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I promise if games go above 60 as the norm I'll solely rely on pirating.