3 ms·

Extra Credits did a good video on AAA game pricing recently (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWGQCzAtl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWGQCzAtl8) that talks

Extra Credits did a good video on AAA game pricing recently (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWGQCzAtl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWGQCzAtl8) that talks about why developers are going down the lootbox and microtransaction roads. Their argument is basically that AAA games are just way too cheap. The price has been at $60 for a long time, and even though the market has expanded since then, it's still not enough to cover the development costs, which have skyrocketed. Finding other revenue streams has become a necessity. The alternative would be $80 or $100 AAA games.

CivBase 9y ago
I am a fan of Extra Credits, but I was actually disapointed in that particular video. I thought they failed to acknowledge many other aspects of video game monetization. I encourage you to check out Jim Sterling's video "The Sixty Dollar Myth" as a good argument for the other side. https://youtu.be/pHSso2vufPM https://youtu.be/pHSso2vufPM
watwut 9y ago
There is going to be a point where the price is too big and devs have to sacrifice some bells and whistles. You can rank up dev costs till infinity, but customers won't pay till infinity.
JBlue42 9y ago
The crazy thing is that the workers actually creating those games are worked to the bone to get them done by the deadlines. The economic model is abusive on both sides (worker and player).
onion2k 9y ago
The alternative would be $80 or $100 AAA games. Or lowering production costs. Less reliance on expensive licenses and must-be-bigger-than-the-last-one sequels and more original content instead would be a good starting point.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Relying on more original content would actually be more expensive if they were trying to maintain the same quality. Having to develop a new IP and new story from scratch, plus new assets and models, plus the major chance that it might not actually succeed... it's a risk-averse model. Everyone knows that CoD will sell, or Madden, or GTA. It's guaranteed money, even if it's a relatively small profit. Small profit is better than maybe zero maybe negative.
  - onion2k 9y ago
    CoD, Madden and GTA are big enough to make a profit at $60 though. We're not talking about those titles really. We're talking about the games that try to compete with them, and don't sell enough $60 copies to be worthwhile. Those are the games that need to reduce their production costs, or just not get made, rather than introducing things like loot boxes.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Or lowering production costs. Less reliance on expensive licenses and must-be-bigger-than-the-last-one sequels and more original content instead would be a good starting point. More likely, that would increase production costs. People pay for "expensive" licenses only when they are preceived to be a cheap way to buy an audience that will pay for the game, avoiding licenses and franchises in favor of "more original content" means more costs for content and more cost for marketing.

CivBase 9y ago

I am a fan of Extra Credits, but I was actually disapointed in that particular video. I thought they failed to acknowledge many other aspects of video game monetization. I encourage you to check out Jim Sterling's video "The Sixty Dollar Myth" as a good argument for the other side. https://youtu.be/pHSso2vufPM https://youtu.be/pHSso2vufPM

watwut 9y ago

There is going to be a point where the price is too big and devs have to sacrifice some bells and whistles. You can rank up dev costs till infinity, but customers won't pay till infinity.

JBlue42 9y ago

The crazy thing is that the workers actually creating those games are worked to the bone to get them done by the deadlines. The economic model is abusive on both sides (worker and player).

onion2k 9y ago

The alternative would be $80 or $100 AAA games. Or lowering production costs. Less reliance on expensive licenses and must-be-bigger-than-the-last-one sequels and more original content instead would be a good starting point.

freehunter 9y ago
Relying on more original content would actually be more expensive if they were trying to maintain the same quality. Having to develop a new IP and new story from scratch, plus new assets and models, plus the major chance that it might not actually succeed... it's a risk-averse model. Everyone knows that CoD will sell, or Madden, or GTA. It's guaranteed money, even if it's a relatively small profit. Small profit is better than maybe zero maybe negative.
- onion2k 9y ago
  CoD, Madden and GTA are big enough to make a profit at $60 though. We're not talking about those titles really. We're talking about the games that try to compete with them, and don't sell enough $60 copies to be worthwhile. Those are the games that need to reduce their production costs, or just not get made, rather than introducing things like loot boxes.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Or lowering production costs. Less reliance on expensive licenses and must-be-bigger-than-the-last-one sequels and more original content instead would be a good starting point. More likely, that would increase production costs. People pay for "expensive" licenses only when they are preceived to be a cheap way to buy an audience that will pay for the game, avoiding licenses and franchises in favor of "more original content" means more costs for content and more cost for marketing.