4 ms·

> He added: "Growth has been fuelled by the dominance of free content and in-game monetisation, which expands the adoption of games but also removes the cap on

> He added: "Growth has been fuelled by the dominance of free content and in-game monetisation, which expands the adoption of games but also removes the cap on spending for those gamers that are really engaged in the experiences.” I always wonder if these experiences can be priced accordingly Flagship games have been priced at $60 for 25 years and should be priced higher to reflect a variety of other things, but their primary purchasers dont have the money for more. People really into games dont have money, and children’s parents dont respect the medium to want to pay more. (Fortunately there is the aging demographic of everyone else, who do have money and dont mind preordering) But with the price of a game being mentally fixed in the collective conscious I wodber what the average price per user is now with the in game transactions factored in

jjoonathan 8y ago
Consoles exclusives are the new way to charge >$60 for a AAA single-player game (some of the game's price is hidden in the hardware purchase). It's terribly inefficient in every possible way, but it appears to work.
- leddt 8y ago
  Aren't many consoles sold at or near (or even below) cost, on the assumption that software sales will make up for it? Also, how would a console sold by Sony or Microsoft subsidize in any way a game sold by a third party publisher?
  - Gaelan 8y ago
    Presumably Sony/MS pay the publishers to make the game exclusive to their console.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    I don't think so. Evidence #1: The ever-present existence of potato masher PC configurations (cheaper and more powerful than a console in qty 1) makes me doubt that consoles are loss leaders. The crypto bubble played with that math but it seems to generally hold. Evidence #2: Sony keeps bragging about how many consoles their investments in first-party game studios have been able to move. Importantly: that's how they phrase it. Evidence #3: This particular narrative has held true for several people in my bubble, including myself. People will buy a console to play Bloodborne, Horizon Zero Dawn, or God of War. The center-of-mass for single-player narrative-driven AAAs seems to be moving away from the PC, and the ones that stay on the PC seem to be bogged down with "alternative" monetization models.
michaelbuckbee 8y ago
Respectfully, there's another number in the equation: install base. 25 years ago there was a much smaller base of game systems and capable PCs than exists today. At basically 0 incremental cost for each additional copy produced the big game publishers are still making more money than they did previously.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
> their primary purchasers dont have the money for more. There's some of that, but I think it's more just gamer entitlement. Any company that prices a game above $60 will be crucified on Reddit, YouTube, and the gaming media, because games are "supposed to" cost $60 and anything more than that is "greedy". Then the same people will say they don't understand why everything has microtransactions now. Gamers got EA voted "worst company in America" two years running over companies that actually, literally killed people.
shittyadmin 8y ago
They're hocking near-zero marginal cost goods and their pricing is already high enough to deny potential consumer base - despite technically being able to afford it, I rarely buy AAA titles until they're available at big discounts or from less than reputable 3rd parties, I just don't see most games as that valuable, it's a bit of a gamble whether they're even worth playing. Compare this with $10/mo for Netflix or Spotify - gamers are getting a rough deal already just buying a few AAA titles a year. Personally I'm all for microtransactions so long as they don't impact gameplay in unfair ways - many developers are already doing this quite successfully, Fortnite and Overwatch being popular and generally well liked examples.
gnopgnip 8y ago
Flagship games have DLC, or season passes that makes the actual cost more than $60 for early buyers, and ekes out extra revenue for later sales.

jjoonathan 8y ago

Consoles exclusives are the new way to charge >$60 for a AAA single-player game (some of the game's price is hidden in the hardware purchase). It's terribly inefficient in every possible way, but it appears to work.

leddt 8y ago
Aren't many consoles sold at or near (or even below) cost, on the assumption that software sales will make up for it? Also, how would a console sold by Sony or Microsoft subsidize in any way a game sold by a third party publisher?
- Gaelan 8y ago
  Presumably Sony/MS pay the publishers to make the game exclusive to their console.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  I don't think so. Evidence #1: The ever-present existence of potato masher PC configurations (cheaper and more powerful than a console in qty 1) makes me doubt that consoles are loss leaders. The crypto bubble played with that math but it seems to generally hold. Evidence #2: Sony keeps bragging about how many consoles their investments in first-party game studios have been able to move. Importantly: that's how they phrase it. Evidence #3: This particular narrative has held true for several people in my bubble, including myself. People will buy a console to play Bloodborne, Horizon Zero Dawn, or God of War. The center-of-mass for single-player narrative-driven AAAs seems to be moving away from the PC, and the ones that stay on the PC seem to be bogged down with "alternative" monetization models.

michaelbuckbee 8y ago

Respectfully, there's another number in the equation: install base. 25 years ago there was a much smaller base of game systems and capable PCs than exists today. At basically 0 incremental cost for each additional copy produced the big game publishers are still making more money than they did previously.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

> their primary purchasers dont have the money for more. There's some of that, but I think it's more just gamer entitlement. Any company that prices a game above $60 will be crucified on Reddit, YouTube, and the gaming media, because games are "supposed to" cost $60 and anything more than that is "greedy". Then the same people will say they don't understand why everything has microtransactions now. Gamers got EA voted "worst company in America" two years running over companies that actually, literally killed people.

shittyadmin 8y ago

They're hocking near-zero marginal cost goods and their pricing is already high enough to deny potential consumer base - despite technically being able to afford it, I rarely buy AAA titles until they're available at big discounts or from less than reputable 3rd parties, I just don't see most games as that valuable, it's a bit of a gamble whether they're even worth playing. Compare this with $10/mo for Netflix or Spotify - gamers are getting a rough deal already just buying a few AAA titles a year. Personally I'm all for microtransactions so long as they don't impact gameplay in unfair ways - many developers are already doing this quite successfully, Fortnite and Overwatch being popular and generally well liked examples.

gnopgnip 8y ago

Flagship games have DLC, or season passes that makes the actual cost more than $60 for early buyers, and ekes out extra revenue for later sales.