4 ms·
More recently: micro-transactions/subscriptions But historically I'd bet it came down to the fact that games are simply more expensive than movies; a AAA game
by brundolf 4y ago
More recently: micro-transactions/subscriptions
But historically I'd bet it came down to the fact that games are simply more expensive than movies; a AAA game has cost $60 for the past decade and a half, while a movie ticket is ~$10 (or a DVD is ~$20, or you could just watch it on your existing cable or now streaming subscriptions)
Many of the biggest games (especially multiplayer) are now free to play + in-game purchases, but there are still plenty of big, prestige, $60 single-player games coming out every year
- mattbrewsbytes 4y agoI think this is the right answer, big AAA games moved to seasonal/battle pass models. In-game purchases at much smaller price points for gear/cosmetics hits the disposable income decision threshold much quicker than a $60 full game you may end up not liking. You already like the game you're playing so its easier to get you to spend $10-20 here and there and those are on things you use/wear in game. Video games are more engaging than movies because of a feedback loop. A movie is a scripted adventure that ends and its done, some are re-watchable but 2nd to Nth time thru won't ever evoke the same feelings as first time. With a video game there are adventures to go on, gear to chase, puzzles to solve, high scores to try and top and in a lot of cases you're creating or customizing something in game that gives you more of a sense of ownership. This feeling is kind of like having collectibles and your own customizable toy chest. Even playing through games a 2nd time or repeating activities in-game will have varied outcomes, especially if you're playing with others and overcome some challenge in a new way.