Larian Do you Consider Larian an AAA game Studio?

[Stingray]

Generally speaking, games cost less than they ever have. $70 in today's dollars is $38.31 in the year 2000 and $23.94 in 1985. Would have been great to get games for that little back then. So yeah defending $70 is completely unnecessary, but the interesting part of that article is how Ubisoft is claiming Skull and Bones (a huge flop that's priced the same as other AAA games anyway) is "AAAA", which is bizarre. If it was a game that was even trying to be revolutionary, and/or if it cost $80+, then it'd at least make a little bit of sense.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yeah we get it but man the Industry exes sure love consumers like you.

Almost as bad as the whales that spend thousands of dollars on cosmetic DLC.

 

[JFarrell71]

Yeah we get it but man the Industry exes sure love consumers like you.

Almost as bad as the whales that spend thousands of dollars on cosmetic DLC.

That's just dumb. Things go up in price, or haven't you noticed?

 

[bjon045]

That's just dumb. Things go up in price, or haven't you noticed?

Yes, you are correct. $70 is the natural evolution of market forces in video games. It's not at all because of inflation or anything similar though. It is purely because there is a significant number of people who can pay that price without being concerned.

But it is still bullshit for us consumers and some people should be angry about it - unless you are patient (like me) and don't mind waiting till the price drops 50% or more. Cost/price is much less irrelevent for a Digital product with a market that is nowhere near saturation. If you lower the price you get lower revenue per unit but more sales. If you increase the price you get the opposite. A additional digital product costs NOTHING to produce. Whether you make 1 or 1 billion copies the cost is exactly the same. If the price was cost based then regional pricing wouldn't be a thing. Little Miguel in Venezuela is paying 100 bolivar/pesos to buy GTA6 when you paid $70 USD!!!

Net revenues for these marquee games is HIGHER than ever before!!! The size of the video game market continues to grow and grow every single year. This has more than offset the increase in developers/artists/creatives salaries. Publishers want bigger, flasher and more expensive games which (often) leads to bigger and bigger profits. Even games with middling reviews are often still making massive profits (like Starfield). A problem these publishers have is they also produce games that are absolute steaming piles of shit that they spent a small fortune on making. If they make a couple or more of these turds in a row then it nearly always leads to mass redundancies.

When the majority of AAA publishers increase their price to $70 it is a largely a win-win for them all as consumers have less to choose from in the AAA space at a given price point. It also gives the publishers more room to discount their games in the future to give each game a longer sales tail.

There is one reason why they sell their game for $70 now and it is because they can. While it is $70 in the US it is not $70 in most countries. The whole reason they have regional pricing is so they can maximise the sales per region i.e. set the maximum possible price for that region where they think they can get good sales in year one and then lower the price progressively and sell to everyone else.

Now if they launched GTA6 at $30 dollars what would happen? They would likely have the highest sales they have ever had and likely post a record profit for that year. However, long term they would make less overall profit since all the people waiting for 50% would have bought it on day 1 and they wouldn't have got the extra unit price for the early birds.

So $70 for the next 5 years and then maybe we will hit $80 and so on.

 

[Redglyph]

There is one reason why they sell their game for $70 now and it is because they can. While it is $70 in the US it is not $70 in most countries. The whole reason they have regional pricing is so they can maximise the sales per region i.e. set the maximum possible price for that region where they think they can get good sales in year one and then lower the price progressively and sell to everyone else.

Any company tries to maximize the profit by adjusting the price and make the supply meet the demand, it would be stupid not to. The regional pricing isn't really an argument here.

You say that publishers set artificially high prices in wealthy countries because people can afford to pay, but I don't think it makes any sense. There's the notion of substitute goods, for one: other entertainment industries are actually flourishing, while the sales in the gaming industry are decreasing. Another important factor is the quantity. Yes, some people who can afford it will pay more, but the overall number of buyers will dramatically drop, and your total revenue will fall. Companies can only fix the price they want when customers don't have a choice and must buy the product, which isn't a scenario we often see where monopolies are restricted by law and certainly not the case here.

Said otherwise, if the prices were artificially high, smarter publishers would jump on the opportunity to sell at a better price and get that part of the market.

Finally, do we really know that the net revenues are higher than ever? Are they public for enough companies for us to claim this? Or is it based on a few, isolated cases? From what I've heard, the current situation in the video industry is dire. The post-pandemic has put a lot of companies in a difficult spot because the inflation increased the wages and lowered the purchasing power while the pandemic boost that made them invest more has now subsided.

Saying that publishers set the price 'because they can' seems to be an oversimplification of the economy behind it and sounds more like a complot theory to me.

 

[sakichop]

GTA is a terrible example. Of course when you sell almost 200 million copies you can charge less. Reality is though that most even triple A games are lucky to sell 10% of that. Elden ring sold 23 million and they are ecstatic.

What would happen though if GTA sold for $30. Rockstar would be fine but several AA and indie dev’s would go under only being able to charge 15-20 for AA and probably 10 or less for indies. The small guys would get killed because they won’t have the mass sales of the rockstars of the world.

IMO $70 is more than fair. I’ve said before that my parents bought me Defender for the Atari 2600 in the early 80’s for 39.99. Using an inflation calculator that works out to just under $150 today. Let’s not forget gaming is a hobby, luxury, not a necessity. I get irritated when food and utility prices spike not when video games go up 10 bucks.

Not to mention it’s very rare that you need to pay full price for games. You can almost always find a deal especially if your willing to wait for the game to be content complete and patched. Then your looking at a 50%ish discount albeit a year or 2 after release.

 

[bjon045]

Any company tries to maximize the profit by adjusting the price and make the supply meet the demand, it would be stupid not to. The regional pricing isn't really an argument here.

You say that publishers set artificially high prices in wealthy countries because people can afford to pay, but I don't think it makes any sense. There's the notion of substitute goods, for one: other entertainment industries are actually flourishing, while the sales in the gaming industry are decreasing. Another important factor is the quantity. Yes, some people who can afford it will pay more, but the overall number of buyers will dramatically drop, and your total revenue will fall. Companies can only fix the price they want when customers don't have a choice and must buy the product, which isn't a scenario we often see where monopolies are restricted by law and certainly not the case here.

Said otherwise, if the prices were artificially high, smarter publishers would jump on the opportunity to sell at a better price and get that part of the market.

Finally, do we really know that the net revenues are higher than ever? Are they public for enough companies for us to claim this? Or is it based on a few, isolated cases? From what I've heard, the current situation in the video industry is dire. The post-pandemic has put a lot of companies in a difficult spot because the inflation increased the wages and lowered the purchasing power while the pandemic boost that made them invest more has now subsided.

Saying that publishers set the price 'because they can' seems to be an oversimplification of the economy behind it and sounds more like a complot theory to me.

I didn't say artifically high. I said they set the price as high as they think they can get away with without killing unit sales. I am describing exactly how the free market works when you have no manufacturturing and distribution per unit costs. I am describing basic economic theory. There is no supply curve when there is no supply cost apart from the initial development cost i.e. a flat line.

Where are you getting that video game revenue is decreasing? I think I already covered one reason why some companies are struggling i.e. people making woefully shit games that cost a massive amount of money. Making bad games is not new. Making bad games that costs hundreds of millions dollars is and is getting worse - it is not a market problem, it is not knowing what actually makes a good game. That suicide squad game that cost hundreds of millions of dollars is woeful from all the videos I have watched. A bunch of suits and new age creatives would of thought it the best thing since sliced bread. If they had of actually taken on board feedback from some hardcore gamers they would have known the game would stink well before release and they could have changed direction. Forspoken was always going to fail. Diablo 4 did okay but was a bit more suprising for me that it wasn't bigger but the games longeitivity is based on a flawed live service model. Zelda, Atomic Heart, Starfield, BG3, Hogwarts, FF16, RE4 and many more all did well. Tons of indies and A to AA games did very well.

The other reason is poor financial management including paying too much for acquisitions, ranping up staff levels too high during covid etc. When you look at the overall trend since the 80's it is one of large and constant increases. I am interested to hear what other entertainment industry is doing better though?

GTA is a terrible example. Of course when you sell almost 200 million copies you can charge less. Reality is though that most even triple A games are lucky to sell 10% of that. Elden ring sold 23 million and they are ecstatic.

What would happen though if GTA sold for $30. Rockstar would be fine but several AA and indie dev’s would go under only being able to charge 15-20 for AA and probably 10 or less for indies. The small guys would get killed because they won’t have the mass sales of the rockstars of the world.

IMO $70 is more than fair. I’ve said before that my parents bought me Defender for the Atari 2600 in the early 80’s for 39.99. Using an inflation calculator that works out to just under $150 today. Let’s not forget gaming is a hobby, luxury, not a necessity. I get irritated when food and utility prices spike not when video games go up 10 bucks.

Not to mention it’s very rare that you need to pay full price for games. You can almost always find a deal especially if your willing to wait for the game to be content complete and patched. Then your looking at a 50%ish discount albeit a year or 2 after release.

I am confused what point you are trying to make. Elden ring is one of the most successful games in the last few years. Things sell more when you lower the price - it is basic economic theory and not related to units sold. I.e. if you sell 100 copies at 100 dollars you are going to sell more copies if you reduce the price...

I'm unsure how you think if the AAA games had a lower price it would kill the indie market. The games industry is vast and caters of thousands of different tastes. Someone who plays Geneforge likely doesn't care whether the new spiderman games sells for 40 dollars or 70 dollars. It is about what kind of games you like, how much money you have and how much free time you have. A lot of people don't buy indie games because they are cheap. They buy them because they like them.

Do you think Video games are included in most measures of inflation i.e. CPI?

You last point was the same as mine. That is how they maximise sales and revenue. Capture the full share by reducing price over time.

 

[JDR13]

Not sure I can agree with the "lower price = more copies sold = more revenue" angle. I don't think that has much of an impact on a AAA title at release. I guarantee you there weren't a significant amount of gamers out there going "I'm not paying $60 for Elden Ring!" "If only it was $50!"

Price has a more substantial impact on games that have already been out for awhile which is why they lower it.

I'm pretty sure the suits behind the scenes know exactly what they're doing when it comes to pricing these games. After all, it's literally their job.

 

[bjon045]

Not sure I can agree with the "lower price = more copies sold = more revenue" angle. I don't think that has much of an impact on a AAA title at release. I guarantee you there weren't a significant amount of gamers out there going "I'm not paying $60 for Elden Ring!" "If only it was $50!"

Price has a more substantial impact on games that have already been out for awhile which is why they lower it.

I'm pretty sure the suits behind the scenes know exactly what they're doing when it comes to pricing these games. After all, it's literally their job.

I didn't say more revenue overall, just that it could be higher short term. The current price model is optimal from a total revenue perspective. And I agree that there are a lot of people who don't care anymore because they earn more now than they did many years ago. I also think that we may not be indicative of a lot of the gaming population though. There are a ton of gamers in developing countries who simply cannot afford to play these AAA games (even with regional pricing) so they stick to most F2P games. If the game was 5 dollars would they buy it on release? I imagine yes. There are also lots of families at the poverty line that still have a PS4/xbone that most likely would buy these games if they were 20 bucks. They simply can't pay 70 dollars because that would mean no food/beverages/drugs/whatever that week.

If Elden ring was 30 dollars would have it sold twice as many copies? No idea and we will never know because nobody will likely ever do that. It is suboptimal. Elden Ring is also a bit more of a special case as it is a narrower genre i.e. souls-like. It could be that market is small enough that sales won't increase much. Something like GTA is likely to have much wider appeal and a much higher potential sales total. If you made both of them free (like GTA5 was for a short period) I imagine GTA5/6 would be downloaded 10-20x more than Elden Ring. If Starfield was half the price I honestly would have bought it on release vs not buying it.

I'm not sure it was clear enough but I was actually agreeing with JFarrell. The price is what it is because that is where they can get the maximum revenue. Not because of inflation. Not because it costs them 5 dollars to put a blu ray in the case. If it was Inflation the game would not be 70 dollars. It would be 150 dollars. Like how we pay nearly 300 dollars for a collections edition now vs 80 dollars back in the day. Physical goods are significantly more impacted by inflation than Digital goods.

 

[Redglyph]

I didn't say artifically high. I said they set the price as high as they think they can get away with without killing unit sales. I am describing exactly how the free market works when you have no manufacturturing and distribution per unit costs. I am describing basic economic theory. There is no supply curve when there is no supply cost apart from the initial development cost i.e. a flat line.

"Artificially" versus normal economic equilibrium was how I understood your first paragraph. If that's not what you meant, scratch whatever ramblings I wrote appropriately.

Though, even if your supply was flat, you'd still need to meet the demand to be optimal, so isn't that the same? It's if the demand was inelastic that publishers could exploit it. Since there's a fierce competition and it's not a vital product, there's no chance of that.

I doubt that the supply is really flat, though. You need at least a basic infrastructure to sell the games, deliver them, provide support, and so on. If the publisher is big enough, it can have its own platform, but otherwise there are fees that are relative to the sales. If you're using IPs or libraries, like a graphics engine (Unity, Unreal, ...), you also have royalties. But I agree that it's more comfortable than physical products.

Where are you getting that video game revenue is decreasing?

I read it in several articles a while ago, but you can pick any statistics or news website. For example this one or this one, that I just randomly took from a search. Depending on the source or the country, there was or wasn't a slight recovery in 2023, but 2022 wasn't good at all.

I think I already covered one reason why some companies are struggling i.e. people making woefully shit games that cost a massive amount of money. Making bad games is not new. Making bad games that costs hundreds of millions dollars is and is getting worse - it is not a market problem, it is not knowing what actually makes a good game.

Yeah, it sure doesn't help.

That suicide squad game that cost hundreds of millions of dollars is woeful from all the videos I have watched. A bunch of suits and new age creatives would of thought it the best thing since sliced bread. If they had of actually taken on board feedback from some hardcore gamers they would have known the game would stink well before release and they could have changed direction.

Maybe, maybe not. Getting a relevant feedback requires a game that is already somewhat playable. It's way too late in a project of this scale to change much.

The other reason is poor financial management including paying too much for acquisitions, ranping up staff levels too high during covid etc.

Yes, that's the part I mentioned. From what I understood, those were serious problems.

I am interested to hear what other entertainment industry is doing better though?

The entertainment market in general. Music, video, movies, sports. For example, here, or here (for 2023 but I'm sure you can find it for 2022). It's only what I read, though; it's not as if I was following that closely.

 

[sakichop]

I didn't say artifically high. I said they set the price as high as they think they can get away with without killing unit sales. I am describing exactly how the free market works when you have no manufacturturing and distribution per unit costs. I am describing basic economic theory. There is no supply curve when there is no supply cost apart from the initial development cost i.e. a flat line.

Where are you getting that video game revenue is decreasing? I think I already covered one reason why some companies are struggling i.e. people making woefully shit games that cost a massive amount of money. Making bad games is not new. Making bad games that costs hundreds of millions dollars is and is getting worse - it is not a market problem, it is not knowing what actually makes a good game. That suicide squad game that cost hundreds of millions of dollars is woeful from all the videos I have watched. A bunch of suits and new age creatives would of thought it the best thing since sliced bread. If they had of actually taken on board feedback from some hardcore gamers they would have known the game would stink well before release and they could have changed direction. Forspoken was always going to fail. Diablo 4 did okay but was a bit more suprising for me that it wasn't bigger but the games longeitivity is based on a flawed live service model. Zelda, Atomic Heart, Starfield, BG3, Hogwarts, FF16, RE4 and many more all did well. Tons of indies and A to AA games did very well.

The other reason is poor financial management including paying too much for acquisitions, ranping up staff levels too high during covid etc. When you look at the overall trend since the 80's it is one of large and constant increases. I am interested to hear what other entertainment industry is doing better though?


I am confused what point you are trying to make. Elden ring is one of the most successful games in the last few years. Things sell more when you lower the price - it is basic economic theory and not related to units sold. I.e. if you sell 100 copies at 100 dollars you are going to sell more copies if you reduce the price...

I'm unsure how you think if the AAA games had a lower price it would kill the indie market. The games industry is vast and caters of thousands of different tastes. Someone who plays Geneforge likely doesn't care whether the new spiderman games sells for 40 dollars or 70 dollars. It is about what kind of games you like, how much money you have and how much free time you have. A lot of people don't buy indie games because they are cheap. They buy them because they like them.

Do you think Video games are included in most measures of inflation i.e. CPI?

You last point was the same as mine. That is how they maximise sales and revenue. Capture the full share by reducing price over time.

My point is that AAA, AA and indie games have different price points. If you drop AAA games to $30 then you have to drop AA and indie games proportionately. People will care about paying the same price for AA and indie game as the do AAA game. You'd have to bring AA done to $20ish and indie down to $10ish.

Rockstar sold almost 200 million copies of GTA5 and have a much bigger customer base. So they could easily weather selling games for $30. However, AA devs with a more niche game and much smaller customer base would struggle at lower prices and indie devs with even more niche games and smaller customer base would struggle even more.

Lowering prices doesn't lower the cost to produce the game and if you're a small dev without the customer base to get enough extra sales to make up for the lower price you go under. That's simple economics.

 

[bjon045]

"Artificially" versus normal economic equilibrium was how I understood your first paragraph. If that's not what you meant, scratch whatever ramblings I wrote appropriately.

Though, even if your supply was flat, you'd still need to meet the demand to be optimal, so isn't that the same? It's if the demand was inelastic that publishers could exploit it. Since there's a fierce competition and it's not a vital product, there's no chance of that.

I agree/accept most of what you wrote but not so sure about the fierce competition bit. In the triple A space there is not really as much competition as you would think. There is a handful of AAA games that release every year and they are spread across genre's which would often appeal to different people. Also, in this case most of the other AAA publishers were more than happy to follow suite and increase to $70 as well. Why wouldn't they as it makes more revenue. I think we are kind of saying the same thing but in a different way. The 75 or 80 dollar barrier is still quite some time away (I hope).

If there had of been another AAA traditional cRPG I would have bought it! If Elder Scrolls VI released tomorrow people would buy it. The AAA market it not saturated - unlike the Indie/AA market. People still want more big budget hollywood style games. The only problem is they take 6 years+ now to make!!

From google:

In 2023, small independent (indie) game studios were the most prolific type of game publishers on Steam. During the measured period, indie publishers accounted for about 99 percent of releases on gaming platforms, which translates to about 13,790 titles. Major blockbuster (AAA) and mid-range (AA) publishers and studios released a combined 181 games on Steam that year.

I don't know the split between AA and AAA but I imagine of that 181 most are AA. Happy to be corrected though.

My point is that AAA, AA and indie games have different price points. If you drop AAA games to $30 then you have to drop AA and indie games proportionately. People will care about paying the same price for AA and indie game as the do AAA game. You'd have to bring AA done to $20ish and indie down to $10ish.

Rockstar sold almost 200 million copies of GTA5 and have a much bigger customer base. So they could easily weather selling games for $30. However, AA devs with a more niche game and much smaller customer base would struggle at lower prices and indie devs with even more niche games and smaller customer base would struggle even more.

Lowering prices doesn't lower the cost to produce the game and if you're a small dev without the customer base to get enough extra sales to make up for the lower price you go under. That's simple economics.

I got your point the first time. I still don't think it is valid. AAA game prices do not dictate and never have dictated what Indie games sell for. I also think you are misintepreting what I said - I never made any claim about knock on effects of them lowering their prices and why would a AAA publisher give two shits how their pricing impacts other publishers? They are governed by one thing - how to get the maximum total revenue over time. The best way to do that currently is to sell your triple A game for $70 and slowly reduce it over time - or faster if it isn't selling as much as you thought! (*cough* Starfield *cough*).

 

[sakichop]

I agree/accept most of what you wrote but not so sure about the fierce competition bit. In the triple A space there is not really as much competition as you would think. There is a handful of AAA games that release every year and they are spread across genre's which would often appeal to different people. Also, in this case most of the other AAA publishers were more than happy to follow suite and increase to $70 as well. Why wouldn't they as it makes more revenue. I think we are kind of saying the same thing but in a different way. The 75 or 80 dollar barrier is still quite some time away (I hope).

If there had of been another AAA traditional cRPG I would have bought it! If Elder Scrolls VI released tomorrow people would buy it. The AAA market it not saturated - unlike the Indie/AA market. People still want more big budget hollywood style games. The only problem is they take 6 years+ now to make!!

From google:

I don't know the split between AA and AAA but I imagine of that 181 most are AA. Happy to be corrected though.


I got your point the first time. I still don't think it is valid. AAA game prices do not dictate and never have dictated what Indie games sell for. I also think you are misintepreting what I said - I never made any claim about knock on effects of them lowering their prices and why would a AAA publisher give two shits how their pricing impacts other publishers? They are governed by one thing - how to get the maximum total revenue over time. The best way to do that currently is to sell your triple A game for $70 and slowly reduce it over time - or faster if it isn't selling as much as you thought! (*cough* Starfield *cough*).

Oh, You said you didn't get my point in your last reply but no matter. I never argued AAA devs would care and agree that they wouldn't.

In the gaming world we have right now AAA games set the top end price and the other games slot themselves below that. So you're right Currently AAA prices have little effect on indies because the gap is too big. However, in your scenario of $30 AAA games you compress the market and the AAA games definitely would impact AA and indie game prices.

 

[bjon045]

Oh, You said you didn't get my point in your last reply but no matter. I never argued AAA devs would care and agree that they wouldn't.

In the gaming world we have right now AAA games set the top end price and the other games slot themselves below that. So you're right Currently AAA prices have little effect on indies because the gap is too big. However, in your scenario of $30 AAA games you compress the market and the AAA games definitely would impact AA and indie game prices.

Poor choice of words on my half perhaps. I got most of your points the bit I didn't understand was the comparison between GTA and Elden Ring in terms of price having an impact on sales. What specifically does GTA have that Elden Ring doesn't which makes it have a different price elasticity?

In terms of AAA vs Indie I agree that there would be a limited impact though, as people only have so much free time i.e. most people can't play 50 games in a year. I'm still don't think it would have the impact you think though because the markets are so different. When you buy a Dominions 5 vs a AAA vs a Geneforge vs a Valhiem the considerations are vastly different. Some people would pay a maximum of 5 dollars for a game like Geneforge even if a AAA game cost 200 hundred dollars. There is always a perceived value as well - which also drives the maximum price you can charge. A copy and paste job like Geneforge vs a game with a solo dev who has been slaving away for 4 years with a new twist - people can and do pay 30-40 dollars even though it is a one man game.

 

[JDR13]

On a side note, the $70 tag apparently isn't working out so well for Ubisoft.

Skull and Bones’ price has been slashed by $25 after less than three weeks | VGC

Retailers are already heavily discounting Ubisoft’s second $70…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[Redglyph]

I agree/accept most of what you wrote but not so sure about the fierce competition bit. In the triple A space there is not really as much competition as you would think. There is a handful of AAA games that release every year and they are spread across genre's which would often appeal to different people. Also, in this case most of the other AAA publishers were more than happy to follow suite and increase to $70 as well. Why wouldn't they as it makes more revenue. I think we are kind of saying the same thing but in a different way. The 75 or 80 dollar barrier is still quite some time away (I hope).

If there had of been another AAA traditional cRPG I would have bought it! If Elder Scrolls VI released tomorrow people would buy it. The AAA market it not saturated - unlike the Indie/AA market. People still want more big budget hollywood style games. The only problem is they take 6 years+ now to make!!

From google:
I don't know the split between AA and AAA but I imagine of that 181 most are AA. Happy to be corrected though.

I was considering video games in general, not just AAA games. I think the indie market is saturated, but you're certainly right about AA and AAA, and it shouldn't be surprising when we see the budgets involved.

I'm just thinking that if the prices get higher, people will start shifting their preferences, especially with AA and indie games getting better and better (though the gap is probably getting larger too).

When I say higher price, I mean relative to the demand. As you said, the price point is still below the inflation, and I'm amazed the industry can afford to sustain prices that are so low given the circumstances. I suppose all that was discussed here before - the technology, the experience, the scale of big companies, the fact it's digitally distributed, the larger market, ... - allow them to keep prices at 70 instead of 100-200.

 

[bjon045]

When I say higher price, I mean relative to the demand. As you said, the price point is still below the inflation, and I'm amazed the industry can afford to sustain prices that are so low given the circumstances. I suppose all that was discussed here before - the technology, the experience, the scale of big companies, the fact it's digitally distributed, the larger market, ... - allow them to keep prices at 70 instead of 100-200.

What would be interesting is if someone could do a detailed analysis on development cost and sales now vs then (80's, 90's etc) and combined that with overall market growth and additionally with inflation as another comparator. I guess the 80's and 90's would also have to include distribution and manufacturing costs as well. Quite likely an impossible task these days with actual real numbers being so hard to get.

The problem when you keep spending more and more to make every game is that the previous game has to also make enough to cover the increased costs of the next game.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

I was considering video games in general, not just AAA games. I think the indie market is saturated, but you're certainly right about AA and AAA, and it shouldn't be surprising when we see the budgets involved.

I'm just thinking that if the prices get higher, people will start shifting their preferences, especially with AA and indie games getting better and better (though the gap is probably getting larger too).

When I say higher price, I mean relative to the demand. As you said, the price point is still below the inflation, and I'm amazed the industry can afford to sustain prices that are so low given the circumstances. I suppose all that was discussed here before - the technology, the experience, the scale of big companies, the fact it's digitally distributed, the larger market, ... - allow them to keep prices at 70 instead of 100-200.

This was an interesting article vaguely related to the price topic, if not related to the original topic

Subscription services are changing our relationship to gaming

What happens when you no longer own games?

www.theverge.com

Subscription services are changing our relationship to gaming. In countries like Argentina, where physical games are exorbitantly expensive, services like Game Pass present a more affordable — but flawed — alternative. The soaring cost of video games is leaving many players behind. In countries like Argentina, where hyperinflation hinders the act of playing and collecting games, access to these experiences is becoming a luxury. As physical copies become harder to purchase, subscription services like Xbox Game Pass are becoming a more affordable alternative. But these services aren’t just influencing the way we pay for games — they’re changing how we think about them, too.

“When a single video game equals a quarter of your salary or more,” Reddit user uri_nrv says, “you stop caring about the sense of ownership and instead conform yourself with playing it and moving on.”

 

[Redglyph]

What would be interesting is if someone could do a detailed analysis on development cost and sales now vs then (80's, 90's etc) and combined that with overall market growth and additionally with inflation as another comparator. I guess the 80's and 90's would also have to include distribution and manufacturing costs as well. Quite likely an impossible task these days with actual real numbers being so hard to get.

It would be very interesting. Data for a given game are hard to get, but perhaps it's easier to get consolidated data for all the games a company makes? Just by examining the reports published by a number of relevant companies, for example. It's not my domain so I don't know if that's possible, but a few authors seem to have been able to extract information from various sources (books and articles on this industry). Several websites sell statistics, too; they're sometimes referenced in GamesIndustry.biz, for example.

This was an interesting article vaguely related to the price topic, if not related to the original topic

Subscription services are changing our relationship to gaming

What happens when you no longer own games?

www.theverge.com

Apparently, a few AAA have made it to Game Pass. I wonder how this will evolve. I have no interest in subscriptions, but I think many people do.

 

[Couchpotato]

This was an interesting article vaguely related to the price topic, if not related to the original topic

Subscription services are changing our relationship to gaming

What happens when you no longer own games?

www.theverge.com

Yep that is the future of gaming in a nutshell. I already embraced it willingly with Gamepass.

Face the facts that in ten years games will cost close to $100 on release. The alternative is to pay $15-20 a month instead to play 100's of games. That my friends is a bargain.

Don't give me well you don't own those games, well surprise you don't own that $100 game either. As those online stores can take away that right to play anytime they want.