50-60% of the budget of modern AAA-games goes to marketing.
Here's a novel suggestion: simply fire all the spin doctors, reduce introduction shelf-price by 40% and see where that takes you...
They don't. Marketing is something you can 100% write off against your taxes. Large companies will have giant ad campaigns because it is essentially free. Advertising only costs money to small businesses, giant corporate conglomerates don't spend a dime.
It doesn't. Anon is confusing Deductions and Offsets.
A Deduction is something you can apply to lower your effective revenue for tax purposes.
An Offset is something that reduces the amount of tax you pay.
Let's say the corporate tax rate is 30%. You make $100, you pay $10 in advertising. Without deductions you would pay $30 in tax, with deductions you pay $27 in tax. So you pay $3 less in tax. That means your effective expense is $7 for the advertising.
In order for the advertising to cost you nothing due to taxes it would have to be an offset, in which case it would work like this:
You make $100, you pay $10 in advertising. Without the offset you would pay $30 in tax, with offset you pay $20 in tax. In case 1 total tax & advertising is $37, compared to $30 without the advertising. In case 2, total tax & advertising is $30, the same as without advertising.
Because Advertising is an expense, not an offset, the advertising DOES cost them money.
Capcom did this during the recession. They made a killing.
.
Capcom literally did do that. And it literally did make them bank.
Makes you think, right?
Maybe those bigshot AAA corporations aren't all bad?
Maybe they *are* just run by detached-from-reality greybeards - and the real evil is marketeers feeding them non-sense/
Just like it has been in, well, basically every industry since the dawn of advertising - really.
Just remember: you don't necessarily need advertising.
But advertising damn wel necessarily needs *you*....
>friend believes that games should cost more and the people who made the games deserve that extra money >tell him the people that worked on the game already got paid their hourly wages and any rise in prices are just going to go to the publisher/console company, not the people that made the game >tell him most games arent even worth 60 dollars, let alone 70 >tell him the 70 dollar price tag on PS5 games is arbitrary and only there to fill Sony pockets, the same games can be bought on other platforms for 60 dollars >go down a list of games that I know he paid full price for, asking him if he thought they were worth full price >he says no to almost all of them >still didnt change his mind and continues to believe that games should cost more
I love the guy, been close friends with him for 20 years now since Elementary School, but sometimes his opinions baffle me.
If Sony was making a ton of profit it would reflect in their quarterly earnings. Games cost too much to not charge $70, for AAA that is. I don't think something like Mario Wonder should be charging that price because it probably cost a lot less to make.
>Games cost too much to not charge $70
And yet Nintendo, Microsoft, and the vast majority games on Steam only cost $60. The same exact games that are $70 dollars on PS5. This completely shuts down your argument.
what a moronic thing to say, stop being such a tribal moron. corporations and people in positions of power are defended vehemently by all members of any political affiliation.
this one always made me laugh >see fantasy race of big dumb guys with green skin that commits crimes by their nature >"it's racist to portray black people that way!"
They’re also more bland than ever. Adjusted for inflation, Super Nintendo games costed $100-160 in today’s money. So it’s no wonder that all these huge companies produce nothing but slop for the lowest common denominator, the margins are pathetic compared to the old days. Nevermind that most games aren’t even released, and of the ones that are most of those don’t even break even. All this leads to most devs being extremely risk-averse.
>$60 >+$30 for deluxe edition >+$20 for season pass >+ battle pass >+ microtransactions >+ DLC >+ loot boxes
Then use all those same assets and make the exact same game 3 years later
The funniest part is morons unironically believe that DLC and microtransactions will magically go away if games become $70. They're either too moronic, or too young, to remember that you got a full complete game when they were $50 and once they became $60: >features started to be stripped from them to be sold later >DLC and microtransactions became a thing and became infinitely worse as time goes on >games were released in broken states, many of which will never be fixed >"DLC" was put on the disk and you had to pay to access it >you have to pay to play online >cases are made with cheap flimsy material and manuals removed
The precedent has already been set that increasing the price of games makes them worse by virtually every single metric.
In principle, I don't mind paying more for a better product. Hell, I already do that by buying expensive bread that's not made of fricking frozen dough or preservative-free high-quality bologna sausage, among other things. However, that implies paying $70, $80, $90, or even $100 for a complete game without additional nickel-and-diming through DLCs, microtransactions, gambling, online mode prioritization (like RDR2), invasive DRM, telemetry, or other bullshit. We all know that what we're going to get in this particular scenario is a more expensive lower quality game with that and more.
Also, I think the pricing is kinda upside down with games. Quantity hurts quality, so higher quality non-mass-produced physical products are typically more expensive, yet somehow people expect slop to cost more and actually creative games to cost less. Sure, not lower-priced games are particularly substantial, but I'm absolutely ready to pay way more for Obra Dinn than Starfield. I heard that Japs actually do that with doujin games, but who knows if it's true.
>millennials
The original creators sold the series several years back to some boomer and a israelite york israelite producer
I think it has been like this for about 6 years now which is a shame since the original series wasn't half bad in explaining game design choices and other nerdy shit.
Shut the frick up, Lil Zoom. Millennials are the ones that came down hard on EA and Ubisoft until they changed their pricing schemes. Zoomers are the ones buying Nintendo games.
You know man-children and literal children who can't pay for video games play Nintendo games right? Tween Zoomers and younger Millennials with some level of disposable income are buying Spiderman and COD.
I honestly see the logic of $70 games. There's been massive inflation since games went from $50 to $60. The problem is they're going to charge $70 and STILL nickel and dime you with different bundles, microtransactions, cut content, and low effort dlc.
>There's been massive inflation since games went from $50 to $60.
Which those same corporations supported by with their political bullshit. Corporations are partly responsible for the current inflation rate, not the consumers.
>IF WE GO TO 70 DOLLARS WE WILL HAVE LESS HECKIN MICROTRANSACTIONS AND BETTER QUALITY GAMES >average AAA game goes to 70 dollars >vast majority of them are significantly buggier and filled with even more microtransactions than before
Who the frick did he think he was fooling?
I'm a consumer, I want to pay less in anything
I want to pay less money for games, for food, for a car, for a house whatever
how the frick the israeli psyop got so strong it convinced people they should pay more because of the poor corporations starving
>Movies haven't gone up in price despite budgets getting larger >Music hasn't gone up in price >Books haven't gone up in price >But games HAVE to go up in price because... because think of the poor billion dollar corporations
With music movies and books everyone knows people would just pirate them if they cost too much meanwhile most gamers are too scared to download an emulator to play the 20 year old mario game that they've already bought twice on other consoles because downloading an emulator is immoral or something. Gamers are pussies that's the problem.
Theater tickets have gone up but that's to compensate for less people going to the theater. Physical DVDs have more or less stayed the same for two decades and blurays are cheaper than they were a decade ago.
>Just don't pay for anything, moron
If you want to pirate, go for it, but calling people moronic for supporting good indie developers is fricking stupid, have you heard of creating incentive?
Why stop at $70? Doesn't this guy realize companies would be much better off if they started charging $100 + DLC? I think this guy is only pretending to suck dicks.
>pour more money into games than ever >they take longer than ever to make >everybody arbitrarily ups the price(otherwise known as a cartel) to supposedly "compensate for it being more expensive to make games" >they're more buggy, have less content, and are overall worse than games made by 5% of the people for 10% of the budget 20 years ago
they're managing their time or budgets inefficiently (most dev time goes to the 4k textures to draw in graphicsgays), and the reason for that is that their profit margins are good enough they can just keep doing what they're doing and possibly charge more to raise the profits even higher
Games should all be free and developers should be supported by a patronage system.
This shit works for me, 7 years working this way, I've never sold a single game but I earn enough to keep producing while paying the bills, eating well and investing some of the money to generate extra income.
>brings up about how expensive games are to make >even brings up how they have to pay for developers, equipment, and fricking janitorial services
Welcome to every fricking company in the fricking world, you disingenuous fricks. If you're so fricking strapped for cash that you can't afford a fricking janitor, then get the frick out of the industry.
Frick.
>Games Should Not Cost $60 Anymore
It's correct in the sense that they should be going for less than $60.
The idea that videogames are more expensive to develop nowadays is a myth.
If you had the same budget, but either spent it a decade ago or spent it today. You'd get further with your development today than back then.
The massive budget games of today are a choice. And isn't actually a real change in the market or development environments.
Meanwhile the industry is making higher profits than ever before. Even if you adjust for inflation.
So why should the prices go up? The prices could go down and videogames would still be making more profits than in the past.
This argument fell apart the second games started doing day 1 patches/DLC.
Modern games are no longer shipped in a full state, if anything I should be paying LESS not more, considering the game won't be a full experience until 3 years of DLC and patches down the road.
Pirating is always morally correct for these overinflated pieces of shit companies that think 70 dollars plus tip is "fair and just". Line goes up is a cancer and the entire ecosystem has become overbloated with this nickle and diming. Dodge vs Ford was a mistake
Their crap videos still get 1M+ views and are repeated on most places that aren't Ganker unironically.
It's like how people still repeat Anita's talking points to this day after she outright said she only got into games for the money and attention. it's easier to trick than convince someone they've been tricked, etc.
From the title I assume the argument is that if games costed more upfront there would be less need to throw in the more vile methods of making a profit after the fact.
The reality of the situation is that the seventy dollar game is still going to include the three tier battle pass, limited time cosmetic DLC, and all the other features of modern vidya we all know and love.
He's technically right.
With how much game development has been streamlined, expensive physical media mostly disappearing and microtransactions/season passes/deluxe editions and other such shit being shoved into every facet of games these days, they shouldn't cost $60 anymore.
They should cost far less.
>This Black person starts shilling $70 games >games turn $70 the very next year
Convince me this guy isn't hired by the industry to make reddit kalemales accept the ass reaming they'll shut up and take.
anyone remember the literal scientology cult videos they made?
>anyone remember the literal scientology cult videos they made?
I don't think they're the same group as the Spirit Science people.
Unless you mean videos like the picture you posted, I don't know anything about Scientology. But that video was so bad. >"Here is why evil races are bad game design." >Never mention actual game design, just emotional "Think of the marginalized groups!" nonsense. >Somehow naturally evil creatures that are violent and dangerous by default is less complicated or morally questionable than straight up killing actual people born and raised in "hateful ideologies" that otherwise could've been good people. >Also made a video about how you shouldn't be allowed to play as bad guys in multiplayer games and pointed out "How would you feel when you got a notification that each Nazi you killed was forced into service under threat of his life?!"
Western """Artists""" gays are not artists, are not game creators, and are not sapient.
The critical flaw in this argument is the constant need of corporate growth in our modern age.
Even with the price of games increasing they're ALSO still buried in microtransaction garbage and devs are still getting peanuts in terms of wages because the CEOs and investors are the ones taking a lion's share of the earnings.
Even the $100 editions that used to at least resemble a complete thing are just starter sets in our live service poisoned age because it's not enough to be successful, you need to continue to be more and more successful until it's no longer sustainable and you inevitably collapse with the CEOs riding golden parachutes down and the people who do the actual work getting crushed in the rubble. People wouldn't fricking care about paying more if it actually meant getting finished experiences and the developers getting their proper dues but anyone who isn't mentally moronic or simply lying through their teeth know that isn't what happens when the game costs more.
>The critical flaw in this argument is the constant need of corporate growth in our modern age.
This.
Corporations are treated like nobility in king henry's court. In that our meager peasant lives will uproot and vanish if they experience the least bit of discomfort dealing with us. So we have to take every consideration to ensure their profitability even if they're just another product like the games they make.
>Games keep costing more and more to make. >Gameplay quality rapidly declinine. >Graphics are technically better, but performance is still ass.
Why don't game companies focus on gameplay and performance? You don't need ridiculously huge intricate textures of every NPC's toilet bowl. Just make sure graphically it's clean and sharp, just not blurry. That's all it will take to make most people happy.
These scumbags always bring up muh inflation when trying to justify companies mooching off more money off customers, but conveniently ignore the fact that wages have been stagnant for as long as any of us have been alive.
20 years ago you could easily pay 60 dollars for video game working on minimum wage. Now? I'd rather kill myself than pay 60 dollars for a video game. You have to be rich or mooch off your parents to throw away 60 fricking dollars. Video games have to go down in price. I'd pay 15 dollars for an AAA title.
Game price hike is monumentally moronic simply because the supply of games is at an all time high. When even little timmy can make a roblox gamemode and keep himself and his friends entertained for days, you'd have to be a fricking moron to pay a lot especially when 90% of the time its just remakes and yearly release garbage.
Why would someone argue in favour of paying more for something? What makes the poor vidya industry more deserving of money than the average schmuck buying video games from his shitty 9-5 salary?
The problem is that not all games are worth that full price. If during the 360/PS3 days, R* released GTA5 at 70 bucks, people wouldn't get that man because just look how fricking big of a game it is.EVERY dev thinks their game should cost the same price of a R* game when they are NOWHERE as expensive or impressive. Yeah, let me buy the new Sonic game at 60 bucks, the same price of RDR2 at launch. And now these fricking c**ts want us to pay more despite their games getting more israelitey and worse. They can go frick themselves. I will stick to pirating or Gamefly.
Why are gaymers like this? The cost of movies and marketing has skyrocketed over the decades and yet no ones saying "we really need to increase the price at the cinema. Blu rays should cost more money. I'm happy Netflix sub rate is increasing!" Its insanity.
uuuooooh i wanna frick the green brick with a simple face
>no eyelashes
you might be gay anon.
50-60% of the budget of modern AAA-games goes to marketing.
Here's a novel suggestion: simply fire all the spin doctors, reduce introduction shelf-price by 40% and see where that takes you...
They don't. Marketing is something you can 100% write off against your taxes. Large companies will have giant ad campaigns because it is essentially free. Advertising only costs money to small businesses, giant corporate conglomerates don't spend a dime.
Why the hell would that work?
Blame how taxes work. You can write off lots of things against your taxes and advertising is just one really good one.
That's so dumb.
I wonder who paid off the politicians to push that one through.
It doesn't. Anon is confusing Deductions and Offsets.
A Deduction is something you can apply to lower your effective revenue for tax purposes.
An Offset is something that reduces the amount of tax you pay.
Let's say the corporate tax rate is 30%. You make $100, you pay $10 in advertising. Without deductions you would pay $30 in tax, with deductions you pay $27 in tax. So you pay $3 less in tax. That means your effective expense is $7 for the advertising.
In order for the advertising to cost you nothing due to taxes it would have to be an offset, in which case it would work like this:
You make $100, you pay $10 in advertising. Without the offset you would pay $30 in tax, with offset you pay $20 in tax. In case 1 total tax & advertising is $37, compared to $30 without the advertising. In case 2, total tax & advertising is $30, the same as without advertising.
Because Advertising is an expense, not an offset, the advertising DOES cost them money.
See
.
Capcom literally did do that. And it literally did make them bank.
Makes you think, right?
Maybe those bigshot AAA corporations aren't all bad?
Maybe they *are* just run by detached-from-reality greybeards - and the real evil is marketeers feeding them non-sense/
Just like it has been in, well, basically every industry since the dawn of advertising - really.
Just remember: you don't necessarily need advertising.
But advertising damn wel necessarily needs *you*....
Capcom did this during the recession. They made a killing.
>friend believes that games should cost more and the people who made the games deserve that extra money
>tell him the people that worked on the game already got paid their hourly wages and any rise in prices are just going to go to the publisher/console company, not the people that made the game
>tell him most games arent even worth 60 dollars, let alone 70
>tell him the 70 dollar price tag on PS5 games is arbitrary and only there to fill Sony pockets, the same games can be bought on other platforms for 60 dollars
>go down a list of games that I know he paid full price for, asking him if he thought they were worth full price
>he says no to almost all of them
>still didnt change his mind and continues to believe that games should cost more
I love the guy, been close friends with him for 20 years now since Elementary School, but sometimes his opinions baffle me.
heh, yeah.
And then everyone stood up and clapped because you OWNED that libtard
epic meme reference, I give it a 3/5.
If Sony was making a ton of profit it would reflect in their quarterly earnings. Games cost too much to not charge $70, for AAA that is. I don't think something like Mario Wonder should be charging that price because it probably cost a lot less to make.
>Games cost too much to not charge $70
And yet Nintendo, Microsoft, and the vast majority games on Steam only cost $60. The same exact games that are $70 dollars on PS5. This completely shuts down your argument.
Sony is moronic though
Disco Elysium-types can't be reasoned with. They're barely human.
Brand new AAA slop almost immediately go on sale for 10-15% only a few months after release. Meaning even $60 is generous
>gaming is more profitable now than at any other point in history
>WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS????????
It's not about corporations you chud
It's about all beautiful poc who work here...
>chud
Chuds are the one defending big corporations and sucking their dicks, moron.
what a moronic thing to say, stop being such a tribal moron. corporations and people in positions of power are defended vehemently by all members of any political affiliation.
>Chuds are the one defending big corporations and sucking their dicks, moron.
Your information is out of date.
huh?
>Sucking off Henry Ford and Musk
Fine, chuds are the ones defending only big corporations they deem "white."
You mean the evil orcs?
this one always made me laugh
>see fantasy race of big dumb guys with green skin that commits crimes by their nature
>"it's racist to portray black people that way!"
They’re also more bland than ever. Adjusted for inflation, Super Nintendo games costed $100-160 in today’s money. So it’s no wonder that all these huge companies produce nothing but slop for the lowest common denominator, the margins are pathetic compared to the old days. Nevermind that most games aren’t even released, and of the ones that are most of those don’t even break even. All this leads to most devs being extremely risk-averse.
>$60
>+$30 for deluxe edition
>+$20 for season pass
>+ battle pass
>+ microtransactions
>+ DLC
>+ loot boxes
Then use all those same assets and make the exact same game 3 years later
they have zero excuse for $60 not being enough
The funniest part is morons unironically believe that DLC and microtransactions will magically go away if games become $70. They're either too moronic, or too young, to remember that you got a full complete game when they were $50 and once they became $60:
>features started to be stripped from them to be sold later
>DLC and microtransactions became a thing and became infinitely worse as time goes on
>games were released in broken states, many of which will never be fixed
>"DLC" was put on the disk and you had to pay to access it
>you have to pay to play online
>cases are made with cheap flimsy material and manuals removed
The precedent has already been set that increasing the price of games makes them worse by virtually every single metric.
Look, there's a simple solution to this: make it illegal for goyim to have money.
Don't forget $30 for the 3 day head start.
That's right video games should be $20.
thoth
In principle, I don't mind paying more for a better product. Hell, I already do that by buying expensive bread that's not made of fricking frozen dough or preservative-free high-quality bologna sausage, among other things. However, that implies paying $70, $80, $90, or even $100 for a complete game without additional nickel-and-diming through DLCs, microtransactions, gambling, online mode prioritization (like RDR2), invasive DRM, telemetry, or other bullshit. We all know that what we're going to get in this particular scenario is a more expensive lower quality game with that and more.
Also, I think the pricing is kinda upside down with games. Quantity hurts quality, so higher quality non-mass-produced physical products are typically more expensive, yet somehow people expect slop to cost more and actually creative games to cost less. Sure, not lower-priced games are particularly substantial, but I'm absolutely ready to pay way more for Obra Dinn than Starfield. I heard that Japs actually do that with doujin games, but who knows if it's true.
Why millennials love to bootlick corpos?
They grew up in the age where all media was literally free so now they have permanent guilt for all the corpos that hadn't got a cent from them.
>Brainwashing zooms into paying for stuff for you
Yep I think he's based
having no dad
>millennials
People have always bootlicked corpos, and it's getting worse with every generation. This isn't just a millennial thing
You mean zoomers. They’re the ones who are so whipped by corporate wiener that their humor revolves around fake anti-piracy screens.
>millennials
The original creators sold the series several years back to some boomer and a israelite york israelite producer
I think it has been like this for about 6 years now which is a shame since the original series wasn't half bad in explaining game design choices and other nerdy shit.
Shut the frick up, Lil Zoom. Millennials are the ones that came down hard on EA and Ubisoft until they changed their pricing schemes. Zoomers are the ones buying Nintendo games.
You know man-children and literal children who can't pay for video games play Nintendo games right? Tween Zoomers and younger Millennials with some level of disposable income are buying Spiderman and COD.
Classic younger gen zoomie cope blaming the older gens for their own frick ups
Anyway let me tell you why boomers ruined the economy and you should forgive my student loans
I honestly see the logic of $70 games. There's been massive inflation since games went from $50 to $60. The problem is they're going to charge $70 and STILL nickel and dime you with different bundles, microtransactions, cut content, and low effort dlc.
the logic is that they can get away with it
>There's been massive inflation since games went from $50 to $60.
Which those same corporations supported by with their political bullshit. Corporations are partly responsible for the current inflation rate, not the consumers.
Why morons forget that gaming is a thousand times bigger now than back then?
Before they had a bigger share but now they have way more volume
>IF WE GO TO 70 DOLLARS WE WILL HAVE LESS HECKIN MICROTRANSACTIONS AND BETTER QUALITY GAMES
>average AAA game goes to 70 dollars
>vast majority of them are significantly buggier and filled with even more microtransactions than before
Who the frick did he think he was fooling?
i will never understand these corporate dicksuckers
Games should be $70 and orcs are Black folk. You're welcome
But orcs are Russians.
you shouldn't insult orcs like that
The cost of games is based on market pricing, there is no “should” cost.
I'm a consumer, I want to pay less in anything
I want to pay less money for games, for food, for a car, for a house whatever
how the frick the israeli psyop got so strong it convinced people they should pay more because of the poor corporations starving
>Movies haven't gone up in price despite budgets getting larger
>Music hasn't gone up in price
>Books haven't gone up in price
>But games HAVE to go up in price because... because think of the poor billion dollar corporations
With music movies and books everyone knows people would just pirate them if they cost too much meanwhile most gamers are too scared to download an emulator to play the 20 year old mario game that they've already bought twice on other consoles because downloading an emulator is immoral or something. Gamers are pussies that's the problem.
>Movies haven't gone up in price
huh?
Theater tickets have gone up but that's to compensate for less people going to the theater. Physical DVDs have more or less stayed the same for two decades and blurays are cheaper than they were a decade ago.
Movies continue to make money after the theater by signing deals with video stores for rentals tho today its now streaming services
Best game I played this year cost 10 bucks and had 60 hours worth of playtime.
Know why it was cheap? Because it was made with soul by a 2 man team, instead of being a bloated mess of ESG garbage.
>muh soul
Just don't pay for anything, moron
>Just don't pay for anything, moron
nta but I happily paid for Astlibra. Shitloads of content for next to no money.
I pay for things that are good. That's why I've only bought 1 game in the past few years.
>Just don't pay for anything, moron
If you want to pirate, go for it, but calling people moronic for supporting good indie developers is fricking stupid, have you heard of creating incentive?
Why stop at $70? Doesn't this guy realize companies would be much better off if they started charging $100 + DLC? I think this guy is only pretending to suck dicks.
Games are worse now so they should cost less.
>pour more money into games than ever
>they take longer than ever to make
>everybody arbitrarily ups the price(otherwise known as a cartel) to supposedly "compensate for it being more expensive to make games"
>they're more buggy, have less content, and are overall worse than games made by 5% of the people for 10% of the budget 20 years ago
they're managing their time or budgets inefficiently (most dev time goes to the 4k textures to draw in graphicsgays), and the reason for that is that their profit margins are good enough they can just keep doing what they're doing and possibly charge more to raise the profits even higher
We wouldn't have to make everything so expensive if you stupid goyim would just give your money to us.
Just saying.
Games should all be free and developers should be supported by a patronage system.
This shit works for me, 7 years working this way, I've never sold a single game but I earn enough to keep producing while paying the bills, eating well and investing some of the money to generate extra income.
>he
FRICK OFF CHUD
Games shouldn't cost $70 because the fricking quality went down.
Goy, you should be grateful that you get anything for your money.
>brings up about how expensive games are to make
>even brings up how they have to pay for developers, equipment, and fricking janitorial services
Welcome to every fricking company in the fricking world, you disingenuous fricks. If you're so fricking strapped for cash that you can't afford a fricking janitor, then get the frick out of the industry.
Frick.
that's fine, i just won't pay for them
>Games Should Not Cost $60 Anymore
It's correct in the sense that they should be going for less than $60.
The idea that videogames are more expensive to develop nowadays is a myth.
If you had the same budget, but either spent it a decade ago or spent it today. You'd get further with your development today than back then.
The massive budget games of today are a choice. And isn't actually a real change in the market or development environments.
Meanwhile the industry is making higher profits than ever before. Even if you adjust for inflation.
So why should the prices go up? The prices could go down and videogames would still be making more profits than in the past.
>mfw people buy games for 70$ when you can get them a year later for 20
Frick off israelite.
This argument fell apart the second games started doing day 1 patches/DLC.
Modern games are no longer shipped in a full state, if anything I should be paying LESS not more, considering the game won't be a full experience until 3 years of DLC and patches down the road.
or you could just pay nothing at all and reap all the benefits
You still pay with your time, the one resource you can't earn more of.
>he doesn't know
Pirating is always morally correct for these overinflated pieces of shit companies that think 70 dollars plus tip is "fair and just". Line goes up is a cancer and the entire ecosystem has become overbloated with this nickle and diming. Dodge vs Ford was a mistake
>extra shillstory
do people actually watch those gays?
Could be worse.
SPONSORED BY BILL GATES FOUNDATION
Their crap videos still get 1M+ views and are repeated on most places that aren't Ganker unironically.
It's like how people still repeat Anita's talking points to this day after she outright said she only got into games for the money and attention. it's easier to trick than convince someone they've been tricked, etc.
videogames should be free but only for me i dont care about anyone else, that's why i pirate everything but i still wish they were free
games should be dramatically cheaper and priced based on the amount of bandwidth required to download them
From the title I assume the argument is that if games costed more upfront there would be less need to throw in the more vile methods of making a profit after the fact.
The reality of the situation is that the seventy dollar game is still going to include the three tier battle pass, limited time cosmetic DLC, and all the other features of modern vidya we all know and love.
They should cost 50 since quality is decreasing in every way
He's technically right.
With how much game development has been streamlined, expensive physical media mostly disappearing and microtransactions/season passes/deluxe editions and other such shit being shoved into every facet of games these days, they shouldn't cost $60 anymore.
They should cost far less.
>This Black person starts shilling $70 games
>games turn $70 the very next year
Convince me this guy isn't hired by the industry to make reddit kalemales accept the ass reaming they'll shut up and take.
anyone remember the literal scientology cult videos they made?
>anyone remember the literal scientology cult videos they made?
I don't think they're the same group as the Spirit Science people.
Unless you mean videos like the picture you posted, I don't know anything about Scientology. But that video was so bad.
>"Here is why evil races are bad game design."
>Never mention actual game design, just emotional "Think of the marginalized groups!" nonsense.
>Somehow naturally evil creatures that are violent and dangerous by default is less complicated or morally questionable than straight up killing actual people born and raised in "hateful ideologies" that otherwise could've been good people.
>Also made a video about how you shouldn't be allowed to play as bad guys in multiplayer games and pointed out "How would you feel when you got a notification that each Nazi you killed was forced into service under threat of his life?!"
Western """Artists""" gays are not artists, are not game creators, and are not sapient.
It gets worse when you watch the video and he outright says "That violent, disgusting, impulsive evil race? THAT'S JUST LIKE REAL LIFE GROUPS TOO!"
Why would you waste internet on this post... we are low enough on internet as is..
WE'RE RUNNING OUT EVERY DAY
AAAAAA CHARGE ME $100 A DAY FOR 4G
The critical flaw in this argument is the constant need of corporate growth in our modern age.
Even with the price of games increasing they're ALSO still buried in microtransaction garbage and devs are still getting peanuts in terms of wages because the CEOs and investors are the ones taking a lion's share of the earnings.
Even the $100 editions that used to at least resemble a complete thing are just starter sets in our live service poisoned age because it's not enough to be successful, you need to continue to be more and more successful until it's no longer sustainable and you inevitably collapse with the CEOs riding golden parachutes down and the people who do the actual work getting crushed in the rubble. People wouldn't fricking care about paying more if it actually meant getting finished experiences and the developers getting their proper dues but anyone who isn't mentally moronic or simply lying through their teeth know that isn't what happens when the game costs more.
>The critical flaw in this argument is the constant need of corporate growth in our modern age.
This.
Corporations are treated like nobility in king henry's court. In that our meager peasant lives will uproot and vanish if they experience the least bit of discomfort dealing with us. So we have to take every consideration to ensure their profitability even if they're just another product like the games they make.
I'm fine with $70-$100 games if it meant there was zero microtranssctions or any form of extra monetization.
Unfortunately that will never happen .
>Games keep costing more and more to make.
>Gameplay quality rapidly declinine.
>Graphics are technically better, but performance is still ass.
Why don't game companies focus on gameplay and performance? You don't need ridiculously huge intricate textures of every NPC's toilet bowl. Just make sure graphically it's clean and sharp, just not blurry. That's all it will take to make most people happy.
These scumbags always bring up muh inflation when trying to justify companies mooching off more money off customers, but conveniently ignore the fact that wages have been stagnant for as long as any of us have been alive.
20 years ago you could easily pay 60 dollars for video game working on minimum wage. Now? I'd rather kill myself than pay 60 dollars for a video game. You have to be rich or mooch off your parents to throw away 60 fricking dollars. Video games have to go down in price. I'd pay 15 dollars for an AAA title.
Game price hike is monumentally moronic simply because the supply of games is at an all time high. When even little timmy can make a roblox gamemode and keep himself and his friends entertained for days, you'd have to be a fricking moron to pay a lot especially when 90% of the time its just remakes and yearly release garbage.
Why would someone argue in favour of paying more for something? What makes the poor vidya industry more deserving of money than the average schmuck buying video games from his shitty 9-5 salary?
GUYS STOP POSTING WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF INTERNET!!
can you tell me, with a straight face that this game deserves 70$?
It doesn't even deserve the 2 MB of cache I had to use to see the picture on my browser tbqh
They should base the price on worthwhile hours.
I'm willing to pay 40 bucks for Elden Boring.
The problem is that not all games are worth that full price. If during the 360/PS3 days, R* released GTA5 at 70 bucks, people wouldn't get that man because just look how fricking big of a game it is.EVERY dev thinks their game should cost the same price of a R* game when they are NOWHERE as expensive or impressive. Yeah, let me buy the new Sonic game at 60 bucks, the same price of RDR2 at launch. And now these fricking c**ts want us to pay more despite their games getting more israelitey and worse. They can go frick themselves. I will stick to pirating or Gamefly.
have these fricks even made a game at all? who gives a shit what they say if they have nothing to show for it
the writer is a game dev and that high pitched one is an animator
"game dev"
sorry, professional game dev
everyone makes games in their bed room these days
"professional" "game dev"
Why are gaymers like this? The cost of movies and marketing has skyrocketed over the decades and yet no ones saying "we really need to increase the price at the cinema. Blu rays should cost more money. I'm happy Netflix sub rate is increasing!" Its insanity.
I dont care about the price of games, they need to make it worthy
mfw gacha shit is more worthy of my 100usd then any of this nig nog ugly as shit x
gacha is never good.