I don’t think many people are expecting a GTA or BG3 amount of content. Yea those are outliers. The problem arises when your game is the same or greater in price as those. Your game better be one hell of a unique experience if you expect people to be satisfied with that price point.
falidorn
joined 2 years ago
That’s recency bias. The PS3/360 era had lots of variation on price for games.
It doesn’t need to be based on playtime. It’s honestly weird to base price exclusively on that. Quality isn’t easy to define for video games but if you explicitly say your game is lesser than a counterpart… maybe it’s not worth as much.
So it’s priced accordingly right? Right?
Games haven’t ever taken this long. The “good old days” were quickly made games comparatively. Slow games lead to bloated budgets which lead to bloated content which leads to bloated investor expectations.
I get that cultural change is happening but how much better, if at all, are these employment numbers compared to the Japanese norm? I very much doubt that the touted “great” employment of the article is that great if we didn’t compare it to entire other cultures. Maybe Sony’s Japanese employment would be a good comparison?
Isn’t the latter true for basically all of Japan?
The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester
The original cyberpunk story.
Great book. I’m afraid he learned the wrong lesson though.
What about us folks on the drier side of life?
view more: next ›
The price point most definitely isn’t static. Before we get into actual price points there’s DLC and whether or not that’s free or how it’s priced. But for actual games there’s an $80 price point, a $70 one, and a $60 one if you want to cherry pick and only discuss “console” games. There’s still plenty of games releasing at $40 or even $20 and those are *also released on consoles but likely don’t get physical releases. Don’t act like these companies don’t have leeway to set their own prices for what they produce.