When are we going to accept that the price of developing games

sixty bux for the game and sixty more for the DLC

yeah not paying $80 and then for all the DLC

>>379420264
>>379420385
>not being able to read the chart

>>379420087
maybe they should just use that budget to make games better so they sell more???

>>379420539
the chart that doesn't include the price of DLC

gaming is not going to die; it is a multi-billion dollar industry that's doing just fine without your dumb fucking advice

60 bucks or whatever was just an arbitrary price they choosed back than. On the other hand don't forget the inflation, over 20 years it's a bit.

Take a look at the actual distribution of the budget, especially for triple A's and you'll see an enormous amount of the budget goes to marketing, not actual development.

>>379420592
>posting the "games used to be better" meme

How about them putting whatever price they want on their product and then i can decide if i want to buy it, their competitors product or perhaps nothing at all.

>>379420680
You are retarded. Adjusting for inflation, games are cheaper than they ever have been. The price of games has stagnated while the costs for developing them has exploded. $40 more dollars over the life of the game is not going to make up for this.

>>379420385
>games are $80

Fucking where?

>>379420264
don't forget microtransactions

File: 2423456743.png (219KB, 827x539px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 827x539px

>>379421610
Canada

The expensive part is art assets, as worlds get larger and more detailed it means tons and tons more artist hours making every single little thing you see. The answer to that issue is better technology like http://www.speedtree.com/ which is used in almost everything.

>>379421091
>it's more expensive because I said so!
>daddy gonna get me an island for me and my friends to play
Whatever your brain is a marshmallow

>>379420087
there's more poeple buying games than ever though.

>>379421886
>games arent more expensive to make!
>deflecting this hard

Thats what I thought brainlet

File: 1467244115262.png (71KB, 260x202px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 260x202px

>>379420087
The price of developing games has gone up much more than it has to be every fucking idiot CEO wants to make the biggest possible investment for the biggest possible return.
I'm not responsible for companies putting way more money into a project than necessary and blowing tremendous amounts of marketing, especially when I don't fucking play AAA games and game distribution/production is the cheapest it's ever been, they are not going to drive up the default price of games.

>but look at the business model these AAA game companies chose to invest into, they deserve your money, they are entitled to it!
Go fuck yourself OP someone needs to slap the corporate dick out of your whore mouth.

>>379420087
The market is bigger, so it's not really a problem.
Hell, the games should cost less than 60 dollars if big editors wants to sell multiple IP in the same release window.

>>379420087
Publishers then just need to be more discerning with their clientele and stop pushing shit, focus on quality development rather that shotgunning out trying to hit and appease every demographic at once.

>>379420087
>$60 game
>$2000 dlc
yeah that's way too cheap

>>379422234
They arent necessary more expensive.
Retarded devs and publishers pushed the idea that games need to have super sharp graphix amd a trillion poly and now they have to handle it.
I much rather play a late 6th gen /early 7th with lots of content than most of the barebones shit with super shiny graphics that are getting released.

Hell, most of my favorite games the last decade were AA at max.

Don't make it cinematic and you solve the high cost issue

Video games aren't movies so stop needing budgets for movies when you're making games


Also no, it may cost a ton but it by no means justifies a half baked season pass demanding day 1 dlc release to get a full game

>>379424016
>games dont need good graphics

Yeah. Thats why they get shit on when they look subpar

>>379420087
It's cheaper to make good looking games than ever before. You think making Crysis games would not cost 50 billion dollars in 1920?

>>379424495
DaS, MGRR, everything nintendo done since the gamecube, most gtas before SA...

All have subpar graphics for their release amd and are loved pretty much by everyone.

>>379424495
Minecraft, one of the biggest success stories in videogame history.
Didn't even try to go for top notch graphics and yet no one really complained.

>>379424837
actually people here complained a lot and said it looked like shit during alpha

>>379420087
How about studios stop fucking inflating their budgets so much? It is not expensive to make a video game. Almost every single one of the best video games of all time was made on a sub-$10m, even a sub-$1m budget. Certainly less than the $100m budgets we're seeing today. You have to understand that we're working in orders of magnitude at this point. How many Dragon's Crowns, Neir: Automatas, Bayonettas, Dark Souls, could you make for the budget of one GTAV, one Gears of War 4, one Assassin's Creed? It is at an incredible level. Five is a massive number. Ten is incomparable. One-hundred is infinity. Budgets are infinitely larger than they used to be. The number of amazing games you could make with GTAV's budget alone would probably take you decades to play through.

Stop accepting the current paradigm, stop rewarding it. Quality has only decreased as investment has increased.

>>379424837
That is an exception not the rule

File: 1381153028169.jpg (156KB, 500x780px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 500x780px

>>379420087
>game budgets go up as game sales go up
>suddenly we're expected to pay more per game even though total sales are still rising

What do high/low mean in that chart?

>>379420087
I payed $74 for street fighter 2 ultra SNES when it was new. Games are CHEAP these days. plz.

>>379420087
Never. I don't care how pretty things are, they can't even get them to run proper and then purposely save things for DLC with no remorse.

I'd rather this shit industry die so I can work on my backlog properly.

>>379424996
But anon, they absolutely need to spend that 100m on advertising

>>379424997
The Wii was the highest selling console of it's gen, phone games with graphics more akin to 10 years ago are growing at a great rate and people play them all the time.
No one says the graphics are not good enough for me to be interested in them.
People give a whole lot less of a shit about graphics then some shitposter fanboy in flame war.
Having top of the line graphics mean shit to the average person, all they need to do is work well enough for what the are trying to achieve.

>muh inflation adjustments
hate this retarded kike meme. wages have stagnated massively in most, if not all of the world, except maybe china or if you're one of (((them))).

>>379420087
supply and demand, anon

if nobody wants games at 70 dollars, they won't be sold at 70

>>379420087
Or new tech will make game developing more efficient, reducing costs

>>379425830
Really? Is that why ME:A was shit on for sub-par graphics and animation? The actual "gamer" crowd definitely cares about graphics.

>>379421091
Take into account the macroeconomic situation in your country, and understand that as wages stagnate and more people struggle to fit into the middle class, 60 dollars is actually a bigger hit to the bank now than it was when wealth was more evenly distributed.

>>379426410
Graphics never mattered, and never will.

Pong was an amazing success. Space Invaders too. Minecraft. Wii Sports. The Gameboy beat the Gamegear. Etc etc.

You're objectively wrong.

>>379426410
People shit on that game because of how amateur it was, the modeling and animations were shit, when people straight out shit on the graphics it was based on the fact that it's a AAA game with a huge budget but still managed to fuck it up, going back to incompetence.
Look at Nier, most reviews and players don't care that it was way less visually impressive to other games.
People who care about graphics tend to be shitposters and fanboys, everyone else doesn't care as much as you think, as long as it works for the game.

At the end of the day more than half the budget of a game is for marketing. Maybe if they become more efficient at it they wouldn't have to waste so much money on it.

But seriously, compare the movie budgets with game's and their profit.

Games rarely have a budget that exceeds 50 millions yet each game is sold for $60 + DLC... Meanwhile most movie budgets exceed 100 millions but blulrays are sold for $30 and each movie ticket costs less than $60 too.

The total profit grossed by each industry in 2013:

Games = over 76 billions
Movies = only 35 billions

Now you tell me why are game publishers complaining about video games being too expensive? It's because they are greedy fucks.

Game programmers, artists, etc. work under constant pressure and their pay is shit. The pay for voice actors and the actors that do full body motion capture is shit too... Nobody in video games gets paid millions of dollars to do anything like a top tier actor like Tom Cruise or Scarlett Johansson. Everyone that works in the game industry is getting buttfucked by their publisher/employer and their archaic work model with massive financial leaks.

>>379420087
Of course this is what publishers want you to believe, when in reality - marketing costs have increased, not so much development costs. When you buy a $60 game, youre mostly not funding the development of the next one, youre funding the marketing for the next one.

File: Untitled.png (28KB, 1107x296px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1107x296px

>>379420087
Maybe they can cut their budgets by not hiring womens studies feminists to write their SJW crap stories?

And instead of having playable women and men they just have men?

Or do they value cultural marxism over realistic budgets?

>>379420087
>paying full price for a game
yeah, I can wait half a year and buy it at least at 50% off

>>379427204
Marketing costs are a factor, but inflation and salaries are the bigger issue.

Being a game dev is a bit like being a professional athlete, you skills are in demand which means you're going to be paid more, and you know you're not going to last long and you will burn out which means you'll get paid even more / get pretty decent benefits. Salaries have risen faster than inflation.

Meanwhile for the rest of the US population at least salaries have largely stayed flat well behind where they should be if they were going to keep up with inflation. So while the prices keep ratcheting up to match costs / adjust for inflation to keep the companies stockholders pleased that means the prices keep becoming harder to justify.

Part of why I switched to GNU/Linux, even just on it there's thousands of games, more than I could ever hope to play, and by the time they come out they're usually 50% off or more. The fact that its the only way to fully utilize modern hardware without knowingly accepting malware is also a nice bonus.

>>379428830
>game devs are in demand

How? Every other autist out there wants to be a game dev

>>379420087
>ree what is increased supply
back to econ 101

File: sample_jas.png (15KB, 256x384px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 256x384px

Then there's Stardew Valley and Undertale, where 1 guy in a cave with a box of scraps makes a game and people play it.

Who still buys disks?

>>379429807
Ur mum.

... oh wait it's an 's', I misread it sorry.

>>379429530
People who want to be game devs are a dime a dozen.
People who can actually get enough done to be useful on the other hand are a lot less common, and the burn out rate is pretty high so the pay has to be decent.

I got out in my late 20s with a pretty decent pile of cash and moved to the midwest where the cost of living is low and got a low stress web dev job for my semi-retirement.

Not paying $80 shekels for any game. If games get beyond the current model they'll wither on the vine. The industry exists because the consumers have been willing to feed it. You take that will away, and a lot of suits and "artists" go out of work.