Go ahead and raise the price then. See how that goes 
I’m not paying more than 70 for a base game, and even that’s choosy af
I’m not paying more than 70 for a base game, and even that’s choosy af
Capcom President: "price of games is too low"
- Thread starter daze23
- Start date
Batsute
The Lion Choker
No way it’s happening people are bytching about having to unlock stuff in MK1 and people are mad the costume drops have been slow in SF6.
Save the economy! Give us more mid!
BobbyWojak
Superstar
FitGirl Repacks
The ONLY official site for FitGirl Repacks. Every single FG repack installer has a link inside, which leads here. Do not fall for fake and scam sites, which are using my name.
fitgirl-repacks.site
Overall revenue gotta be as high as ever, too. Millions more customers than the 90s
NZA
LOL
if larian studios can do it in a sustainable way, then other RPG developers have to ask themselves some tough questions, or larian studios will be driving itself into bankruptcy some day and the studios making smaller games will be there to take their market share. either way, the consumer has already paid the extra $10 this generation. game price expectations are not infinitely elastic, especially if gamers are expected to never own anything and just have their games stuck on some account that can be restricted at some point in the future.
honestly..... capcom could sell a MH: World 2 at 100 bucks or more and it'd still be seen as great value if their history of support holds up.Go ahead and raise the price then. See how that goes
also, this is absolutely destiny's fault 
I think the problem with people arguing that games are actually cheaper than ever when adjusting for inflation against those who are staunchly against the increases is that both sides are trying to have that argument in a vacuum.
On one hand, yeah, simple inflation math would tell you that prices not only being standardized, but also having risen all of $20 in the past nearly 20 years is definitely a boon for the customer. Considering that budgets have skyrocketed, it's making the margins for success incredibly thin. That's part of how we end up with Square Enix somehow saying nearly every game they release fell short of targets, despite selling quite well. At some point, these publishers need to find a way to tap the audience for more revenue to be able to get proper operating margin to keep studios going between games.
But on the other, games back then were sold as complete products, without DLC, paid early access, and required subscriptions to play multiplayer the developers intended you to play. It's hard for everyone to get on board with the idea of paying more when realistically speaking, for a lot of releases, the publisher is actually asking you to pay $100 for the complete experience, and possibly trying to dip in your pockets for the occasional micro transaction as well. Additionally, yeah, in comparison, games are technically cheaper than they were back then, but in the grand scheme, but the rest of people's everyday finances have changed drastically since then. Gas was $.99 back then, and now the national average is in the $4-$5 range, for example. So, while the cost of games is technically cheaper than ever, a good portion of the audience has a smaller cut of their money to truly use as recreational spending.
I see both sides of the argument, but looking at it objectively, saying "We need to demand more money from the audience," while still talking about seeing record revenues and profits is never a good look. While the move may actually be for sustainability, it'll ALWAYS look like greed under those conditions.
On one hand, yeah, simple inflation math would tell you that prices not only being standardized, but also having risen all of $20 in the past nearly 20 years is definitely a boon for the customer. Considering that budgets have skyrocketed, it's making the margins for success incredibly thin. That's part of how we end up with Square Enix somehow saying nearly every game they release fell short of targets, despite selling quite well. At some point, these publishers need to find a way to tap the audience for more revenue to be able to get proper operating margin to keep studios going between games.
But on the other, games back then were sold as complete products, without DLC, paid early access, and required subscriptions to play multiplayer the developers intended you to play. It's hard for everyone to get on board with the idea of paying more when realistically speaking, for a lot of releases, the publisher is actually asking you to pay $100 for the complete experience, and possibly trying to dip in your pockets for the occasional micro transaction as well. Additionally, yeah, in comparison, games are technically cheaper than they were back then, but in the grand scheme, but the rest of people's everyday finances have changed drastically since then. Gas was $.99 back then, and now the national average is in the $4-$5 range, for example. So, while the cost of games is technically cheaper than ever, a good portion of the audience has a smaller cut of their money to truly use as recreational spending.
I see both sides of the argument, but looking at it objectively, saying "We need to demand more money from the audience," while still talking about seeing record revenues and profits is never a good look. While the move may actually be for sustainability, it'll ALWAYS look like greed under those conditions.
This is the only thing holding the industry up at this point,
Problem is, that growth has stopped, and costs continue to rise.
If the value proposition is there, they should be about it instead of talking about it
there’s always the option to wait on a sale for others
Damn it’s really slowing down?
ijs if we're talking titles by value (however you decide to measure it, all kinds of subjective stuff in that) - MH titles would always be near the topIf the value proposition is there, they should be about it instead of talking about it
if any company is gonna start this dialogue.... well, capcom ain't a bad choice
Similar threads
