State of the video game industry

Mikeaveli

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
5,832
1,802
Edmonton, AB
As someone who has access to playing games on PS5, PC, and Switch. I'd probably be much more annoyed with Sony's price increase if the games never went on sale outside rare exceptions like 1st party Switch games. Every game I've bought from Sony at the new price point I felt has lived up to the increased price enough to not make me annoyed (Ratchet and Clank, Forbidden West, Ragnarok, and Returnal). And, if there is any game I'm on the fence about I know it will likely eventually end up on PS Plus extra if its first-party or I'll find it on sale within 6 months of launch dramatically knocked down for a more reasonable price. Whereas Nintendo, I either need to wait for a CAD 55 dollar sale maybe which happen once in a Blue Moon even on 3 to 4 year old games that weren't massive hit, or look for it used.
Yeah I'm not too pressed over the $70 as I rarely buy games at full price anyways. The thing that really bothers me from a PC user's perspective though is when there's a last gen version available for $60 and a current gen version for $70. This isn't like old days when there were bespoke versions of games made for different generations (think Sonic Unleashed PS2 vs. PS3), they are literally making you pay $10 to increase the resolution and framerate and maybe some settings lol. Essentially gatekeeping you from taking full advantage of the hardware you already paid for. If that happened on PC people would be livid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flyersnorth

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
33,959
21,030
Toronto
Yeah I'm not too pressed over the $70 as I rarely buy games at full price anyways. The thing that really bothers me from a PC user's perspective though is when there's a last gen version available for $60 and a current gen version for $70. This isn't like old days when there were bespoke versions of games made for different generations (think Sonic Unleashed PS2 vs. PS3), they are literally making you pay $10 to increase the resolution and framerate and maybe some settings lol. Essentially gatekeeping you from taking full advantage of the hardware you already paid for. If that happened on PC people would be livid.
Fair, but in the case of consoles, this early in a gen consoles (the hardware) are sold at a loss (unless you are talking Nintendo), unlike PC's where you actually are paying a premium for your parts, so this along with making you pay for online (something PC users would lose their minds over) are some of the ways they make profits on that initial loss. I'm more of the opinion if you don't like it, don't pay $70 (or $90 CAD at launch), vote with your wallet. Wait for a sale, I can't think of a single Playstation 5 game's price you couldn't find some sale on within 9 months of launch. On things that bother me in the industry, like mass consolidation, games being released at full price then trying to nick and dime you on MTX (Call of Duty, EA Sports, etc), phasing out physical copies (and basically making what is actually on a disc impossible to play without a massive download see latest COD) and companies rushing products out like CDPR to meet shareholders deadline on games that take months if not years to patch to a state console holders would have deemed acceptable before online updates is way more bothersome. Every game I've paid the new price at I can live with since they were complete games, excellently made in my opinion (this is obviously subjective), and didn't try to hit me up for 10 bucks for some Kratos unique armor, etc. To be honest, I honestly find how quickly controllers seem to acquire drift for a ton of users a much more bothersome development, since some how the longevity of these devices has gone backwards.
 

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,237
9,635
Yeah I'm not too pressed over the $70 as I rarely buy games at full price anyways. The thing that really bothers me from a PC user's perspective though is when there's a last gen version available for $60 and a current gen version for $70. This isn't like old days when there were bespoke versions of games made for different generations (think Sonic Unleashed PS2 vs. PS3), they are literally making you pay $10 to increase the resolution and framerate and maybe some settings lol. Essentially gatekeeping you from taking full advantage of the hardware you already paid for. If that happened on PC people would be livid.
It seems like that does happen on PC, at least with cross-platform games. Skyrim is 11 years old, but the "last gen" Special Edition is $39.99, while the "current gen" Anniversary Edition is $49.99. Bethesda keeps upgrading it mainly so that they don't have to drop the price. Also, on Steam right now, Crysis 2 & 3 (11 and 9 years old, respectively) are both $29.99, while the recently remastered versions also have MSRPs of $29.99 but are on sale for only $22.49. In other words, the remastered versions are cheaper than the original. On top of that, you can get all three remastered Crisis games in a trilogy bundle for $29.97, two cents less than the original version of just one of the games. At least that's a good deal, but it shows that publishers will do anything (upgrade the games and/or bundle them together) to get $30+ from you when all that you maybe really wanted to do was buy one 10-year-old game for $10.
 
Last edited:

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,948
3,684
Vancouver, BC
I get that it might be a slippery slope broader issue and I guess it's a matter of principle for some of you, but in my personal view, just on a practical level, there are not enough good games that get released every year that I would ever actually consider buying anyways that spending $70 on the odd great one would ever be a problem. And it's always been that way. I feel like it's only a concern for the people who are like "There are so many games, they all have value, I'm so hyped about everything and I want to buy all of them!" which is a mindset I've never really understood (is FOMO the right word for that? The concept has always struck me as moronic, personally).

On top of that, the good ones usually aren't the ones that are $70 anyways. And they're only that expensive when they first come out-- which shouldn't really be that important when it comes to when you ought to experience something. It really doesn't bother me that the lower price is months or years down the line-- there are tons of other things that I resent about the industry so much more than that aspect of it (like how the end result of games are often neutered and compromised by business considerations during their development).

Kind of going off on a weird tangent, but I've always found it a pretty strange phenomenon in the world in general that the things I find most valuable tend to be so cheap anyways-- it seems backwards to me. Great creative works that I'll cherish for a lifetime tend to be the cost of a throwaway meal or two for some bizarre reason (a timeless album is usually the price of a sh*tty McDonalds meal).

I guess people are weighing what's reasonable given the market value/production cost or whatever, but personally I couldn't really care less about stuff like that when it comes to how I judge what I'm willing to spend my money on-- the only thing that matters to me is how the price aligns with the personal worth something has to me.
 
Last edited:

KeithIsActuallyBad

You thrust your pelvis, huh!
Apr 12, 2010
72,463
31,408
Calgary
To whine about an extra 10 bucks for games is ridiculous, in 1990 Super Mario 3 was 49.95, so in 30+ years the cost of games has only increased by 20 dollars or 40%, which is far less than many other items

Based on the inflation alone, $50 in 1990 is worth $114 today

A happy meal at McDonalds was $3.19 in 1990, I paid 6.59 for one yesterday, just over double

Gas was $1.15 per gallon, I paid $4.09 yesterday, over triple the price

A Honda Accord was between $12,345 - $14,895, today they are between $26,120 to $38,050 again between double and triple the price

If anything we should be thanking the video game industry for being as generous as they have been by keeping prices relatively flat for so many generations
Mario 3 is also a lot better than some of the AAA games you see today.

Keep in mind for most of those AAA games it's not simply a $10 increase. It's a $10 increase + DLC + online subscription fees.
 

Unholy Diver

Registered User
Oct 13, 2002
19,246
3,162
in the midnight sea
Mario 3 is also a lot better than some of the AAA games you see today.

Keep in mind for most of those AAA games it's not simply a $10 increase. It's a $10 increase + DLC + online subscription fees.


Only if you buy the extra crap, I buy a lot of games, none of the COD type stuff but most of the single player AAA stuff, occasionally a sports title, and almost never get the DLC or season passes. Generally by the time the DLC drops I have already moved onto a new game and don't want to go back to something that I haven't played for 6 months or more

I've never got any DLC for any of the Uncharted, or Last of Us games, if they even had any to buy and still managed to get a lot of enjoyment out of them
 

Mikeaveli

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
5,832
1,802
Edmonton, AB
It seems like that does happen on PC, at least with cross-platform games. Skyrim is 11 years old, but the "last gen" Special Edition is $39.99, while the "current gen" Anniversary Edition is $49.99. Bethesda keeps upgrading it mainly so that they don't have to drop the price. Also, on Steam right now, Crysis 2 & 3 (11 and 9 years old, respectively) are both $29.99, while the newly remastered versions that were released a few days ago also have MSRPs of $29.99 but are on sale for only $22.49. In other words, the remastered versions are cheaper than the original. On top of that, you can get all three remastered Crisis games in a trilogy bundle for $29.97, two cents less than the original version of just one of the games. At least that's a good deal, but it shows that publishers will do anything (upgrade the games and/or bundle them together) to get $30+ from you when all that you maybe really wanted to do was buy one 10-year-old game for $10.
I'm pretty sure the only difference between Skyrim SE and AE on PC is the creation club content that comes with AE. Either way, new versions of old games aren't quite what I'm talking about. An equivalent scenario would be if Starfield releases with a 30 FPS cap and on day 1 there is a $10 DLC which allows you to raise it along with resolution and graphics settings.
Fair, but in the case of consoles, this early in a gen consoles (the hardware) are sold at a loss (unless you are talking Nintendo), unlike PC's where you actually are paying a premium for your parts, so this along with making you pay for online (something PC users would lose their minds over) are some of the ways they make profits on that initial loss. I'm more of the opinion if you don't like it, don't pay $70 (or $90 CAD at launch), vote with your wallet. Wait for a sale, I can't think of a single Playstation 5 game's price you couldn't find some sale on within 9 months of launch. On things that bother me in the industry, like mass consolidation, games being released at full price then trying to nick and dime you on MTX (Call of Duty, EA Sports, etc), phasing out physical copies (and basically making what is actually on a disc impossible to play without a massive download see latest COD) and companies rushing products out like CDPR to meet shareholders deadline on games that take months if not years to patch to a state console holders would have deemed acceptable before online updates is way more bothersome. Every game I've paid the new price at I can live with since they were complete games, excellently made in my opinion (this is obviously subjective), and didn't try to hit me up for 10 bucks for some Kratos unique armor, etc. To be honest, I honestly find how quickly controllers seem to acquire drift for a ton of users a much more bothersome development, since some how the longevity of these devices has gone backwards.
I agree it's a minor nitpick as most people don't care at all but I still think it's worth mentioning because of how nonsensical it is. The same game should not be a different price based on the hardware you're using.
 
Sep 19, 2008
373,706
24,738
It's so sad how online games suck now. I used to be a big believer but everyone online just cheats, hacks, or glitches their way through any game, and the occasional games that don't have hackers just have dumb companies that limit what you do, or tone a game down (see BF2042 and the removal of "cross- team chat", you can only chat with the people in your own team, or the SBMM which removes the old clan servers everyone used to go to)

All I want is a game with 64 players that lets me play with the boys on a 32 v 32 team deathmatch. Nothing difficult. Just a basic simple game with TDM. They can't even make that anymore.

Then I hear all about these dumb indie studies. "f*** EA, support indie studios." f*** indie studios. These games I'm looking at suck ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: x Tame Impala

Nemesis Prime

Registered User
Jun 29, 2010
6,911
5,458
London, ON
It's so sad how online games suck now. I used to be a big believer but everyone online just cheats, hacks, or glitches their way through any game, and the occasional games that don't have hackers just have dumb companies that limit what you do, or tone a game down (see BF2042 and the removal of "cross- team chat", you can only chat with the people in your own team, or the SBMM which removes the old clan servers everyone used to go to)

All I want is a game with 64 players that lets me play with the boys on a 32 v 32 team deathmatch. Nothing difficult. Just a basic simple game with TDM. They can't even make that anymore.

Then I hear all about these dumb indie studies. "f*** EA, support indie studios." f*** indie studios. These games I'm looking at suck ass.
I miss the old days of TDM on Allied Assault.

f***in great game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Price

Panthaz89

Buffalo Sabres, Carolina Panthers fan
Dec 24, 2016
13,306
5,806
Buffalo,NY
It's so sad how online games suck now. I used to be a big believer but everyone online just cheats, hacks, or glitches their way through any game, and the occasional games that don't have hackers just have dumb companies that limit what you do, or tone a game down (see BF2042 and the removal of "cross- team chat", you can only chat with the people in your own team, or the SBMM which removes the old clan servers everyone used to go to)

All I want is a game with 64 players that lets me play with the boys on a 32 v 32 team deathmatch. Nothing difficult. Just a basic simple game with TDM. They can't even make that anymore.

Then I hear all about these dumb indie studies. "f*** EA, support indie studios." f*** indie studios. These games I'm looking at suck ass.
I pretty much stick with SP lately most of my friends play WOW for some reason even though they hate it but just do it to play together. I try to convince them to play something more interesting that doesn't need a monthly subscription but the only thing they really would bother to play is LOL. Try to show them innovative steam games and they don't even bother to try most of the time.
 

Dolemite

The one...the only...
Sponsor
May 4, 2004
43,208
2,134
Washington DC
I'm pretty sure a lot of games use the terms interchangeably, I just call them all "battle pass" because "season pass" is a commonly used term referring to many different things, "battle pass" is the shitty system Fortnite popularized where you pay ~$10 or whatever they charge for the period of play and you get to unlock special, mostly cosmetic rewards.
Fortnite is in a class all by themselves with their seasons lasting a second and their special promotions last a half a second. If they defined anything to loathe in gaming it's their off the charts FOMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodgerwilco

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,858
4,950
Vancouver
Visit site
The worst thing is they also all use SBMM now so there are no privately run servers. Finish one round, and get randomly selected for another lobby. It's lame
I think that's kind of the point here. I don't really do online gaming but for as long as online gaming has been around there's been cheaters. The difference is with PC gaming you used to always have the option/requirement for private servers which could build a sort of community and ban cheaters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Price
Sep 19, 2008
373,706
24,738
I think that's kind of the point here. I don't really do online gaming but for as long as online gaming has been around there's been cheaters. The difference is with PC gaming you used to always have the option/requirement for private servers which could build a sort of community and ban cheaters.
It's sad they took all the clan run private server communities out. They were usually pretty cool but people didn't like all the rules. Mods can be strict sometimes. I was watching a GTA RP video where this guy talks about how rules apply to some regulars and not others in a GTA server. It gets all gaming-political with cliches and what not.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad