Unpopular Opinion

1. Nintendo doesn't sell at a loss.

2. This argument only takes inflation into account and the cost of making the games, while ignoring that games sell many more copies than in the past. Gaming is much more popular than in the N64 era.

Say you need to make $100 to break even. If you can assume a third of console owners will buy. Say 300 people own the console, you can sell for $1 and make the hundred.

Now say games are more expensive to make, you need $300 to break even. But now there's 1000 people that own the console. With the same third buying your game at $1 you're now making $333.

3. Most games already cost more than $70 if you want the complete game. Ubisoft is typically $140 I think for the base game and expansions plus tons of micro transactions. Increasing the base price to $90 would be more accepted if we weren't already being fucked over with the current pricing model which is just going to get worse.

Edit: why is my 3 showing as a 1? Is this a sync formatting issue or something with lists in lemmy?

Props for a legitimate unpopular opinion! I do disagree, but I guess that is the point lol

Definitely an unpopular opinion, though I don't disagree with it.

For an additional point of comparison, a brand new N64 cartridge back in 1996 would have been anywhere from $60 to $80. Which based on an inflation calculator would be slightly over $120 to $160 today.

And games are more expensive than ever for studios to make and push to the market. Given that, I'm not surprised we have loot crates, micro transactions, and predatory dlc. A AAA game should have a baseline price closer to $200.

Definitely an unpopular opinion, and not just a rant or rage bait either, so kudos!

I don't agree, but this is a damn fine post for this C/

The reason I don't agree is that consumer goods are priced out of scale. It they can't price things at a realistic level, then they should stop making them. That goes for every single brand/platform out there

If they're going to be sucking at the teat of capitalism and enjoying massive profits, but the rest of us are struggling as households, they can go fuck themselves, to be frank. They want the benefits of a "free" market, but don't want to recognize that the market pressure of demand actually matters. If they're making games that aren't affordable to the median, then that's the developers' problem. They can scale back for a while, change pricing, produce fewer games, whatever. They have options.

Now, yes, it's games. This isn't insulin we're talking about here, so it certainly isn't something anyone needs to be up in arms over. But it also isn't something where they need defending either. Fuck em if they can't play fair.

I honestly agree and usually get downvoted to hell for it. I spent $60 on Halo 3 in 2007. Today that would be close to 90. Inflation is here, and as you said we know that Halo 3 took less manpower than most modern games. I think there needs to be a price adjustment.

Now that also means that I expect people will not buy just any game that comes out, we'll start being more picky, and I say good. True masterpieces I'm happy to shell out 100 dollars for. I'm also happy to try that with their AAAA assassin's creed games and watch sales fall. That's the market.

People say it's greed. 90 is not greed. That's how much it costs to make games. Battlefront 2 with endless micro transactions are greed. Required dlc is greed. If its 90 bucks and I get 100 hours of entertainment from it, I'm doing pretty well.

After all, let's remember that movies are like $16 now and you only get 2 hours of entertainment.