this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
279 points (91.9% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

7110 readers
269 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Game prices for the past 30 years haven't kept pace with inflation.

I recognise the argument that publishers are shifting larger volumes of units now, which has been a factor that has allowed the industry to keep price increases below inflation for the last 30 years.

Wages not being even close to keeping up with inflation (especially housing inflation) is the real issue here, not the $70/$80 video game.

You should be angry at your reduced purchasing power in all of society, not just with the price of Nintendo games.

(Secondary less unpopular opinion, the best games out these days are multiplatform and released at least 5 years ago, buy them for << $80 and wait for sale the new releases, when they too are 5 years old)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

This is really about late stage capitalism and chasing infinite growth. Every year profits must go up X percentage. There is never enough. So they have to find ways to make it to up, cutting wages and increasing prices is the obvious way.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 12 points 20 hours ago

Game prices are absolutely a problem still. The price of a game is just the entry fee. Then there's subscriptions, MTX, etc. If you add in everything you need to make a game a complete experience like they were pre-download era, games cost more even with inflation factored in.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 15 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah this is absolutely correct. When you look at prices and adjust for inflation $80 now is about right.

The value of money has gone down, and the value of pay cheques and salaries have not increased to keep up.

Unfortunately this often gets sidelined with "what aboutism" - like what about the dysfunctional AAA market, and predatory big publishers like EA that churn our crap, or all the publishers trying to build microtransactions into games. These are also ALL valid issues, but it doesn't change the fundamentals that video games cost around $80 in 2000 when adjusted for inflation.

The video game industry can be dysfunctional AND we're also being screwed over by dysfunctional unequal capitalism causing declining living standards at the same time.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

no. they don't even make physical media anymore. the cost is lowered on each copy. they ask for a ton of extra payments. they can suck shit and die. games can be 30 bucks and still stay profitable. the games industry makes more money than Hollywood. stop defending them while they're trying to pluck your last dime.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] the_q@lemm.ee 21 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

While wages are an issue, AAA gaming is more about C-suite satisfaction and the continued growth of the capitalist way of life.

Indie devs can make gold for $9.99.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 15 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Indie devs can make gold for $9.99.

I've spent less than $20 for all of the Vampire Survivors content, and gotten 250 hours of enjoyment out of it.

Sucks to suck, EA.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago

A big problem is ignorant Csuite scaling up a games developer studio and expecting more cooks in the kitchen will make a higher quality product.

The indie teams make great full experiences with realistic scope because it's a team of like 20 or less who are all on the same page instead of hundreds of employees.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Indie devs have infinitely less overhead than AAA game studios, so of course they can.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

And they have infinitely less funding and marketing. They don't have the overhead but they don't have the benefits of that overhead either and will succeed.

[–] the_q@lemm.ee 4 points 19 hours ago

Yes I mentioned the C-suite...

[–] Saff@lemmy.ml 60 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Are the game developers and artists wages now being increased by the same percentage though? You are correct overall, especially in places like the UK where wages have been stagnant since like 2008 it feels like. But letting a company off the hook for raises “due to inflation” if they themselves are not raising their workers salaries to meet that inflation is bullshit.

[–] RustyShackleford@literature.cafe 46 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Welcome to being an adult and finally realizing capitalism mainly involves screwing the workers and increasing product prices to make investors happy. We were never meant to be happy, just milked to death.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Shayeta@feddit.org 19 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I would also like to add that 30 years ago devs had to write the engine and devtools from scratch. Player hardware and optimizations were also massive pain points that needed attention.

I would argue that cost of development has gotten CHEAPER than it was 30 years ago, even when taking the scope of today's games into account. Not to mention the market is also orders of magnitude bigger.

Any schmuk today can take Unity/UE5/Godot and make something playable in a matter of days. Barrier to entry is practically non existent. Look at Palworld, Vampire Survivors, Among Us, Balatro, Terraria. For studios with AAA-level scope look at Larian studios, Warhorse studios, Eleventh hour games, Hello games.

Large studio execs with 0 substance who don't know what they're doing are spouting this inflation drivel as justification to raise prices of their already failing games as AA and indie teams run CIRCLES around them.

[–] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Maybe development in the sense that it is easier for programmers to put together the logic of the game, but game budgets are in the hundreds of millions now they have not gotten cheaper. You're forgetting that artists are needed to create all the high quality textures and objects needed to populate the gameworld. As gamers have called for more and more unrealistic standards of graphical fidelity, more and more budgets have gone to the legions of graphical artists necessary.

They're still underpaying them, but indies can get away with having maybe one guy as their whole art team. Check the credits for how many studios helped the art for the next AAA game you play.

[–] tiddy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Honestly looking at the most popular games, I dont think graphics matter to even 1% of gamers. Minecraft, Terraria, lethal company, baltro, among us, all have the graphical quality of a 2 year old drawing.

Publishers are just spending a million to underpay artists solely because 'graphics' worked back in the ps2-ps3 era, so theyre still hitting that slot machine hoping for the same returns.

Edit to add: tunic, factorio (technically) Tetris, temple run, hill climb racing, Wii sports (arguably nindendos entire style until recently), human fall flat all have incredibly cheap graphics

[–] missingno@fedia.io 5 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

Stylized graphics can look great for cheap, but they aren't a shortcut to instant success. For every successful indie, there are a thousand more that never sell more than a handful of copies.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nikelui@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

As gamers have called for more and more unrealistic standards of graphical fidelity, more and more budgets have gone to the legions of graphical artists necessary.

This is one of the things I personally like the least about modern games. I don't want ultra-high detail textures for 4K resolution that will be completely wasted on my not-so-new hardware. Instead, I'd rather have optimized games that don't intoduce 100+ GB of bloat and require me to set all the graphic options to minimum quality in order to run with a decent fps.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

What has gotten much more expensive is the 3D modelling and level/gamespace making side of things, rather than development, which is why you see so many indies doing 2D games or simple 3D visuals and procedural generation of the gamespace.

This is partly why indie studios are far more successful at producing games with great gameplay than AAA studios - since they avoid going for hyper-realistic looks and massive hand-crafted levels they can focus on the actual gaming much more, plus its way easier to pivot main aspects of a game if it turns out they're not actually fun if there isn't a massive amount of time sunk into visuals and level design linked to them.

[–] overload@sopuli.xyz 3 points 21 hours ago

While I agree that 1 person can make a game easier than ever before, game development cost has ballooned for bigger studios.

People love to point to Indie mega hits and say "why doesn't EA/Activision just make games with creativity like Balatro? This is what the people want.", but I challenge anyone to actually predict what that hit game is going to be before it takes off.

It's a big gamble to put games out there and most indie studios don't make more than 1. It's not a reliable business model to put these thousand person studios to work on a thousand different solo pet projects.

[–] remon@ani.social 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

The problem is throw-away game culture and generally low quality games. A good game can provide you with years of content and would be well worth a >$80 price tag.

But people keep paying the same prices for trash games they play for 2 weeks and then move on. And honestly, they deserve these prices.

[–] Fingolfinz@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

But then there’s Factorio for $35

[–] Nikls94@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (18 children)

I totally agree with you. And I want to add the games that you can only experience once, like Tunic, PEZ and OuterWilds.

And I’d change the "years of content" to something like "you can play it once every few years and it’s still good"

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] makyo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Adding to that - Nintendo is one of the few devs that actually consistently provides the kind of games you're talking about. I feel like Ubisoft selling their next cookie-cutter shopping-list BS for $80 is offensive, but Nintendo doing it is bearable and maybe even justifiable.

I do worry that Nintendo's $80 price tag will normalize $80 games. Ideally, it would be nice if it instead normalized seeing games at a wider variety of fair prices.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tacofox@lemm.ee 56 points 1 day ago
[–] Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 1 day ago

Wow this is incredible. I get to reuse my meme I just made a few days ago! Now that's what I call value

[–] Chef_Boyardee@lemm.ee 1 points 16 hours ago

Same with porn. But now, the only fans type sites are ridiculously expensive and you don't even know what the hell you're paying for until you pay.

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Huh, unpopular opinion.

Does Lemmy know that popular opinions need to be downvoted? Smh....

[–] overload@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 hours ago

The unpopular part is that I disagree with the discussion which is microscopically focussed on raging at game publishers, citing corporate greedy as the only reason game prices are so high.

$80 should be an affordable amount of money to spend for someone on an average wage for a game (not unpopular).

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

35 years ago I didn't get a Super Nintendo or Sega because you could get 12 Commodore 64 games for the same price as a single Mario game. And a few years later my dad got hold of a 286 so we could play DOS games like Wolfenstein.

[–] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I mean both are the problem, obviously. And they're both symptoms of tne larger problem, which is late stage capitalism slowly sucking every last drop of labor value out of everyone. Game companies are making more profits than they did 30 years ago, so you can't tell me they 'need' to raise prices. And their CEO salaries are higher than ever, and developer salaries have not risen accordingly to justify the price increase. If a game company said 'we're raising our prices from 60 to 90 dollars, but we're also giving every employee a 1/3 salary increase' people might not be happy still but it would be a different conversation. But why should people who are struggling have to pay more for nothing except an increase in 'shareholder value' and the c-suites salary package? Thats fucked.

[–] drinkwaterkin@lemm.ee 4 points 23 hours ago

Wage stagnation is absolutely heartbreaking.

But even if I were making a livable wage, Nintendo's prices and other AAA are still ridiculous. The Steam wishlist sale life is the good life.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

The fact that they're moving more units doesn't matter, everything, including things for which the price followed inflation, sells more units than it did 40 years ago just because there's more people on the planet and globalism is a thing.

What matters is that that money goes to enrich billionaires and not the developers making the product people are buying.

Steam takes a 30% cut on the first $10m in sales (then 25% until $50m and then 20%) and they pay their employees a lot more than industry average and the owner is a multi billionaire with a yacht collection. Same shit for publishers, the c-suites are rich from "managing" the intermediary between the development studio and the retailers, they don't give a crap about the product as long as it sells.

Meanwhile the devs making the games have a hard time affording housing, need to deal with crunches and get laid off once the game they were working on is completed.

And what about us, the consumers? Well we're no better off than the developers and we're still enriching a bunch of billionaires while most of us struggle to afford basic needs.

Both publishers and retailers could afford to reduce their cut and lower prices OR to reduce their cut and leave more money to the people making the products they sell and the impact would only be felt by a handful of people (in Steam's case, by a single person).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Game price isn't a problem, just don't buy their games.

For £90 you could buy mario cart, or you would start a genocide in Rimworld and still have enough money left over for automated genocide in Factorio and if you are willing to go over by £3.48 you can also commit genocide from orbit in Stellaris.

[–] LoreSoong@startrek.website 6 points 1 day ago

Wow all that genocide for the low low price of $93.48 where do I sign?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LoreSoong@startrek.website 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

The prices should go down to 40$(or stay 60$ based on inflation) if I dont actually own the game imo. If the company is going to be so bold as to sell "game keys" with no actual data on the cart, coupled with the fact that the EShop has been shut down on the WiiU and 3DS(you can redownload games still, but how long until that goes away?). To me is a huge middle finger, and basically planned obsolesence on the switch 2 since you will no longer be able to redownload your games once they stop supporting the consoles servers.

If i do the "smart" thing and get the switch 2 after a major price drop, every games lifespan will be even shorter. fuck nintendo, mod your switch & switch 2(when thats available) pirate everything from them and get your moneys worth for the overpriced hardware.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›