 A reader offers an alternative solution to raising video game prices but is worried that publishers will never do it. I knew exactly what the response would be, when the president of Capcom suggested that game prices were too low and that something needed to change. Instantly, the internet was filled with violently angry gamers outraged that someone who makes luxury goods – that haven't seen a substantial price increase in over three decades – would have the nerve to suggest they were undervalued and in danger of no longer paying their way. When you have the makers of Fortnite tightening their belt, with almost 900 people made redundant, you know something serious is going on. And yet the noisy minority of gamers won't have it. They immediately started trying to use statics to prove that all game developers are billionaires and there isn't really a problem at all. In most cases this anger is an unwillingness to accept you cannot afford something, but the vitriol is disturbing and entitled, as it is with most things gamers get angry about. I don't say this because I'm rich or anything – £70 is a lot of money to me as well – but insisting that publishers are lying about a problem that has been a decade or more in the making is pointless. In short, the problem is that every generation games become 50% more expensive to make. They also take longer to develop, which is in itself expensive, and yet the global userbase is not expanding quickly enough to compensate. More importantly, the price is barely changing at all and while some now charge £70 instead of £60 that's not the case for all (including Capcom). I think it's clear that the answer isn't making games £80 or £90 and I don't think that's what Capcom was suggesting. The answer is what we've all got used to already: microtransactions, battle passes, DLC, and expensive collector's editions. That is one solution, but I don't feel it's a good one. No one, i){kind=link}
A reader offers an alternative solution to raising video game prices but is worried that publishers will never do it.
I knew exactly what the response would be, when the president of Capcom suggested that game prices were too low and that something needed to change. Instantly, the internet was filled with violently angry gamers outraged that someone who makes luxury goods – that haven’t seen a substantial price increase in over three decades – would have the nerve to suggest they were undervalued and in danger of no longer paying their way.
When you have the makers of Fortnite tightening their belt, with almost 900 people made redundant, you know something serious is going on. And yet the noisy minority of gamers won’t have it. They immediately started trying to use statics to prove that all game developers are billionaires and there isn’t really a problem at all.
In most cases this anger is an unwillingness to accept you cannot afford something, but the vitriol is disturbing and entitled, as it is with most things gamers get angry about. I don’t say this because I’m rich or anything – £70 is a lot of money to me as well – but insisting that publishers are lying about a problem that has been a decade or more in the making is pointless.
In short, the problem is that every generation games become 50% more expensive to make. They also take longer to develop, which is in itself expensive, and yet the global userbase is not expanding quickly enough to compensate. More importantly, the price is barely changing at all and while some now charge £70 instead of £60 that’s not the case for all (including Capcom).