News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können Sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über notebookrelevante Dinge diskutieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Gigs
 - Today at 20:58:02
What happens when everyone keeps raising prices and then they realize noone can afford new games anymore all the time? Food, water, rent/mortgage, fuel.... necessities come before the ability to buy a game within the first month or so of a game coming out. What happens then? I agree with a previous post that regardless of the amount of time a game company puts into the end user is what matters. Keep treating us like we dont and see what happens. You dont make money if you dont sell anything. Budget better. The customer is always right regardless if we "own" the game or not. On top of that quit throwing out slop. Why would anyone pay 60-100 for anything that has little to zero replay value, that takes 20 to 30 hours to beat? Kingdom come, gta, rdr,elden ring, etc. These games you can clearly put over 100 easy just by how fun they are and how much they have in them. Care about your product, so we can. Stop slapping AAA on a game if it isn't gonna deliver. As for Wardogs, dont get greedy. You released a great game once. Don't think your a big dog.
Posted by The ice machine
 - Today at 20:47:17
This is an unrealistic thinking from someone who is out of touch with the key demographic of people who actually game. The real key is the elimination of budgets that are too high, keeping the window for release within two years instead of 6 to 10 years. They also need to get rid of a lot of excess management and redundance that causes over spending in the first place. They need to audit each department and analyze what they really need for a good game. Graphics are nice, but you have to have some substance too. His type of thinking is one sure way to tank the industry overall. The people who hod up the gaming industry are mostly the types they are alienating with prices and poor story design. They will sell more if the games are at a fair price around $30 to $60. If they actually craft a story that is genuinely engaging and interesting it will sell. I know it is a novel concept. Rasing the price on games in a rapidly collapsing industry is not a smart move at all. They will just hasten the inevitable. This is one place walstreet should not get into the ring. They will turn it into a s*** show. It is not something that translates into a 1:1 corporate thing like normal. They will cause it to collapse fast like we see now.
Posted by Nope.
 - Today at 16:34:47
Or they could just pay the ceo a few million less. Theyll still be able to buy their super yachts and the people who actually work and contribute to the company will be able afford food and rent.

Win/win?
Posted by Partypooper
 - Today at 15:34:44


QuoteThat's not how capitalism works. Particularly capitalism with a conscience.

That's exactly how unfettered capitalism works. Stakeholder capitalism as you are describing can start out with a conscience but it's always short lived, once that start up or private company goes public focus shifts to shareholder primacy with short term horizons. Meaning the work force is treated like elastic contracts and layoffs happen to improve the margins. The board gets what the board wants every time.
Posted by Somebody
 - Today at 10:29:48
Quote from: Tylerman on Yesterday at 19:09:59Games should cost for the amount of time put in and out out. For example... RE9 12 hours to beat and slop should not be 70 bucks! That should be a 20 buck game new off the shelf. Games like GTA, fallout, Persona etc... all have over 100 hours of gameplay and time put in. Those I'll gladly pay 80 plus for, because I know I will get my moneys worth. Also... Digital games should not cost the same as a physical.
, only issue I find with this is games like clicker games, or mobile games, I think time put Into making the game should matter too
Posted by Gay rat critic
 - Today at 10:21:34
Someone's about to get kicked in the nuts by every person on a budget who enjoys games
Posted by Dirty Dan
 - Today at 09:08:21
I could get on-board with this if everyone followed Bulkhead's busines model of lower prices for early adopters in EA and a higher full release price. I could also get on-board with this if AAA games weren't just a short lived money grab plus MTX hell. I have put more hours i to more $10 games than I have $60+ games. On the other hand, maybe forcus less on shareholders and focus more the people who make your shareholders a profit, your developers and customers.
Posted by Carter
 - Today at 08:18:20
Quote from: Rottytops on Yesterday at 23:56:15As long as CEOs keep getting literal tens of millions in bonuses, mass layoffs will never end. The people doing the actual work will always be treated like expendable contracted gig-workers after any project finishes. Raising a game to $80 won't  mitigate layoffs, it'll only make their bonuses higher. Japanese game devs don't have a mass layoffs issue like the west does. Unfettered greed is the cause of the layoffs, not that the games are "too cheap"

That's not how capitalism works. Particularly capitalism with a conscience.
Posted by Carter
 - Today at 08:12:27
How about instead of raising the prices..... you make decent games first.
Posted by Cjay
 - Today at 03:45:08
Rockstar spent the last 10 years milking GTAV online the amount they have made I don't want to hear it, they are greedy bastards point blank period.
Posted by Kenisha
 - Today at 03:37:20
That's the biggest fucking joke I've ever heard. Companies barely wanna finish games anymore before they expect you to pay a grocery trip's worth for something that may or may not be fixed later
Posted by Huhthatsodd
 - Today at 02:46:23
Charge more for your game then. If you think its worth it and it truly is people will buy it. Otherwise they just wait for it to go on sale. Dont blame other companies for your pricing system. They didnt create it
Posted by crystalsphere
 - Today at 00:13:18
I haven't bought a $60-70 game since Elden Ring. I have other things on my plate like cost of rent going up literally every year and going to the grocery store to see things I buy getting raised by literal dollars every couple months. Sorry if that was the standard I'd continue to not buy games. Industry is probably failing because everyone like me plays free games these days. Fortnite gets millions of players each day, MILLIONS of concurrent players, way higher than any game on Steam. Now add in Apex, Marvel Rivals, Deadlock, Warzone, Overwatch, Minecraft, Roblox and cheap indie games. You have literally millions and millions of people gaming everyday without having to pay a single cent. Go look at the Fortnite player numbers, it's bonkers. People don't buy the new CoD anymore. They buy the Snoop Dogg skin. Hell I even MADE $400 from Fortnite tournaments. EVERYONE I know plays free games and buys skins. Interestingly Overwatch was Microsoft's top performing game, no cuts happening there and it's free. Huh, look at that. Look at the small devoted Deadlock team, game is a success before it's even released. People don't want to pay $70 for cutscene slop, they want good gameplay, which you can get for free these days. Plus they offer live service for free, not paid DLCs. WoW Forever is about to be massive too, which will only cost $15 for people to try it. Prices definitely don't need to be raised more, he's probably upset he didn't squeeze more out of his success.
Posted by Rottytops
 - Yesterday at 23:56:15
As long as CEOs keep getting literal tens of millions in bonuses, mass layoffs will never end. The people doing the actual work will always be treated like expendable contracted gig-workers after any project finishes. Raising a game to $80 won't  mitigate layoffs, it'll only make their bonuses higher. Japanese game devs don't have a mass layoffs issue like the west does. Unfettered greed is the cause of the layoffs, not that the games are "too cheap"
Posted by Buraian
 - Yesterday at 23:15:52
Executives really should play the game they are trying justify saying it costs X amount of money, I mean really play the game, maybe then there'll be a reckoning