98
Game prices are too low, says Capcom exec
(www.eurogamer.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
98 points (100.0% liked)
Games
16541 readers
407 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, and that's hardly a good thing. Half the reason games are getting worse is because appealing to a core audience just doesn't pay the bills. I'd gladly pay $100 a game if it meant games could just appeal to their niche markets instead of having to be top sellers or have the series canned.
Game would $100 but the same as they are now. Could be $200 and it'd be the same as they are now and still have mtx, since why would a company leave the option to get more money. Few companies operate with the approach of this is enough money we are content.
And games have only gotten worse if you are looking at triple a titles the same way someone might say movies have gotten worse because they think high budget super hero movies are the only ones that exist.
If the market could sustain $100 it would be, but barrier to making and releasing games has never been lower. So consumers would just move to alternative games that are cheaper or old titles they haven't gotten around to. And worst of all to these comlanies the top sellers aren't always these high budget titles, but some indie title that's not even 3d. Then there's game pass people would just turn to if game prices went up moving more people to subscription.
Which is infinitely superior to just being eternally shelved because the project has no hope outside of a small fan base.
Most companies needing $100 per unit for a game to be profitable aren't going to bother approving that type of game to begin with over a game that can be priced $100 and have much broader mainstream appeal.
Is the mainstream audience going to pay that price in enough volume? They can just price games differently to each other. Like, whatever mainstream games would still benefit from the increased demand from staying at around $60, but some obscure jrpg in a series with a small but dedicated base could sell for $100+ with the intent that realistically nobody else was interested anyway.
Why would a company want to risk putting money into a game so niche it needs $100 per unit over a game that can make more money despite being priced $60. And you know... Just price it $100.
Why do people keep making interesting movies when some generic avengers shit will be more profitable? Games are an art form. People want to make them. I don't see why you seem to think treating it all as purely a question of financial optimization is a good way to view a creative industry.