The price of games hasn’t gone up in decades. We’re only just starting to see games that cost $70 instead of $60.
The cost to develop games, on the other hand, has gone way, way, way up.
Think about it in “cost per megabyte”. Players have been getting more and more content - not playable hours, but content that needs to be created by a human - for the same amount of money. While developers have larger and larger staff, with more and more demands… For the same amount of money.
There’s a reason live-service and freemium games are becoming the monetization scheme of choice.
Cost of games needs to go up or we’ll just see more and more exploitative monetization.
Let me also add that $60 for 20 hours of entertainment is one of the best deals there is. And the best games give a lot more than 20 hours of gameplay. Books are about the only thing that comes close
The cost to develop has gone down, if anything. You don’t need powerful hardware. You don’t need expensive industry software. You don’t need proprietary devkits. You can create a perfectly good game on an old laptop with Blender, Krita, Aseprite, Unity, Unreal, Godot. You can target consoles on regular hardware and regular consoles.
Tell me you don’t make games without telling me you don’t make games.
You can make perfectly good games, yes. But good luck making anything AAA like that. The games you’re talking about are indie or niche. For example, they will have no mocap.
And even in those cases, there is a difference between “cost to start a studio” and “cost to develop a game”. The costs you’re talking about are the cost of getting started. Those are barrier to entry costs, not development costs. When we talk about development costs, we typically talk about everything after you have all the hardware and software you need. Studios already have those things so they barely factor into the ongoing development costs
Also you only don’t need proprietary dev kits if you have no intention of doing per-platform QA. Fine for indies. Not fine for AAA
Yes, the barrier to entry has gone down; the minimum cost to ship something, anything, is lower than ever…but only by comparison to the peak cost. Even small indie studios are spending as much as studios did when making $60 NES games
I’m not only talking about AAA. I’m pointing out some of the things you missed in your assessment.
Like I said, even indie studios today spend more to make their non-sprite, full featured games than studios did making NES games. And then those indie games sell for $20 or $30 instead of the full $60 price point. So the content-to-development cost ratio is still shit
Unless you only one scrappy in the games made by three person dev team they really haven’t. The cost for making a game that was good in 2015 has gone down, sure. But it behooves you to show that game development in general, and yes that includes indie developers, has gone down.
A 10 person dev team in any major city is going to cost you between $500,000 and $1mill a year just to staff.
Before, a handful of people could develop the most technically advanced game of the year. Today it’s common that hundreds of overworked people are involved in the development of a game.
Each person must have their own expensive equipment and salaries. Not to mention the cost of renting an office. The costs adds up quickly.
Smaller games made by one or two people are probably cheaper, but the cost of these games aren’t $70 like the big budget games.
That's really not the bulk of development costs though: The real cost is in labour; as game dev teams have increased the labour costs will increase too. Delay in game? Costs go up.
It's offset by the industry becoming bigger; back then a game selling 100k is a huge success, now it's more like 10 million. At some point that'll cap so that's why the studios area increasing prices now. Oh and if the studio is public, they need to feed the parasites shareholders.
I generally don't buy big games of late so I've not had to put up with super expensive games, but it's just something to keep in mind why prices are so.
It’s not for the same amount of money, though. Video game sales also went up significantly over the years.
Doom 2 sold less than 2 million copies by 1999 (released in 1994) and made about 100 million. Doom Eternal sold 3 million copies first week and make over 450 million in revenue in just 9 months…
I see your point, but for me it is more important the “entertainment per €/$” factor, and there you can’t beat indie games.
I’ve bought the whole Halo collection… that’s a metric ton of megabytes right there, but I’ve only installed it once and never again. In contrast, I’ve bought Loop Hero (about 200 MB) and haven’t been able to put it down since. That’s a lot more value for money, in my opinion.
That’s you :) I bought the halo collection and spent >200hrs playing it. I have >1600hrs in the Destiny franchise. Can’t just look at your own experience :)
You see more and more exploitative monetization because people are dumb enough to buy into it. The AAA industry is fucked and is not worth investing a penny into, they wouldn't raise the prices and avoid MTX, they would raise the prices and STILL attempt to fleece as many people as they can with neon skins or whatever bs.
Your comment is talking about monetisation, which the devs have nothing to do with apart from implementing the features. So what even is this response? I dont understand your point now.
Well, I can say from personal experience, devs absolutely have a say in monetization if they’re not wholly owned by the publisher.
But my point is that I was speaking to the motivation businesses have to prefer one monetization scheme over another. Your comment was just “corporations evil, micro transactions bad”.
If the cost of games had kept up with inflation and development costs, micro transactions wouldn’t be nearly the beast it is today because there would have been a viable alternative, and customers would have more options, allowing them to “speak with their wallet” more effectively. But as it stands, it is very, very difficult for most developers to sustain themselves on single-burst, long-tail tail monetization
Probably my proudest is Crypt of the Necrodancer’s Vow Down. The game is already very difficult, but Vow Down requires beating the game in all-zones mode (rogue-like mode rather than the rogue-lite campaign) with one of the more difficult new-game+ characters, Monk. The basic game is a turn-based, grid-based RPG, with the gimmick being that you have to preform all actions to the beat, while the monsters have their turn between beats. Vow Down adds the catch that any gold, be it dropped by monsters or found in the world, kills you instantly and ends your run. Even ignoring the inherant urge to pick up dropped loot, this means you have to carefully position enemies as you kill them so as not to box yourself in with deadly loot, all while only having a fraction of a second to think per turn.
This game also has what is probably among the most difficult (while still being fair) achivememts on Steam: Beating the game with the final New Game+ character, Coda, which has the debuffs of every other character combined. According to Steam, 0.3% of players have this achivement, meaning roughly 0.3% of players have cheated in achievements.
It seems lacking in features on Linux. I figured out how to record (always on in background), but the other tools either don’t seem to work or aren’t documented. e.g. reviewing clips, any sort of interface, the shortcut keys didn’t work for me, etc.
You aren’t doing it right if you end up paying $200 during a sale. But you do you, boo. Granted, I know I end up collecting these games like pogs, so I can’t say much.
This is not “a prediction” - this is inevitably what’s going to happen.
Everyone here who has drank the Valve kool-aid and pretends like they can do no wrong is dangerously short-sighted. Steam’s virtual monopoly on PC gaming is a huge issue. You think Epic has a monopoly on the concept of “Store Exclusives?” Fucking spare me. It’s a matter of time before Steam locks in its own exclusives, kills Proton, and locks every. single. game. behind always online DRM.
If you want to distribute your new PC game, guess what? You don’t get to contract with both GOG and Steam. You don’t get to say your game is Linux compatible because it runs well in the Proton compatibility layer. Oh, and if you say “games could run on Linux before Proton!” then you’re deluding yourself by remembering a time when games were distributed with their own launcher and weren’t packed to the gills with platform specific code so that the game integrates seamlessly with a specific third-party launcher and its DRM tools. You bought a Steamdeck? Cool. The version of Arch it runs is no longer supported. You have to upgrade to “Windows for Steameck.” Yes, you have to pay for a fucking Windows license. Yes, it has fewer features than baseline Windows. No, it’s not less expensive.
You think what’s happening to YouTube is bad? Fucking strap in, boys. Welcome to digital content distribution in the age of unfettered capitalism. I wonder how many of you are gonna eat this shit up, huff lethal quantities of copium, and say it’s “not that bad” once it starts happening and you’re faced with either standing by your own stated convictions and giving up almost all PC gaming in general or bend the knee so you can get your precious Steam Library back. Probably most of you.
What you’re saying is “inevitable” hasn’t happened for the entire 20+ years of Steam. I’m going to guess Valve is going to continue being a private company and doing whatever the fuck they want, without investor pressure towards enshittification.
Steam’s monopoly is actually what’s holding PC gaming together. Other types of digital distribution services are so fucked up by exclusivity deals that any “competition” is always going to mean “megacorporation uses existing wealth to deny competition”.
Epic is trying really hard to bring the exclusivity nightmare over to PC gaming as well, but so far Valve still holds.
I would argue that they are financially motivated to keep proton and Linux gaming going and not just out of the kindness of their hearts. They are competing with Microsoft and their store. When your competition has complete control of the OS you need to run your store on, you are at the total mercy of them. They can’t afford not to keep on their current track. Especially now that they are successfully doing it, going back would be a death sentence.
This is a private individual who is suing valve for her own personal gain. This isn’t a government or a class action. If they win valve gives this one lady half a billion dollars. Sounds bullshit to me.
steam
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.