6d ago

Game price isn't the problem, wages are

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)

You're viewing a single thread.

92 comments

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.
- But then there’s Factorio for $35
- 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"
  
  And I’d change the “years of content” to something like “you can play it once every few years and it’s still good”
  I would not.
  If you have a game you can only play once a every few years, its probalby a singleplay/campaign only game. THOSE are the issue. Get a game with a good multiplayer and you can play it perpetually ... for decades even.
  
  Single player campaigns are literally the best type of games. Fomo bullshit, constant nagging to buy stuff, and relying on internet dickheads for the experience and hoping they won't just grief or insult everyone the whole time is awful.
  
  And they hated jesus for he spoke the truth.
  
  Smash Bros and MarioKart come to my mind. Particularly MarioKart64 and the 4-Player Versus mode (the best)
  A lot of people, and I mean a heck of a lot of people, don’t like multiplayer games. And a lot of people don’t like those long games like AnimalCrossing. A lot of people hate sandbox games like Minecraft, and I know a lot of people who hate open world games like the Witcher. I like frustrating games like Celeste and Kaizo ROM hacks, both of them are hated by a lot of people.
  There’s games for everyone, and that’s good. The problem is the quality of the games.
  
  That's a very self-centric view. Single player games exist because sometimes I want to immerse in a game world not deal with 3 randos(or even friends) and do "the objective" over and over. Yeah multi-player can be fun, but it is a a lot less immersive and rarely as relaxing.
  
  Sure, nothing wrong with single player games in general. But I wouldn't pay $80 for a game that can be "finished" in a couple of days. If people want to do that, that's fine of course. But don't complain about game prices if you're specifically selecting the games with the worst playtime/price ratio.
  
  If you're "finished" with an $80 single player game in a couple of days either the game was shit or the way you play without doing any side stuff or more difficult achievements means single player isn't for you. A good single player game is worth replaying or trying new things in. Personally a game that gives at least an hour of play per dollar is worth it to me.
  
  No, I was actually considering multiple playthroughs as well as clearing it to 100%. (Though some games also put in some ridicilous grinds that make reaching 100% extremly time-consuming, those I consider asshole design and are not included).
  I'm talking a couple of days playtime, not a couple of days real time.
  an hour of play per dollar
  That's only 3.333 days of playtime for an $80 game .... I don't think that is very good.
  
  Do you play 24h a day? An 80h game will take me months. If it is enjoyable for those 80h that is well worth for me. I don't want to spend hours struggling and getting griefed or playing smurfs just to get to a point where I know the "meta" or whatever. I'm not in the position to grind and compete in those games anymore. I'm done with them except for special occasions. Overwatch, DRG, helldivers etc not fun for me. Yeah, I'll still play l4d2 or rocket league occasionally. I put my time in tf2 and guild wars, but I'm still in act I of Baldurs Gate III and it's fun and interesting. Hades is great (though runs are a little long). I'll get horizon zero dawn and hades 2 at some point. I'm not getting overwatch 2 or whatever the modern multi-player is.
  
  Do you play 24h a day?
  No ... but you only add up the hours you actually play. What matters are the hours you are playing the game, not how much you spread them out.
  
  I feel you either have unrealistic expectations or are deliberately moving the goalpost of the conversation. A 80 hours completion time is considered pretty long, normal people take months to finish it (without counting replay times)
  
  I don't think I'm doing either. Just pointing out that the value you get form a pure single player game is very much limited compared to multiplayer.
  As an anecdotal example from myself, let's look at Zelda: Ocarina of Time, which I consider to be one of the greatest single player games ever made.
  When I first got the game, I played through it in a little under 2 weeks. I was limited to 2h playtime per day (but I sometimes cheated a bit), so I'd say it was around 30h of playtime for the inital run.
  Then I did a 2nd playthrough, deathless. Even with having to be more careful, the 2nd run will always be considerable faster, just because you know where everything is and how to solve the puzzles. Took me another week, let's say 15 hours.
  A while later, I did the 100% run. But that one was even faster, even if you factor in a couple of hours of routing to prepare. But let's say another 12h.
  After that I probably did another playthrough, mixing up clearing order, trying to get my favourite items sooner, etc ... let's say you add another 2 12h runs to be generous. But at that point you kind of have to be deliberately slow to take that long.
  But that would give you 81h, at my allowed pace at the time that would take around 2.5 months. Maybe 3-4 if you play less. But after that, the game is finished. It goes on the shelf. Yes, you can get a few more hours out of it every other year, or play self-impossed challanges, pick up speedrunning, etc. But for most people the game will be done.
  On the other hand, a game like Smash Brothers or Mario Cart provided me with multiple hundreds of hours of playtime and has potential for even more.
  
  Fuck multiplayer. Been there, did that for years before it turned to shit.
  Modern multiplayer games all just use gambling addiction tactics and FOMO to keep you coming back instead of providing a good experience.
  
  Damn, you're playing the wrong multiplayer games.
  
  There aren't many multiplayer games without loot boxes, limited time offers for real money, or pay to win mechanics anymore.
  
  You're probably right, I wouldn't know. I play very few games and even fewer recent ones. Last one I picked up is Age of Empires IV, but as a classic RTS sequel it doesn't suffer from any of the things you mentioned.
- 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.
  
  This comment deserves 90$ games.

92 comments