Price a bit steep!

[djb5f]

8 hours ago, BlackTorito said:

Haha, yes (?)

 

Inflation does not impact anything, inflation is the representation of price variation.
 

You can check whenever you want your country’s index basket of goods and services and how much % do they represent from the whole index, of course the bread is a very good example since most of the index is heavily based on basic goods and services since its value is to represent what is the cost of life at a given time, premium products such as videogames literally have zero impact on such index, thus is ridiculous to apply it to them.

 

 

This may help you understand better.

 

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-inflation-357610

 

Many consumers erroneously associate inflation with the rise in price of a few key goods or services, such as oil, or even a particular industry, such as real estate.  But inflation is by definition only present when the overall price of good and services is rising.

Simply put, inflation impacts everything.  That is why countries work so hard to keep it in check, and at reasonable levels, such as 2% annually.  Wages generally increase at a similar rate to offset the loss in purchasing power.

 

[diskdocx]

8 hours ago, BlackTorito said:

Haha, yes (?)

 

Inflation does not impact anything, inflation is the representation of price variation.
 

You can check whenever you want your country’s index basket of goods and services and how much % do they represent from the whole index, of course the bread is a very good example since most of the index is heavily based on basic goods and services since its value is to represent what is the cost of life at a given time, premium products such as videogames literally have zero impact on such index, thus is ridiculous to apply it to them.

 

 

This isn't entirely true. While inflation does in fact represent the variation of good over time, inflation also directly impacts the cost of living, and therefore ultimately inflation impacts virtually every consumer good.

 

Using video games, while they are not an essential commodity, they are made by people who have to live. Those people need housing, food, basic services and demand a wage when employed. As cost of living rises (due to inflation of basic goods), salary expectations also go up. It is undoubtedly the case that video game programmers in 2020 earn more in wages than they did in 1980. Similarly, the technology they are using is costing more, and the overall budget to produce a game is higher. Thus the product may also raise in price.

 

It's not simply inflation, but rather the consequences of inflation on the gaming industry.

 

Sometimes products may not increase in price if increases in volume of sales and/or efficiencies in production (such as using discs instead of cartridges) can lower costs.

 

Of course, we could probably ship all game production to China so that the employee wage could be slashed to a minimum, but then you just put people out of work.

 

Ultimately though, almost all goods do slowly increase in price over time

[djb5f]

12 minutes ago, diskdocx said:

This isn't entirely true. While inflation does in fact represent the variation of good over time, inflation also directly impacts the cost of living, and therefore ultimately inflation impacts virtually every consumer good.

 

Using video games, while they are not an essential commodity, they are made by people who have to live. Those people need housing, food, basic services and demand a wage when employed. As cost of living rises (due to inflation of basic goods), salary expectations also go up. It is undoubtedly the case that video game programmers in 2020 earn more in wages than they did in 1980. Similarly, the technology they are using is costing more, and the overall budget to produce a game is higher. Thus the product may also raise in price.

 

It's not simply inflation, but rather the consequences of inflation on the gaming industry.

 

Sometimes products may not increase in price if increases in volume of sales and/or efficiencies in production (such as using discs instead of cartridges) can lower costs.

 

Of course, we could probably ship all game production to China so that the employee wage could be slashed to a minimum, but then you just put people out of work.

 

Ultimately though, almost all goods do slowly increase in price over time

 

Well-stated.  The value of the dollar (or whatever currency you choose) does not hold over time, except in very rare periods of deflation.

 

Simply put, $60 in 2006 (the last time there was a price increase) is the equivalent of $79.45 in today’s dollars.

https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar/2006-to-present-value?amount=60

 

In terms of real dollars (purchasing power), games even with the increase to $70 are still cheaper than they were in the PS3 days.

[diskdocx]

17 minutes ago, djb5f said:

 

Well-stated.  The value of the dollar (or whatever currency you choose) does not hold over time, except in very rare periods of deflation.

 

Simply put, $60 in 2006 (the last time there was a price increase) is the equivalent of $79.45 in today’s dollars.

https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar/2006-to-present-value?amount=60

 

In terms of real dollars (purchasing power), games even with the increase to $70 are still cheaper than they were in the PS3 days.

Exactly.

 

I have some old cartridge games I bought in the 80/90s - those were $50+ back then, the equivalent of well over $100 today. Really, in terms of inflationary pressure, video games have been relatively immune to variation. They are more the exception than the rule. Most entertainment is double or triple the price it was 1-2 decades ago. I think it is because of massive increases in sales volumes that games have held their price.

 

This shouldn't be confused with the product not being influenced by inflation.

 

Now the other poster may be confusing currency related inflation with inflation of goods. If you live in a country where there is significant volatility in your currency relative to a fairly stable index currency (like the US), you may see much more extremes in terms of pricing variation. That is artificial inflation - the good doesn't suddenly cost twice as much, but rather your currency is tanking. That is a different discussion

[BlackTorito]

 

@diskdocx You are confusing the index i’m well stating which is the one you are mentioning about “people needing more money to live”, its elaborated by the goverment and its contents are public to anyone period, I’ve already said it, research it officaly, not link any google website. The websites you use to calculate your % inflation is none other than that index, I don’t call it by the name of inflation since thats wrong, but thats how you may know it.

 

Of course you are oversimplifying things, since companies could very well not increase your salary even if the cost of life keeps surging, which is exactly what happens commonly, while I already agreed before that videogames costs more to produce, its naturally they would increase in price, but its not due to inflation at the very least, rather more due to new jobs implied, more technology, more marketing expenses, higher corporate salaries, etc.

 

[djb5f]

I think we are getting into semantics here, but yes wages have been rising in connection with inflation.  Wages continually go up at every level from minimum wage to executive level and everything in between.  Salaried employees typically get a merit increase each year to offset the increase in cost of living (i.e. inflation).
 

Inflation by definition impacts the entire economy, not limited to any basket of goods.

[ThaRular]

I must say that i am willing to pay 100 bucks for a really well made and polished Game which offers fun for the whole playthrough and good visualls and Sound over 50 bucks for a buggy 08/15 Game with Tons of Patches and gamebreaking bugs.

[dannyswfc9]

Just to clarify on my op. Im not bitching about all ps5 games pricing. I understand and always have been supportive of the prices due to inflation etc. 

 

Even tho it is a really good game (yes i bought it because im short of ps5 games atm) i do believe if it wasnt a big name it would cause people alot more issues.

But it is a really well made game even tho i have encounted a few bugs. 

 

Really good points from you all and really good to see your opinions and thanks for not slamming me too much ?.

 

Happy gaming boys and girls

[Jordan_On_Tinder]

I've played around $320 worth of games in the last month, for $35 just because of Gamefly. I can have up to 4 games out at a time so $35 is a steal.

 

They're also really clutch about new releases. They send it out a day before release and depending on how close you are to their warehouse, I get the games between 2-3 days after shipping.

 

If you're strapped for cash, or not a collector, rental services are genuinely good deals if you're actually getting your moneys worth.

 

Also, Ratchet and Clank is really damn fun and worth paying full price if you have the means!

[RoxasOnFire]

I bought the deluxe digital edition and regret it. The only thing that was nice about it was one armor set. Got the plat in like 8 hours. I should have went with the cheaper one.

[AJ_Radio]

On 6/10/2021 at 11:49 AM, ShadeSplit said:

The "time doesn't matter" sentiment that's so popular these days is comical. If it doesn't matter, then why didn't Sony charge full price for Miles Morales? They certainly could have, if for no other reason than having "Spider-Man" in the title. But the reality is that more content is going to be more valuable than less content. Ah, but then they tell you they would prefer a 30 hour game rather than a 40 hour game with an extra ten hours of "padding" as if being over a certain amount of hours guarantees the quality of the content will be poor. I will be playing Ratchet & Clank tomorrow, but as already stated, selling the game after you're finished will allow you to recoup the majority of what you paid for the game. You have multiple options here.

 

Miles Morales is still being charged a bit too much on the PS Store. It's cheaper for me to either buy the game and sell it used to someone, or rent a physical copy somewhere and return it as soon as I'm finished. That's how I did some of my PS4 games, when the price tag was too much for me I just looked at options that allowed me to rent and return the game. This does not work on digital only games, just physical.

 

The quality of the content is subjective. Looking at Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Ubisoft is already planning on second year DLC for it. If the content turns out to be great, more power to them. But more content doesn't necessarily mean something will be good.

 

The argument that there HAS to be more content for a game in general is bullshit. All of the Soulsborne games easily provide hundreds of hours of gameplay in each, if not a thousand hours. They are exceptionally high quality which is one good reason why they remain so popular amongst the gaming crowd. But even if they were short experiences I would still regard them as excellent.

 

I have no problem with completely linear games as long as the games themselves offer quality content. This is something a lot of people these days completely toss out the window, or they don't even factor that into their equations. AAA developers have this mentality of 'bigger is better', that sentiment has been destroyed countless times over the years.

 

Nobody remembers when The Order 1886 was being charged $60 at launch. For such a short game I felt that was far too much, and most people agreed. Ratchet & Clank 2016 was offered at $39.99 and I felt that was just about right. Not too overly short, but not that long of a game even doing a second playthrough on Challenge Mode.

 

The quality of the content is what matters. I poured over 150 hours into The Witcher 3, loved every hour that I played. So far I'm 60 hours into Assassin's Creed Odyssey, and I find it downright boring and tedious, which goes back to me saying I think that Valhalla will just offer more of the same padding.

[ShadeSplit]

7 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

Miles Morales is still being charged a bit too much on the PS Store. It's cheaper for me to either buy the game and sell it used to someone, or rent a physical copy somewhere and return it as soon as I'm finished. That's how I did some of my PS4 games, when the price tag was too much for me I just looked at options that allowed me to rent and return the game. This does not work on digital only games, just physical.

 

The quality of the content is subjective. Looking at Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Ubisoft is already planning on second year DLC for it. If the content turns out to be great, more power to them. But more content doesn't necessarily mean something will be good.

 

The argument that there HAS to be more content for a game in general is bullshit. All of the Soulsborne games easily provide hundreds of hours of gameplay in each, if not a thousand hours. They are exceptionally high quality which is one good reason why they remain so popular amongst the gaming crowd. But even if they were short experiences I would still regard them as excellent.

 

I have no problem with completely linear games as long as the games themselves offer quality content. This is something a lot of people these days completely toss out the window, or they don't even factor that into their equations. AAA developers have this mentality of 'bigger is better', that sentiment has been destroyed countless times over the years.

 

Nobody remembers when The Order 1886 was being charged $60 at launch. For such a short game I felt that was far too much, and most people agreed. Ratchet & Clank 2016 was offered at $39.99 and I felt that was just about right. Not too overly short, but not that long of a game even doing a second playthrough on Challenge Mode.

 

The quality of the content is what matters. I poured over 150 hours into The Witcher 3, loved every hour that I played. So far I'm 60 hours into Assassin's Creed Odyssey, and I find it downright boring and tedious, which goes back to me saying I think that Valhalla will just offer more of the same padding.

 

And immediately there is the actual issue. The price they're charging for certain games. I still can't figure out why everyone thinks the issue is these games aren't good enough or need to have a specific amount of content in order to be enjoyed. I've played games that only had around an hour of content. Why wouldn't I? But would I pay $70 for such a game? I wouldn't even pay $20. I also don't know why nearly every person uses Ubisoft/Valhalla as an excuse to pay any price for a good game regardless of content. If Ubisoft sucks, then the answer should be to avoid buying their games, not turn around and empty your wallet for any game you'd actually enjoy.

[AJ_Radio]

27 minutes ago, ShadeSplit said:

 

And immediately there is the actual issue. The price they're charging for certain games. I still can't figure out why everyone thinks the issue is these games aren't good enough or need to have a specific amount of content in order to be enjoyed. I've played games that only had around an hour of content. Why wouldn't I? But would I pay $70 for such a game? I wouldn't even pay $20. I also don't know why nearly every person uses Ubisoft/Valhalla as an excuse to pay any price for a good game regardless of content. If Ubisoft sucks, then the answer should be to avoid buying their games, not turn around and empty your wallet for any game you'd actually enjoy.

 

I've been playing games for nearly 30 years, so don't come to me acting like I don't know shit about what companies are worth supporting and what aren't. I've said EA has sucked for over a decade, I've only gotten their products either second hand or by renting them. The common argument is to not bother to buy anything EA related, even if it's just second hand from some lowly retail store somewhere. That's an argument I can support. If I bought a game knowing it was going to suck and it turned out it did suck, the joke is entirely on me.

 

Why would people pay $60 for The Order 1886? They did back in 2015, and sure enough they were pissed about it.

 

This is just an arrogant response. I shouldn't of bothered making any comment towards you.

Edited June 16, 2021 by AJ_Radio

[ShadeSplit]

18 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

I've been playing games for nearly 30 years, so don't come to me acting like I don't know shit about what companies are worth supporting and what aren't. I've said EA has sucked for over a decade, I've only gotten their products either second hand or by renting them. The common argument is to not bother to buy anything EA related, even if it's just second hand from some lowly retail store somewhere. That's an argument I can support. If I bought a game knowing it was going to suck and it turned out it did suck, the joke is entirely on me.

 

Why would people pay $60 for The Order 1886? They did back in 2015, and sure enough they were pissed about it.

 

This is just an arrogant response. I shouldn't of bothered making any comment towards you.

 

What an odd response when you're essentially agreeing with me. Perhaps you need more sleep.

[MonaSaxPayne]

absolutely adored it. worth every penny

[MrTacoNinja]

The price is a bit steep? Ha! Aren't they all? I think 50-60 dollars for ANY game is far too steep. 

[Swotam]

13 hours ago, MrTacoNinja said:

The price is a bit steep? Ha! Aren't they all? I think 50-60 dollars for ANY game is far too steep. 

 

It's even worse in Canada where new AAA games are $89.99 plus tax, which easily pushes the price above $100! Deluxe Editions, which are often just a handful of useless cosmetics, are even worse.

 

I rarely buy new games at launch, and mostly just wait until they're heavily discounted or on PS+ Extra. I understand why these games cost what they do, but I just can't justify dropping $100 per title on a regular basis, especially when so many games have serious issues at launch or just turn out to mediocre.