PCGaming

6614 readers

7 users here now

Rule 0: Be civil

Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy

Rule #2: No advertisements

Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments

Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions

Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.

Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.

Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts

Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments

Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

CSFFlame

Ubisoft CEO defends Skull and Bones’ $70 price despite its live service leanings, calls it ‘quadruple-A’ (www.videogameschronicle.com)

submitted 10 months ago by inclementimmigrant to c/pcgaming

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sigh...you really can't make this crap up.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I do think that eventually something’s got to give and people will need to accept prices higher than $60 or stop complaining about DLC.

While I do agree in the broader sense that game prices haven't tracked inflation, and that I think that you are correct that some people aren't taking that into consideration, I'd also point out that there are also some other options (which people may or may not want).

Games could become lower-budget. It might be that people just don't want to buy games that cost what they used to in real terms. That's not impossible. I mean, you can make games on a smaller budget that are still fun. It won't have the huge content budget, and there are some things that you can't do, but some that you can. I like a number of games that have much smaller content budget than triple-A titles.
Games could just rely more on having more sales. The video game market is larger than it once was. The downside, the tradeoff there, is that if you have to make mass-market games, then you can't make games that address particular niche interests.

EDIT: I'm also really disappointed that people are downvoting your comment. There's nothing there that's impolite, and even if they don't want to pay $80, someone else saying that they would should not be downvoted. We've had games that span a range of prices for a long time.