renegade042: Larian Larian...aren't they the ones who keep saying games should be more expensive?
In the meanwhile on GoG ppl pennypinch over whether something is 20 or 19% off.
eiii: Actually game prices are going up at an even higher rate than inflation, especially Larian ones. For example Divinity: Dragon Commander Imperial Edition has been on sale at 90% off 4 years ago for $4.49. It's on sale again, but these 90% off are $6.63 now. That's almost +48% in 4 years, way above inflation. And it's for a game which has been produced a decade ago, at the lower costs before "inflation".
I somewhat understand the claim that new games should be more expensive because of increased production costs. But even that argument is flawed as the world's population constantly is growing and the customer base probably is growing faster as more people can afford to buy games. So the number of sold copies of games is increasing, which already at least somewhat compensates for higher production costs.
I agree and you're not the only one who came up with this remark. I did a bit of work for european social studies, and any analysis I or collegues produced regarding video games on an international scale, using internal professionnal databases (paying Quantcast, etc.) or (more) public and accessible ones (even if only through Statista, etc.), concluded more or less what you've said. It's quite the complex issue, so no magical formula to solve it in a flash through forum conversation is likely to show up, but, in my modest opinion, the main problem those productions face can be tied to budget management. Some orientations during development - even, all in all, what may look like minor ones, such as using mo-cap for almost 250 people, in BG3 -, in addition to that development's scale - using my previous example, hiring almost 250 actors for voices, when older games would settle (even for grand intrigues) on 25... -, combined with the ravenous costs of marketing campaigns - from preproduction to postproduction -, you can end up increasing your needs far beyond the actual cost of similar products which were forced, right from the start, to compose with smaller budgets.
In fact, BG3's quite an interesting case of well calculated adequation with a specific audience (or gaming community), mostly generational. Because the project itself, very disbalanced (from act 1 to act 3) among numerous issues, can look a lot less appealing if you only examine it on different terms or through different criterias from those appreciated by its targeted customers'. But it has been very carefully tailored to suit those customers' tastes, and its weak points, which most critics didn't cover much, therefore didn't impact the game's sales.
Now, back to the point, no, if you ask me, rather that insisting on "increasing development costs" - a common (and rather old) complain indeed -, it would be more constructive to ponder on whether or not those projects actually need some of their costlier (GPU & CPU hungry) features to produce a satisfying effect. It's fine to use the word "less" and the expression "less is more" from time to time, instead of only asking everyone to follow (and pay for) the rush forward... Putting constraints or not systematically resorting to the lastest piece of technology available is also how smaller studios proceed both to manage their costs and foster innovation. Older games were often a lot craftier to maintain gameplay illusions (regarding enemy & NPC variety or global IA for example) instead of actually demonstrating some features. Some of those companies are anyway starting to produce "mid tier" AAA games to reduce their costs, but it's usually by reducing a game's length rather than reflecting on deeper conceptual changes. The same interviewer who reported Michael Douse's position at RockPaperShotgun also quoted, for example, Smektała's (similar) concerns regarding Dying Light's upcoming DLC... Other options include (obviously) GAAS & live services among numerous ideas. It would probably be a good idea too to wonder if some of those costs couldn't be mutualized or managed differently between companies. There are definitely ongoing considerations on that subject in the industry...
renegade042: It's just when you look at pricing of some developers, like Ubisoft with their 110$ and 130$ options to get 4 day
early access for their mediocre SW Outlaws game. Or see Anno 1800 50% off and it's still 60$.
Prices are increasing but it's no guarantee for quality (IMHO outlaws should have been 50$, it's similar
quality to Mirage which was 50$). So I'll just continue my trend of waiting for sales :) I'm that 1 person
on this planet who waited 4 years to buy Cyberpunk, I don't usually have this "OMGD must buy right now"
mentallity most people seem to have.
I agree too. And even if the said games were actually great, it wouldn't change a thing... Some people's eyes will bulge for understable reasons. Not that those methods can't work - they do - and that no gamer's ready to pay a lot for his hobby - they are -, but I'd prefer cleverer concepts to sustain the industry, rather than enforcing (highly debatable) increasing development costs flat down on the customers. And that's without mentioning the (equally rising) expected benefits of those products...
