Back when I was young, most games cost around $50. But back then they were 1/100th the size and complexity they are now, had absolutely no post-launch support whatsoever, and and even “AAA” titles used pixel art. They didn’t even have voice acting.
If I adjust for inflation alone, no other factors, a $50 game from back then would be $91 today.
I’m not happy about the price increase, but I certainly understand it and can’t really blame anyone for it. Frankly, I’m surprised this didn’t happen many years ago.
Personally, I’ve been a patient gamer for a while - welcome! It’s great here.
I’ve thought about this before, and you’re definitely right that games are technically cheaper when you factor in inflation. However, they sell to a much larger audience now, so it’s not like the major studios are starving. Even so, I would probably be fine with it, if it weren’t for the tendency to:
include microtransactions, rather than achievements
sell dlc that should have just been part of the game
Release the same uninspired crap every year (call of duty, sports ball 2023, etc.)
sell broken games
I’m guessing this one will be #4. Hoping to be wrong.
I definitely agree with you on 1, 3 and 4. Personally I haven’t even looked at Starfield because of the patient gamer thing, I’ll try it out in a few years or whenever it’s on sale / has enough buzz.
I do kind of defend a lot of dlc though. Some of it is predatory as fuck, but some of it just massively expands a game’s lifespan and you end up with massively more support/content in a post-dlc world than we ever got without it.
It just depends on if they’re selling Horse Armor, or if it’s a game that keeps getting major content patches for 10 years because it’s being supported by dlc. Both happen. Of course, given that “horse armor” is literally something Bethesda did…well…
$70, I guess this is the world we live in now. Can’t wait for the next price hike!
I guess I’ll become a PatientGamer™
Back when I was young, most games cost around $50. But back then they were 1/100th the size and complexity they are now, had absolutely no post-launch support whatsoever, and and even “AAA” titles used pixel art. They didn’t even have voice acting.
If I adjust for inflation alone, no other factors, a $50 game from back then would be $91 today.
I’m not happy about the price increase, but I certainly understand it and can’t really blame anyone for it. Frankly, I’m surprised this didn’t happen many years ago.
Personally, I’ve been a patient gamer for a while - welcome! It’s great here.
I’ve thought about this before, and you’re definitely right that games are technically cheaper when you factor in inflation. However, they sell to a much larger audience now, so it’s not like the major studios are starving. Even so, I would probably be fine with it, if it weren’t for the tendency to:
I’m guessing this one will be #4. Hoping to be wrong.
I definitely agree with you on 1, 3 and 4. Personally I haven’t even looked at Starfield because of the patient gamer thing, I’ll try it out in a few years or whenever it’s on sale / has enough buzz.
I do kind of defend a lot of dlc though. Some of it is predatory as fuck, but some of it just massively expands a game’s lifespan and you end up with massively more support/content in a post-dlc world than we ever got without it.
It just depends on if they’re selling Horse Armor, or if it’s a game that keeps getting major content patches for 10 years because it’s being supported by dlc. Both happen. Of course, given that “horse armor” is literally something Bethesda did…well…
I think this was the height of egregious DLC. They put it on the disk on release day.
https://www.eurogamer.net/capcom-defends-on-disc-dlc