Game prices are too low, says Capcom exec
Game prices are too low, says Capcom exec
Capcom's president and chief operating officer has said he thinks game prices should go up.Haruhiro Tsujimoto made the …
Capcom's president and chief operating officer has said he thinks game prices should go up.
Haruhiro Tsujimoto made the comments at this year's Tokyo Game Show, Nikkei reported. TGS is sponsored by the Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association, a Japanese organisation which aims to support the Japanese industry, which Tsujimoto is currently the chairman of.
"Personally, I feel that game prices are too low," Tsujimoto said, citing increasing development costs and a need to increase wages.
You're viewing a single thread.
While I fully get wanting cheaper games, nobody wants to pay more money for something obviously, it does seem a tad myopic to expect games to always sit at the same sticker price even in the face of inflation. For reference, Mario 64, in 1996 sold new at ~$60, just like lots of games still do. And yeah, comparing the market then and now isn't really apples to apples, but really not much else holds a price over such a long time. Maybe those 99¢ Arizona tea cans? I definitely wouldn't mind $20 more per game if it meant games could get by on selling fewer copies and affording more room for less popular series or new ideas.
If a game today came with a nice solid box, a cloth map, a 250 page manual that actually explains almost everything about the mechanics of the game, and WAS FUCKING FINISHED WHEN I BUY IT, getting maybe one patch and otherwise never changing, then I might be willing to pay more.
That was literally never the standard for nearly all releases outside of special editions. And Idk why never patching the game is superior to just having all the jank left in because patching didn't exist.
The ability to patch games has been a huge improvement, but it has also caused most games to release in state that is worse than older games ever were. Maybe after 6 months to anyear a modern game is at a comparable level of finish to older games, but only if it sold well. Lots of games don't get the patching they need.
Hardly. Most modern games are just as good on launch as older games were. A handful of problem cases isn't representative of the entire market.
Many triple A games released this year have featured game breaking bugs on release, that was practically unheard of in pre internet games.
Take off the nostalgia glasses lol. Old games often have just as many bugs
Yes Mario 64 has a lot of glitches, but it's playable all the way through. Similarly superman 64 is notable for being a buggy Ness because it was uncommon. BG3 released with multiple game breaking bugs, same with Stanfield. Payday 3 has several crashing bugs, but nothing gamebreaking beyond overloaded servers.
The difference is magnitude not numbers.
Wow, 3 whole games. Totally representative of most games.
How many units are sold today v units sold in 1994 ;)
How many more resources go into a modern release compared to in 1994? As I said, the markets are pretty difficult now and then,
More resources are put in because there is an incredible amount of money to make with the game industry being bigger than movies and music combined. It's no longer a niche upcoming industry but mainstream. And companies put in those resources because the market is that much bigger with more potential return on investment.
Yeah, and that's hardly a good thing. Half the reason games are getting worse is because appealing to a core audience just doesn't pay the bills. I'd gladly pay $100 a game if it meant games could just appeal to their niche markets instead of having to be top sellers or have the series canned.
Game would $100 but the same as they are now. Could be $200 and it'd be the same as they are now and still have mtx, since why would a company leave the option to get more money. Few companies operate with the approach of this is enough money we are content.
And games have only gotten worse if you are looking at triple a titles the same way someone might say movies have gotten worse because they think high budget super hero movies are the only ones that exist.
If the market could sustain $100 it would be, but barrier to making and releasing games has never been lower. So consumers would just move to alternative games that are cheaper or old titles they haven't gotten around to. And worst of all to these comlanies the top sellers aren't always these high budget titles, but some indie title that's not even 3d. Then there's game pass people would just turn to if game prices went up moving more people to subscription.
Game would $100 but the same as they are now
Which is infinitely superior to just being eternally shelved because the project has no hope outside of a small fan base.
Most companies needing $100 per unit for a game to be profitable aren't going to bother approving that type of game to begin with over a game that can be priced $100 and have much broader mainstream appeal.
Is the mainstream audience going to pay that price in enough volume? They can just price games differently to each other. Like, whatever mainstream games would still benefit from the increased demand from staying at around $60, but some obscure jrpg in a series with a small but dedicated base could sell for $100+ with the intent that realistically nobody else was interested anyway.
Why would a company want to risk putting money into a game so niche it needs $100 per unit over a game that can make more money despite being priced $60. And you know... Just price it $100.
Why do people keep making interesting movies when some generic avengers shit will be more profitable? Games are an art form. People want to make them. I don't see why you seem to think treating it all as purely a question of financial optimization is a good way to view a creative industry.
As a dollar amount, more. As a percentage of the total market for hardware or developers, significantly less.