This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Apparently we don't pay *enough* for games, according to market analyst

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Apparently we don't pay *enough* for games, according to market analyst

User Info: Tony_Biggie_Pun

Tony_Biggie_Pun
3 weeks ago#21
Yeah those cartridges and flash media were super expensive back in the day

User Info: arleas

arleas
3 weeks ago#22
Jonexe posted...
proves he's nothing but a corporate shill

Nah, the part where they label him an "Financial analyst" is what proves he's a corporate shill. That's pretty much his job description.

"Tell me how much money I could be making if could start reaping the souls of orphans" "Ok so here's how it'll look in the 1st quarter, and by making projections...."

There's no compunction as long as it makes their wallets fatter.
http://steamsignature.com/profile/english/76561197969913402.png http://i.imgur.com/VHKOxqN.png
FC: 3325-5440-8407 Dream Code:5E00-0013-7C61

User Info: GoIrish80

GoIrish80
3 weeks ago#23
AtmosOmega posted...
That analyst is speaking from a purely investment oriented perspective; of course he's going to say that MTXs aren't in any danger. Moreover, he's absolutely right, but not in any way he's letting on in his interview (which is to say, virtually nothing).

For one, gaming is probably the single most prime example of a free market forcing actually working. Games went from niche electronics toys in the late 70s and 80s that cost anywhere from a few bucks to 50, to more streamlined production-publishing in the 90s through present.

The decrease in prices over time represents the growing economic utility being passed onto the consumers while still allowing the supply-side to grow. This is the entire purpose and benefit of economic-capitalism, by the way.

So when some analyst says gamers are underpaying, despite the market cap growing year after year etc (it hasn't ever once shrunk, in fact), he's talking straight out of his ass in hopes people reading it will pony up more cash for no real reason.

Now, when he's talking about Microtransactions (MTXs), specifically, that's a whole other story. The MX model has been around for nearly a decade now, but it's only recently that they've finally made it to AAA flagship releases.

Incidentally, this is why I haven't been dancing in the streets over EA's kerflufle. Anyone who genuinely thinks this is some sort of major consumer victory or turning point doesn't follow the gaming business side of things terribly closely, or at all really.

The scary truth of the matter is that, and try to contain your surprise, gamers are just as human as anyone else. Meaning: These MTX Gacha models are going to make metric f***tons of money simply because the same addict psychology the casino industry has used for over a century applies here as well.

As soon as the loophole that enables Gacha to bypass gambling regulation was discovered, it was just a matter of developing the right platform and using the right franchise marketing to exploit it. Everything else going forward is simply a matter of refinement and adjustment to the model.

So, if you're a gamer just looking for something more substantial, something other than an opportunity (you paid for) to waste copious amounts of money buying random shiny nothings, congrats; you're officially no longer in the mainstream target demographic for the largest game producers going forward.

EA isn't the only one fully on board with MTX exploitation: Activision-Blizzard, Ubisoft, Take-Two, Rockstar, Squeenix...all of them are jumping onto the MTX bandwagon. They're all just keeping more quiet about things or trying to downplay the bad optics (and it should because MTX is exploitative in ways that adds NOTHING of value to the Demand-side; it's all Skinner Psychology).

MTX-service centricism is the model that major gaming publishers have been dreaming about for well over a decade now, and it's now reality. They've made it without crashing. They've won. Barring a much larger economic crash, there is a virtually zero percent chance it can fail, simply due to human nature.

Individual titles might flop, but the model as a whole is here to stay. Whales and all.

The good news is you don't have to tolerate it. This is a luxury market.
Adapt to your desires, not theirs. No matter how many times some imbecile misuses the word "entitled", in the end, it's still your cash to spend, and Supply's job to convince you to spend it, not the other way around.


You are way, way too intelligent and rational to be on this site.

User Info: KaiRyusaki

KaiRyusaki
3 weeks ago#24
Game's been $60 for for 15 years now. Inflation means $60 now is less than $60 then. Budgets have gone up, yet prices have remain the same.

However, as long as games are profitable, these companies should be happy. If selling Battlefront 2 at $60 with no dlc or microtransactions is profitable, why make it more expensive?

There's also other ways to get more money, such as asking Sony/Microsoft to take a smaller cut of their revenue for digital sales, or making your games good.

User Info: Kharillle

Kharillle
3 weeks ago#25
Love gaming more than I do movies. I hate it when I realize I'm in a boring movie and have to watch it to finish. I still play 90's games but I do try newer games. Guess its not profitable to the video game profession if people spend so little and are attached to older games.

I think I love mount & blade warband enough to buy 2 copies on sale and gift them to my friends. Ain't done that for any other game though I do love older games like colonization 94' and all.

I'd only pay full price for franchises I love. Would've done so for fallout 4 but I didn't even finish 3 and NV so it was a year later before I bought 4.
No time for games so I twitch. Youtube is good. Two monitors at any one time. My graphics card ist krap.

User Info: randomoaf

randomoaf
3 weeks ago#26
The amount of hours that comes from gaming is the replayability. You're essentially consuming the same material over and over again. The unique thing about gaming is that it's a "playground" and so even if you're using the same material, what you're doing in it is different. Paying more for higher hour counts is illogical.

User Info: GeseztKatze

GeseztKatze
3 weeks ago#27
KillerTruffle posted...
http://www.pcgamer.com/financial-analyst-says-gamers-arent-overcharged-theyre-undercharged/

So the whole Battlefront II controversy caused some market analyst to look at the situation, and he's basically calling gamers a bunch of pampered crybabies. He said that when you break it down to how many hours of entertainment you get per dollar, gaming is *way* cheaper than going to a movie, and publishers like EA could actually get away with charging a whole lot more.

This is what happens when you sit in a cubicle and stare at numbers all day instead of actually analyze *all* the factors.

It's true gamers have it better than some - game prices haven't really gone up much at all in the past 30 years. In some cases they've actually come *down*. Game pricing has not kept up with inflation, so it's been good in that respect.

He's trying to compare gaming to something like a movie ticket though, and how you can watch a movie for like $3/hour (seriously, where do they still sell $6 movie tickets? Because I pay more than twice that in California), but if you played a game for 2 1/2 hours a day, with a $60 purchase price *and* $20/month in microtransactions, you'd still come out ahead at 40 cents/hour. Even though you paid like $300 for that one game.

Just... so many things wrong with that comparison. >_>

It's true prices didn't go up, but what prices in entertainment did? I think it's a general trend..
I should really start finishing the phrases I...

User Info: Perthboy

Perthboy
3 weeks ago#28
Prices should have come down due to increased competition and efficiency. Governments need to look at these big devs and their price fixing.
Perthboy
Mine is I-------------------this----------------------I big.

User Info: LazyyAmerican

LazyyAmerican
3 weeks ago#29
Not surprising....that's pretty much exactly how Take 2 feels as well. Fortunately some of the greatest games to ever be created exist without endless nickel and dime schemes attached to them.
You've got ten minutes. There's policies even your section have to follow
I'll be sure to forward your message to the president.

User Info: Ultimate_Noob

Ultimate_Noob
3 weeks ago#30
Pricing may have not moved very much with inflation, but video games as a market has exploded. There's way more gamers today than there was in the 1990's and it's constantly growing. These poor widdle mainstream companies trying to eke out livings for their pauper shareholders still make huge pools of dosh despite a lack of price inflation because of that.
A pc's brain is the cpu, its heart is the motherboard, its stomach is the hard drive, and its anus is the user.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Apparently we don't pay *enough* for games, according to market analyst

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived