Readers suggest video games need a price increase to be profitable but are still cheaper than the 16-bit era.
During the week there was a very interesting reader’s letter in the Inbox, about a former Square Enix person who explained in detail the current problems of the game industry and why publishers feel that they cannot do simple things. like reducing the budget. I advise you to read everything, but the important thing is that these companies are prepared to make games of a certain scale and try to go backwards to make AA or indie type games not work.
They won’t get enough to pay everyone and run them all; plus indie games are even harder to predict than triple-A games. Make a good-looking triple-A game and it will probably sell. Make a weird indie game about trying to get a high score in poker and you’re taking a big chance.
Publishers could downsize but doing so would involve all their staff and change their entire business model into something they didn’t know they would do. So, while they can try and change the direction of the title, and reduce the cost, they are still in the business of making big budget video games. It’s like someone told the major movie studios to start making TV commercials instead of movies, because they’re cheaper – not an option.
Pic 1
The end result, we have started to see, is that less and less triple-A games are being released and they are taking longer and longer to make. I know it seems like Xbox has a lot on the show, but that’s because they bought half the gaming industry. Also, most of what they show will start before the current issue.
It all seems like a problem without a solution, a literal evolutionary dead end where publishers can’t go back but also can’t do anything. But the most common attempt at a solution, in focusing on the life service game, seems almost as risky as doing nothing.
But there are other solutions, which can be applied quickly and will solve all problems quickly. But what is almost never mentioned: making video games more expensive.
Even with this generation’s $10/£10 price increase, video games have barely seen a price increase in their entire existence. Mega Drive and SNES games used to cost around £50 in the early 90s, which with inflation is around £110 today. They may be more. Anything with extra chips or gimmicks, such as Virtua Racing or Starwing (aka Star Fox) can cost up to £70, which is £164 now.
We pay less for it today than we did in the golden age of gaming and I don’t think it’s appreciated enough. Of course, in the past less people played games, so they had to pay more to make money, but now we’re back.
Companies, especially Sony and Microsoft, continue to complain about the lack of growth, with the figures clearly showing that console growth has been flat since the PlayStation 2 era. The number of people interested in the type of complex console-style games we play is small and not growing. So if it takes more time and money to make the game, you’ll just lose more money than time – it’s simple math.
Everyone says they don’t want a future dominated by live service titles, smartphone games, and free-to-play garbage but do you want to put your money where your mouth is? Would you be willing to go back to the days when a new game cost £100 or even £150? I do, but if you don’t, then the game console we know can quickly die out.
I just checked and a ticket to the cinema, in a regular non-London cinema chain, is £16.49 for a film of 1 hour and 36 minutes (Inside Out 2, the biggest film when I saw it). That’s almost exactly £10 an hour in entertainment terms. Currently, the Elden Ring is £50 at launch and according to How Long to Beat the fastest you can beat it is 59 and a half hours. Although I don’t know anyone who hasn’t spent at least 100 hours on it.
Let’s take the shortest figure though, which can come out at 84p hours in terms of entertainment. That means Elden Ring is over 10 times better value for money than watching a movie – and probably more if you get to as many people as possible.
Or let’s take an extreme example at the other end of the spectrum, with Senua’s Saga: Hellblade 2. The shortest big name game I can remember hearing about recently and that takes a minimum of seven hours to complete when it costs £50.
That works out at £7 an hour of entertainment, which is still significantly better value for money than a movie – but it’s the absolute bare minimum of what modern video games offer. I literally can’t think of a worse value for money game than Hellblade 2 (I’m not saying it’s not good, I haven’t played it).
Video games are amazing value for money, they are just expensive. But you get what you pay for many times over. My suggestion is that if we want to see console games continue as they are now, then we need to accept a price increase, at least twice. That will still only go back to the prices during the 16-bit era, when most games only take a few hours to beat, and I hope I have proven that it is definitely worth it.
Triple-A video games do not grow on trees and I have reached the point where we have to accept that we have to pay more for what is basically a luxury item. It’s either pay the same (or less) for something that only vaguely resembles the great video games we have today. And if that means people only buy two or three full-price games a year, then I think it’s not good.
I know, I’d rather pay £150 for an Elden Ring or Zelda quality game than face a future where all battle royales are free and live service games.
By reading Cranston
Reader features do not necessarily reflect the views of GameCentral or Metro.
You can send yourself 500 to 600-word feature reading at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our Submit Items page and you don’t need to send us an email.
MORE: Summer Game Fest trailer costs $250,000 for one minute of screen time
MORE: Suicide Squad fails to cost Warner Bros $200 million but Rocksteady claims it’s safe
MORE: Monopoly Go spent more money on marketing than it cost to make Spider-Man 2
Sign up for all exclusive game content, the latest releases before they appear on the site.
Privacy Policy »
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
