How Much Should Video Games Cost?

[@GemoryGame]

Its not that episodic games cant be good. Its when a full game that is completed is divided so that it can be sold 2x. Just imagine playing a game and seeing a door with a sign that says 'comeback in episode 2'.

[@Meek2001]

i would imagine that the story would be in a cliffhanger but stop if they havent bought part 2 but if they had bought part 2 then it would continue as normal and have part 1&2 as a bundle of 100$ but if you buy them separately then it would cost 60$ per part and they would release part 1&2 either the same day or a week apart

[@GemoryGame]

@@Meek2001 not even necissarily a plot point door, an in-game item store, a side-quest dungeon, a save point.

[@smallbutdeadly931]

Garten of Banban

[@mryellow6918]

isnt this just an excuse to make a sequel on the same game without any of the effort.

[@sorryi6685]

They are already multiple games. Deux mankind comes to mind. It just ends so abruptly and we have still not gotten a sequel

[@Respectable_Username]

Don't buy a promise. An episodic release is buying a promise of a conclusion, unless of course each part is a satisfying story in its own right. And each story in its own right has to be worth the price of entry too! And understand that not everybody will be able to pony up the cash for later episodes, or not get as many new players when the later episodes come out and it's no longer a $50 investment but a $200 investment to experience this new story!

[@RippahRooJizah]

Buying any game is 'buying a promise'.

[@jameslwjtoler]

@RippahRooJizah Kind of. Buying any game digitally sort of implies a promise you'll be able to access it at a later time. In general, I do my best to avoid games that aren't complete experiences at launch. That is getting harder and harder to do, but there are still plenty of games releasing on a regular basis that aren't built on some kind of "promise" for content in the future. Unless of course you're talking about multiplayer games. The ship sailed on those things a long time ago.

[@RippahRooJizah]

@@jameslwjtoler I'm just talking about any form of promise, be it future content, an ongoing story, multiplayer, it being good, future bug fixes, etc.

[@christopherpittman2689]

I remember when Half Life 2 and Sin did episodes and we never got an ending for either 😞

[@snekoyl]

Life Is Strange started strong and ended so weak. Swore off episodic games after that

[@BackToTheStart47]

The problem with episodic gaming is when the final conclusion to the story is never released. Half life 2: Episode 3

[@justinbell5771]

Too soon bro. :(

[@awareqwx]

No, Valve can't count to 3, remember? We're gonna have Half Life: 2 Episode 2 Act 2

[@LaggyLuke]

That really made me stay away from episodic games.

[@Aechelian]

That's an outlier. Consider Telltale's library, or the "Life is Strange" franchise.

[@rhyswilliams4893]

The difference would be if a game is designed as a series. The film Industry is going down the same route. People want longer and more engaging and stories because of what games deliver...

[@sumdood6784]

I'm with Luke on this. I think the win is for "games" to stay as full games like they are now, and for successful games to get a series of expansion packs that have ~75-100% of the content of the original game, at ~50% of the price. That allows the developers to take the tools they made for the base game, and their experience using them, to turn out additional content at an accelerated pace.

[@alastairtemple]

And how it used to be done, before publishers decided DLC and Lootboxes were the ways to maximise cash.

[@wow1371]

The issue is that that is not working with the current price point. Games on nes used to cost up to 80 dollars. Back then! And making cassettes was dirt cheap at that time already. Then we rolled back to a 49.99 to 59.99 with psone onwards all the way till ps5 came out. That is over 25 years. The costs are through the roof and for every GTA V that sells billions upon billions we have hundreds of also expensive games that barely make any money back.

[@alastairtemple]

@@wow1371 maybe its due to the changing exchange rates but games were significantly cheaper in the 90s and early 00s than they are now in the UK (I used to spend £30-35 on a brand new game for PC as a kid and they were about £40 when I got a 360 as a teenager vs the £60+ of now, although I have just found a CoD4 release note say $60 so could be just exchange rates). I also just don't quite believe that it is actually true that a larger % of games don't make money anymore. Costs have gone up, but so have total number of sales through the roof (the switch has sold double the number of units the NES did for example and so many more games are cross platform now). There are expensive failures, but there were (relatively) expensive failures before as well. And full games with expansions (which use the same engine, a good portion of the same assets etc. gives plenty of scope for increasing revenue and doesn't rely on trying to artificially bait gamers into buying additonal parts to finish the story).

[@wow1371]

@@alastairtemple it was the change rate and at the time many companies did not make prices according to local economy. Otherwise the prices are well documented for US and Japan. Also while you might not believe it it doesn't change the fact that there are more and more studios shutting down. A lot of classic studios of 90s and 2000s shut down too because of this fact. The fact that there are more gamers is not necessarily a good thing, because the surge of mainstream gamers meant more efforts are put into titles perceived to be popular by mainstream crowds and fewer variations in games are made. This in turn leads to games that are different having a harder time to sell themselves. Lets not forget the abysmal state of gaming in the 7th gen. Everything was a mil shooter, or a mil shooter in space or a mil shooter without guns in Ancient times 😂 Games like demon souls, witcher, lots of japanese rpgs they all bombed because these new players were here for either COD/BF or Fifa/Madden

[@alastairtemple]

@wow1371 The Witcher series is one of the best selling series of all time! In no way did any of them "bomb". Smaller classic Studios (which also tend to be significantly smaller in terms of employee numbers and costs) have often shut down because they get bought out by the big beasts (e.g. Ubisoft, Microsoft, Activision, EA, etc. or by the likes of Embracer group who bought so many so quickly via borrowing, gave itself too much debt and then had to close a load of stuff as a result, doesn't mean that those that closed were struggling before Embracer bought them, they weren't) who then decide their returns are too small in comparison to the likes of COD, does not mean that they weren't sustainable. The search for ever increasing profits by the big beasts of the sector, and their unwillingness to take risks or game types, does not mean that it is impossible to run a studio at current prices.

[@TheButterAnvil]

Id be willing to pay more for games i felt were made in "good faith". Games like baulders gate are worth 100$ easily, but when a game's goal is to milk me and ruin their aesthetic for cash (cod) then they can f off with their next attempt to milk me

[@imjustapotatoleavemealone]

Exactly. I'm willing to pay almost anything for a good game, and i pay 120€ without an issue if the game is good... but this isn't the case at 99% of the AAA games. And don't get me wrong i love Hogwarts legacy, phantom liberty, etc... but as long as i find myself returning to ps2, n64, wiiu games over and over again, and almost never to new "AAA" games... Somewhere around 2013-4 the market decided that they value graphics over gameplay, and most of them cannot be changed...

[@gabehere]

​@@imjustapotatoleavemealone Yeah, I can't be bothered to buy most games, but bought Elden Ring and Cyberpunk and Witcher 3 twice. For PC and Xbox.

[@LordOfNihil]

cash on the barrel used to work great. games should be priced based on the effort that goes into them. just cause im willing to drop a benjamin on a great game does not mean i want that to be the standard price for all of them. if you are asking aaa prices for a half ass run of the mill shovelware game, you mighty be doing it wrong.

[@BecauseYouHaveToHaveANickNow]

If you aren't interested in online gaming modern CoD games are like 2 evenings of gaming. I was shocked how quickly the game ended (fortunately it was a give away on Epic games).

[@kzed]

@@BecauseYouHaveToHaveANickNow What modern CoD game was given away on epic?

[@diodora2381]

A big problem you could run into: A lot of people are just gonna wait for all 3 parts to come out, and then grab all three so they don't have to wait.

[@slayerdwarfify]

Yep. Which is gonna cause them to cancel the later two episodes because the first didn't sell

[@CheapBastard1988]

And if you're good at waiting, you can wait for a sale.

[@WyattOShea]

That's what I've been doing for many years now lol. I waited a couple years before getting a new game for the most part as I can't justify the price of a new game when most of them are at least $60-$100+ for some games (Australian pricing).@@CheapBastard1988

[@vjmtz]

People already do this though... Game of the Year editions. I wait for those usually... that plus Steam sale is a easy wait usually.

[@unkown34x33]

That's what a do with the movies lol I wait for part 2 ( finale) to come out. Not endgame tho, I was too excited

[@Obi-Wan_Kenobi62]

something to note is that in any series, the first "episode" will generally always be the most watched, paid for, exciting period, and it trails off shockingly fast. the biggest problem for games you split into multiple paid sections for, there are LOT of steps in between planning and game design to the end episodes for anything to go wrong. And oh boy, will things go wrong.

[@escaper59]

Just look at any steam game with achievements such as 'finish the game' How many people who have bought the game, have actually finished it? Most games see a shockingly low number on that achievement. (Some will be due to modding, but most wont be) For example, the Portal 2 achievement for finishing the game (Lunacy) has a global percentage of 35.8%. Only a third of portal 2 players have finished the game.

[@godofchaoskhorne5043]

@@escaper59 even the most popular games only have a 20/30% finish rate. Some devs take this the wrong way. E.g. one of the excuses cdpr had for Cyberpunk being much shorter was that only 30% or so finished Witcher 3. But that's the same for every game long or short. Most people don't seem to finish their games. Plenty of people borrow a game from a friend or get it for free and or try it out while being in the midst of another games playthrough etc and thus never finish it.

[@Murv]

@@godofchaoskhorne5043 You can't borrow games on Steam. I also own the Witcher 3 and never finished it. I usually buy games, such as GTA 5, etc. Then I roam around the world (which is why I don't like the whole leveling aspect in Witcher games, etc - as I just want to freeroam and explore) I am not really interested in the story. Never finished Witcher 3, still liked it. Finished GTA 5 only 300+ hours in, forgot half the story till then but explored the entire map 10 times over. Never finished Cyberpunk, stuck on last mission as I didn't want to finish it yet.

[@MangoPanic]

Exactly, and they'll lose a lot of money from people who either drop the game or buy it and never play it, which is a LARGE chunk of sales nowadays

[@davidm.schreckii1426]

And they have already done that with gears and now ff7 remake and well we all say what happened there with those two games, these CEO's just need to suck in their guiding greed pride and take a little loss themselves, I mean Bobby kotick I think made 29 mill, imagine making more than 20 mill a year, A YEAR!

[@jsnotlout3312]

I think the same thing that applies to books works here too. When you write a series. YOU HAVE TO have a plot arc that gets resolved. The main arc can be a cliffhanger, but there has to be some payoff or fans wont like it.

[@nicholasvinen]

It also applies to movies. Imagine if you were planning a Star Wars trilogy and shot the first movie without knowing what would happen in the next two. How dumb would you have to be to do that???

[@christianscrogins663]

@@nicholasvinenAnd yet you just described the god awful sequel trilogy. Ironic, and it kind of does serve as a warning against episodic content for any media if you don’t do it carefully. Bad content is bad content, no matter how you want to economically priced it or roll it out.

[@ggwp638BC]

There are some big differences, however. Books started to be divided in series primarily because of printing. Usually 500 pages is the upper limit of what you want in a book to still have decent quality with the standard printing process. So if you plan on a story that has 900 pages in total, doing 2 or 3 parts makes a lot of sense. Also, books are usually complete within themselves, the full story might require extra stuff, but that book in particular will likely have some plot that starts and gets resolved within it's length. Movies are episodic because you can't really expect people to sit for more than two hours doing nothing, and because for the longest time the primary means of distribution were movie theaters, there was an inherent cost to keeping a room for longer than you should. TV Shows are episodic for a similar reason, audiences will be engaged for only so long and you have limited time within a day to run all your shows. Games have none of these issues. Play sessions can last for more than 8 hours easily because games are interactive, and even if they do not, it's customary for people to play, stop and come back regularly. Years ago you'd pay for each play session in arcades, but that only made sense because you were essentially renting a physical machine in an arcade.

[@0008loser]

​@@christianscrogins663 nobody asked

[@thelakeman2538]

The problem isn't that these AAA studios aren't making enough to pay their staff, they're making a conscious decision not to do so or do lay offs to appease shareholders. They want more and more growth not just stable good profits like any publicly traded company, so when they run out of new gamers in the traditional console/PC market to fuel their growth they want to race to the bottom with dlcs (dlcs can be good if they're adding upon the base game, but not if they're just releasing features that should've been there in the first place), microtransactions, 3-4 different release tiers of the same base game, etc. Yeah dev costs have gone up, but not to the extent that they've to charge like twice or thrice the current prices for a full game, there are cases where episodic games do work but that doesn't mean you can just transplant them for everything.

[@RippahRooJizah]

Why can't it be both? Even with a number of tools to make games easier, it's obvious with how gaming has been the last 2 decades that dev costs have went up massively for certain types of games. And not even just dev costs, but marketing costs as well. The myth of eternal growth getting workers fired sucks, but if games in the span of 35 years have had maximum team sizes be 10-1000 times larger and take, usually, multiple years of work to come out, it's either questionable reoccurring purchases or tripling the costs of a full game that was going to happen. Or both.

[@treyspiller3931]

@@RippahRooJizahthe problem is these companys do these cuts while looking for ever more ways to squeeze the cash out of the gamer while also reporting absolute record crushing profits. (not all of them mainly the big ones)

[@thelakeman2538]

@@RippahRooJizah ? AAA industry wouldn't be throwing multiple development teams and have ever expanding marketing budgets for yearly releases if they weren't making that money back off of the first quarter sales of a game, activision for instance in their Q4 2022 financial report boasts about how well CoD sales are doing with MWII apparently having the best opening quarter sales in the franchise ever, and remember they're taking cost cutting measures while the CEO and top execs get millions of dollars in payouts through bonuses for increased sales. There's no necessity or inevitability in major publishers having to squeeze more revenue through releasing the game in episodes when they're making enough off game sales, there's no need to go as far as back as the late 80s or 90s, when we had a time in modern gaming during the late 2000s-early 2010s with big budgets, marketing expenditure and large teams before many of the current scummy tactics became widespread.

[@RippahRooJizah]

@@thelakeman2538 You forgot the tax havens companies use to pay fewer taxes. We're also at a time where if a game isn't making multiple millions of sales it's seen as a failure. You have more games that are more iterative than different and trying to get yearly releases out still. Regardless of where the money is going there's been years of evidence of budget concerns and ways to lower costs or improve profits. Some games are making their money back, others aren't for whatever reason. Let's not forget the failures because the successes make bank.

[@mochapoke3100]

yeah this was my issue with this segment. they were talking as if they needed more money to pay developers when they already can, easily. what they actually "need" more money for is appeasing shareholders

[@smalltime0]

I'd point out that Baldur's Gate 3 was in early access for almost 3 years, and most of that time was just act 1. Not only did they generate significant revenue from the early access sales, but it also meant they had plenty of opportunity to refine parts of the game. For example, escaping the Nautiloid use to be about 4 times longer. They also, post launch, added like 50k words of dialogue.

[@travisvaught]

I think more games should follow this model. This would allow publishers to start making money sooner. And we could get a better game.

[@novideohereatall]

​@@travisvaught I love idie games for this. You get in early, experience the concept, and the game then grows a community which will help the devs focus on the most important aspects to keep it in line with what people want. The game then expands and gets new content. Much more dynamic and "made for gamers". Minecraft is in a league of its own, but it began with "early access", and it never stopped expanding, which is why this decade old game is still just as relevant. GTA Online is actually kind of an example of this too, to some extent.

[@princesssofiyagm]

This is my favorite model. Not only do you get higher quality games because they have been throughly beta tested and fully fleshed out but you also get a much stronger community.

[@aweirdwombat]

The problem with splitting a game that everyone seems to be missing is it will cause games to feel more shallow. The game can't assume you have both parts so things like side quests would be scaled down. Everyone is focused on the main story. But it's a lot harder to cut the other content in half. Imagine how boring the world of Spider-Man would be with half the city and half the content. The days of roaming around the world to find all the meaningful content are coming to an end.

[@RippahRooJizah]

Well, it depends on the game. It may not make it more shallow, just more obvious that it is part of a larger whole. It can go very right or very wrong.

[@milkmeapollo9048]

Linus is flat out wrong in is critique in pricing. A simple Google search showing actual images of catalogs shows that the average price of games in the 90s is actually higher than it is today, being that lower tiered games sold for more money while the cap for high AAA tier games being 60-70 dollars. I think the problem today is that more people fall below that threshold of "is 60-70 dollars is worth a AAA gaming experience?". When you think of the fact that a movie ticket costs 10 dollars roughly for 2+/- hours of entertainment, videogames are insanely undervalued in society.

[@linkfreeman1998]

In western society. In third world country its still overvalued.

[@BrianMcKee]

This is only if you place value on how long it takes you to get through a piece of media. The average movie is several times more expensive to produce than the average video game despite taking less time to "complete". Video games need to stop worrying about how long it takes to complete the game and more about its content. A 5-10 hour masterpiece is much better than a 90 hour slog.

[@chronodis]

We aren't all well of enough to keep spending 100s of dollars on 2 games

[@fred6907]

I've noticed the same whining from lots of people. Most AAA games 30 years ago cost at least $50 at release. I fondly remember my dad bought me Super Mario on the NES back in the days for $50. If you adjust for inflation that same game would be WAY more expensive today. And that's excluding the insane cost of making a modern game. People have no clue about inflation it seems. $50 for a game today is dirt cheap, when you barely get 2 IMAX movie tickets for the same price, WITHOUT any snacks. You also get a ton of games for free these days (Genshin Impact, Path of Exile, The First Descendant, Warzone etc.). People are spoiled rotten, especially in the west.

[@marcelroodt]

We've been so far gone from the concept that an Expansion Pack used to actually expand on the content that came before it. It's wild. That was the traditional way that companies tried to cut costs and deliver a second product. "Hey, you liked this game. We made another campaign, or completely overhauled it as a standalone package. Try it out for half the price of the original". The market is so different from the '00s it's unreal.

[@marcelroodt]

I feel like episodic gaming becoming a bigger thing is going to bring the same frustration as the cancelled Netflix series trend.

[@SlavTiger]

now it's "pay 90$ for a barebones mess+ another 50 in dlc to actually have some semblance of an experience"

[@Kenjionigod]

The thing missing from this conversation is that episodic games like the Walking Dead and that each part was normally cheaper than buying a full game. $50 per part is a lot, when historically they were like $5 to $15.

[@sky0kast0]

If it goes higher than 120 $ I will probably never buy another game

[@CheapBastard1988]

All praise the back catalogue.

[@iwiffitthitotonacc4673]

​@@CheapBastard1988And indies.

[@jsnotlout3312]

I cant afford this modern world lol.

[@fabianfeilcke7220]

Then you would not have been able to buy games in the 80-90ies as well

[@UndeadFleshgod]

Adjusted for inflation SNES games were like $150.

[@seatsea0]

An interesting example is the latest Hitman trilogy. Each level released as an episode with additional content unlocking between each release, and then once all the levels were out you could get the game as if it was a single release. And on top of that, you can play the previous levels in the following games, with whatever additional unlocks you got.

[@ricardor6388]

And it was ❤❤❤❤

[@17Tomtac]

That sounds cool

[@SMthegamer1]

And half the content was timed exclusive, because it was a shallow live service game with the Hitman brand slapped on.

[@someoneelse5005]

Yeah we are just going back to piracy at this point, I dont even play AAA titles anymore but if I wanted to I am not shelling out that money, meanwhile I have bought over a thousand dollars of indie games that had upwards of 5 people working on them in total, some even by a single person. They were all complete from the day one without weird dark monetization patterns. Go figure!

[@ligametis]

That is an argument to raise prices even more as piracy back in old days barely existed

[@someoneelse5005]

@@ligametis what are you talking about, piracy was absolutely rampant until steam got popular

[@ItsJones]

@@ligametis which good old days are we talking about? Pretty much everyone i knew with a pc used to pirate everything ~20 years ago.

[@ligametis]

​@@ItsJoneslike 80s when only cartridges existed

[@ligametis]

​​​@@someoneelse5005me and my homies hate steam, at least there is now epic as competition. Either way I am talking about pre-2000s cartridge systems. Steam encouraged piracy for me

[@DaxSkrai]

I think Linus is assuming that each game will be a full game in size. In reality, what the studios are likely to do is take a game like BG3 and simply split it into 3 parts, each for 40-50 bucks, and call it a day. 60-70 bucks is already a lot for me for just one game, especially when I can play League of Legends for free or play $15 a month for WoW.

[@snakeinabox7220]

League of Legends in not a good choice buddy , as a former league player who has burned 3000 h of his life , leave the game as soon as you can .

[@kena4977]

I think the best way to look at it is how much time do you get out a game. BG3 is cheap, I played for over 150 hours. It cost like $.33 per hour. I paid full price for Horizon Zero Dawn and like 70 hours or nearly a dollar an hour.

[@DaxSkrai]

@@kena4977 I usually won't buy any game unless I get a minimum of $1/hr out of it. That's kind of my baseline. BG3 took me over 200 hours for a single playthrough, and was well worth it to me. Here's what I think is going to happen, though, with BG3 as an example. They'll split the full game into part 1, 2, and 3, being the 3 acts in the game, and charge full price for each portion. It's seemingly nothing but a slight degradation of the product for more money overall. They could just include like 3 cosmetics in each game and make more money instead, in my opinion. $15 horse armor was millions of dollars after all. Plus with it being 3 parts, it's so much harder for devs to make any patches past release day of the second part, and continuing the story is less seamless. I don't like it, but it isn't impossible to do well.

[@chronodis]

15$ a month + DLC prices.

[@DaxSkrai]

@@chronodis the expansions are not only unnecessary for many players, because you can play Classic without them, but are for two years of continuously updated and new content. And again, League of Legends is just free to play entirely. I'm not sure what your stance is on this topic, but I'm assuming you're disagreeing with me. The idea of taking Baldur's Gate 3 and splitting the game into the three acts and selling each at $60-70 is silly. It breaks up the flow of the story, which screws up the narrative, and is a flat cash grab. They can make each game standalone and full like they have been since they started making games, or charge an extra $10-20 if it really costed that much extra to make, but a full $120+ extra just because seems ridiculous to me.

[@slicer2938]

the problem i see with this idea of selling a game in parts is that, most players dont even get through the first ten hours of a single player game and its quite visable in the achievements or like the very first achievement in the first 10 minutes ive seen often is only at 60%-80% of players completed. Which may end up causing you to actually lose sales as most players wont buy the second or third part of a game. You gain alot of revenue from the fact many players buy the game and never even start it. if everyone only starts paying 50 bucks instead of the usual price of 60-70 then your simply going to lose money over time as most players wont ever get to a point where they want to spend the next 50 and even the next 50 after that. Plus how does this work with DLC? because DLC kind of already fulfill's this idea as alot of DLC is either cut content that gets finished or on occasion its a brand new thing.

[@Monsux]

@@GH0STST4RSCR34M Like so many other online service games. This is one of the reason I don't touch those games. Still, can't really compare to a single player game without no need to keep up online infrastructure + constant updates, servers, etc. When a single player game does this, there are so many possible issues. What if the company doesn't finish the game, but leave it 3/5. What parts are released at different platforms, and you can't finish your game without buying a new hardware. There would be so much scummy stuff. No idea what FF VII remake is doing, I'll play it when it's fully done.

[@slicer2938]

i think Destiny 2 is different as its selling expansion packs for an Always Online service. This is more or less talking about mostly singleplayer Titles where you just buy the game and play. plus ill be honest ive never played Destiny so i wouldnt know but isnt Destiny like an MMO? MMO's work very differently then what Single player games do. @@GH0STST4RSCR34M

[@ggwp638BC]

On the contrary, it means they can sell you the game thrice. Let's imagine a game will be sold in 3 episodes. First ep sells for $50 and 100 people buy it. Out of these, only 50 finish it. Second ep sells for $50, 40 people buy it. Out of these, only 20 finish it. Then comes the 2 episode bundle for $50. Another 20 people buy it, even if they are never going to play or even make it to the end of part 1. Third ep sells for $50 again, 10 people buy it. Now you have the Full Story bundle, another 10 people buy it. If this was a full game released once, they would sell 100 copies, making 5kUSD. But by adding together all sales of each episode, they managed to sell 180 copies, making 9800USD And with careful timing, all those extra editions they already make such as Collector's Edition, Premium, Gold, Extra, Digital, Pre-Order Special, GOTY, they can do one for each episode and then one for the final bundle. All with the cost of one game. Of course, that in the head of the executives. And of course they can have all the excuses that the "full game is not out yet" to deflect all criticism.

[@Monsux]

@@ggwp638BC One note, if it was an episode style of release, the sale of the first episode would be way different from a full game release. So many are waiting to get all at once or wouldn't buy expensive multipart games. If the part one was cheap, it could even get way higher numbers, but the content would have to be insanely good to get people buying more expensive part 2 and 3. Easy to sell part 1, but hard to sell anything past that point. This could also mean that games are designed overall way easier, since if a gamer quits, they can't see the part 2 or 3. For example, Elden Ring was a masterpiece, but a large percentage did quit at semi early. The game was so good that it would be easy to sell those later parts to gamers who really enjoyed it. At the same time, they would cut the potential buyers more than half with the game design/style. Imagine if the part 3 started right after Malenia. Episodes would compromise the game. I'm not saying From Software would do changes, but other larger companies would 100% make everything to push people buying all possible episodes.

[@prezroll]

Don't kid yourself, the price will rise to 69.99 in no time. They will just claim "Part 1 is basically a full game."

[@juances]

We really need to bring back demos. Want people to pay $70/$80/$90/whatever for a game? Show them that your game is worth that much first, no bait and switch with fake touched up trailers or preorder bonuses only to get a buggy mess on release day. I still think that one of the best things to happen to gaming is not RTX or 4k gaming monitors or VR... it's steam's 2-hour refund policy lol.

[@deltadom33]

A game is worth only how much people are willing to pay

[@matti...]

Great example of a demo - Ultrakill's demo. How could I not buy it after?

[@Hoserzzz]

I think Luke is 100% correct here, in *most* cases, this won't be used to deliver complete pieces of content, it'll be used to exploit gamers out of as much money as possible and pay CEOs more while they pay devs less

[@Tzhz]

Used to pay £33.99, get a full singleplayer and a multiplayer with continued DLC map packs released over time. Now I have to pay £60+ for a reskin of the last game, £15 for a battlepass for cosmetic items, and weekly DLC to change how my character looks, and pay £30+ for singular DLC maps/modes that get replaced quarterly. "Just dont buy the cosmetics" is the option but the ONLY put out cosmetics and never new content anymore. Greed has ruined every triple A development team.

[@SlavTiger]

qnd worse they delist and otherwise render the last one unplayable to try to force you to always buy the new one immediately

[@metallboy25]

I completely avoid any game that requires you to spend extra.

[@GirthCheck]

​@metallboy25 what does "requires" mean? technically no game requires you to buy anything extra. Aside from like mmo type stuff

[@Ryan_Wiseman]

There is a major difference over having a truly episodic game and forcing devs to split their games into parts. The only type of parts gaming I'd ever expect to play comes from indie devs and early access; because they (usually) do not have the team needed to accomplish a perfect video game in 1-2 years. Major studios can go [REDACTED] themselves if they're gonna switch to a parts gaming model to milk the consumer more. Organic milk is more worthy of its price over this new business model

[@keoki_]

People seem to forget that the value of the dollar has only gone down. For example if you bought a game for $59.99 30 years ago, that's the equivalent of paying $128 TODAY. Games have actually gotten cheaper over time, that is why game companies are charging more. Dunkey did a great video covering this.

[@caatabatic]

20$ for part one, and the other 2 for 40 each. it's a paid demo.

[@LovesGrilling]

When they increase prices further, I will buy games used off ebay and when they stop me from doing this, i will no longer be a gamer and they will get nothing at all from me.

[@mr_clean575]

Consumer satisfaction of pricing is determined by perceived value, not by how much money a game studio spent creating the game. It is dramatically easier to create games now. It is not a consumer's fault if a game studio spends exorbitant amounts of money creating overscoped games, especially when those scopes are never reached, and the end product falls short of their own marketing. Plenty of solo-developer or small team games have performed absurdly well. And there are also plenty of AAA games that were done well, and made a ton of money. If you want people to pay more money, make a better game. And with the track record of broken promises and openly antagonistic views of their own customers, gamers don't have a lot of trust for AAA companies. Why would consumers have a positive view of episodic games when current full feature releases consistently fail to being value and lie in their marketing?

[@KeManYT]

6:30 Michael Reeves uploads maybe once a year, and every video goes insane because of how good it is.

[@PeteTheL337]

ok.. why do people always forget the 1 key thing about games these days when they say that games barely cost more than 30 years ago. The audience is 100 times bigger these days. The reach is insane versus in the 1990s. On top of this many modern studios could do with some efficiency training. Having seen fair bit of interviews with seniors in the industry the prevailing theme has been extreme amounts of inefficiency where code that would take an hour suddenly takes days in some instances due to, among other things, bureaucracy and lack of initiative. I'm not paying for that. Then you can pile on the ton of other issues. Basically resources aren't being managed properly in many cases and it's very evident when you see a small team release a stellar indie with not even a 10th of the workforce and the quality is through the roof and the price is 39.99 or 29.99. Time to slim down the frothing beast as it has clearly gaining "a bit" of excess weight.

[@zachmoyer1849]

yeah its like social media companies like twitter had as many employees as spacex and they make rockets that go to space. also the audience is bigger and the machines to make games are way cheaper.

[@JKeemTV]

That's a take considering the numerous layoffs in the entire tech sphere, not just gaming, this year along with how game studios are near universally plagued with crunch. For every indie that released that was a hit, there were ten more that were failures and the studio likely closed.

[@mondodimotori]

It's apparent that you have no idea how game developement works. Gameplay quality rarely relate to developement costs. You can get a stellar gameplay even from a one person developing studio if the game scope is set right.

[@daniel7035]

@@JKeemTVbut AAA studios aren’t being funded by 3 guys life savings so how is this relevant?

[@improvwithlions4173]

​@@JKeemTV As someone in the tech sector, I've observed that a small percentage of people get most of the work, to the point where they can't/won't delegate effectively or train anyone. So the trend has gone from "overhiring" to just short of explicitly saying, yeah it's normal for one IT dev to be taking on the roles of 3-8 people. By the way, we'll only hire you if you came fully formed from the brow of Zeus.

[@fraz152]

Imagine being in the UK where publishers think its okay to sell games at a 1:1 conversion rate between the £ and the $.

[@TheL0rd0fSpace]

I've been saying this for ages, and I stand by it: The idea that "Games' prices haven't gone up/have only gone up a little" is bogus. Publishers have done nothing but find new ways to push the price of games up: day one dlc, microtransactions, battle passes, season passes, special editions of games. The 59.99/69.99 price that people cite is only the bare minimum price for entry, but for at least a decade it's often provided an incomplete game which will require a few dozen more dollars to finish. Or in the case of some games with piles of cosmetics (which used to be free and grinded with in-game play: Anyone remember the Gold-plated deagle and AK in cod4?), it can take hundreds of dollars to get all the content in the game you already paid for. Tl;Dr Publishers haven't kept the "price of games" flat for decades because they're so nice and generous. They've kept them flat because they've found more clever ways to make games more expensive without pushing the baseline price of entry.

[@BecauseYouHaveToHaveANickNow]

What you guys are missing in the argument about more people working on Games now is that, Today the market is bigger than in Mario times. Here, in Poland, when I was a kid, I knew 1 person that had a console, and a few had Commodore or Amigas. Play Station was a thing only in Internet Caffes. And games could rarely be ported among those. Now you can release a game that can be played both on PCs and Consoles and the devices themselves are much more popular. Economics of scale does the rest.

[@Ctuchik]

I already do not buy complete games over $50. $150 for a cut up game? Fuck no!

[@FeniksGaming]

Indie is the way. AAA only at 50% discount year after release when they actually fix the game

[@halomika4973]

​@@FeniksGaming AAA doesn't mean bad necessarily, my friend. Where do you think AAA studios come from? They are the logical step of evolution for Indie studios. And not all AAA games released broken. That's only a trend that's been emerging in the past few years.

[@daniel7035]

@@halomika4973but it’s so trendy that it makes them untrustworthy. I don’t expect a Bethesda or EA or Ubisoft game to be good. They have earned that reputation. And there’s enough others to make you really think that AAA games are just bad

[@halomika4973]

@@daniel7035 Agreed, I was just pointing out that therw are still good ones like Baldur's Gate or Elden Ring for example

[@mondodimotori]

Considering that, adjusting for inflation, games have never bean cheaper (games in the 90s were much more expensive), I don't see why people complain. It's not like publishers are forcing you to buy every game day one. At least that's not in the list of bad things they do.

[@Creed5.56]

I have a few thoughts about this. My first is that, personally, I don’t believe AAA games should be the same flat price. Like, GTA 6, I’m sure people would gladly fork out $100 for, but a short 6-8hr story AAA game could go for maybe $30. Why do all AAA games have to be priced the same? Furthermore, in terms of episodic content, what happens if X game Part 1 is 7hrs longer than X game Part 2? Should both parts be, let’s say $40 each? Even though one is a decent amount smaller in scale/length? Additionally, as a consumer, I’d rather pay more up front for a complete package than have to wait 6mo - 1y in between episodes of the same game. It also opens the doors for potential tragedies to strike and for talent to pass in between episodes, causing the need to either recast a character, have them die off screen or just end the story before it’s even completed.

[@ArchusKanzaki]

I think the idea that "6-8 hours game should be only worth 30$", is incentivizing devs to bloating the game. Assassin Creed Odyssey can have something like 100 hour campaign, it get panned by critics as "over-bloated". Pricing games based on game time length is incentivizing devs to "spread it out" rather than "pack it more" to make it "worth it". Flat pricing is fine, let the market sort it out.

[@RippahRooJizah]

It gets a bit weird to try to make variable prices for AAA games. I mean, why would an 8 hour game be $30? Most people put far too much value in the quantity of time with little consideration of quality, and as such we have large games with various time sinks that add little to nothing to the game beyond time spent on it. "Quality" is also subjective. I, personally, would rather spend more on a better, shorter game than less on a longer game that isn't as good. A good long game is good as well but that doesn't always happen. As for potential issues, those can happen at any time; they aren't exclusive to episodic games.

[@EpIcHoBoGuY]

My thing with episodic gaming is I feel like its going to go the way stuff like netflix is, I feel like episodic gaming is like a season of a show, where each episode only takes like 20 hours to complete, but you have to wait a year between them, and like Netflix has shown there is no guarantee that good things will actually get a real ending before they get canceled, I have already got to the point that I wont watch shows that are still In Progress, and I really don't want games to go that way, I'm not spending that much just to feel like I have an incomplete story for a year at best, or have spent that money just for it to get canceled and never get a conclusion at all.

[@HeyImKevin]

The average game isn’t worth $70, and the games that ARE don’t charge you $70.

[@wmj1860]

This couldn't be more true.

[@halomika4973]

And that's church, yo.

[@Slidezy]

Legit though, most of the games I buy are anywhere from 79 to a hundred bucks. + There's always pay to a win option for the game at like 120 bucks sometimes even more. Cuz that's completely fair, hey you're rich? Well you get to start off with a maxed out gun against people that get garbage with no attachments.

[@IamTheSnowman4]

The short summary is we'd all like to have a bigger world to enjoy for the games we enjoy. Don't waste time on a sinking ship, but also don't design a ship that will sink. Design a game that can stand on its own and then spend the next years improving that game because its your flagship. For armored core 6 if they had a chapter 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 expansion I would buy it.

[@robertfreeman6922]

Assuming companies do need to make more on a game than $60-70 dollars today, I think it would be fine if it were released all at once. 1: I want to make sure the whole game IS going to be released and the company isn’t going to just cancel a game after 3 parts. 2: It allows people to bounce after 1 part of they don’t like it. 3: Companies aren’t putting in pay to play schemes and microtransactions.

[@davidposiril69]

The problem i have with games going from 40$, to 50$, then to 60$, now to 70$ and god knows whats next, is that in many countries, the average pay barely moved the past 15 years. For example, the real average pay in my country went from around 18 000- 20 000 to around 22 000- 24 000 (local currency after tax, and that is the 15 years difference), while the rent went from basic 1+1 (40m squared) being 8000 with utilities to 13 000 and you are lucky if you get utilities, so games changing from around 800-900 to being 1500 is massive.

[@BackToTheStart47]

Games should be cheaper at launch because they treat us as beta testers.

[@ALATON157]

1000% like look at COD it's a joke

[@Draliseth]

You think that would incentivise anyone to NOT buy them early..? As opposed to buying them cheaper after they're fixed..? Games need to quit pissing away good will. That's the actual problem.

[@BackToTheStart47]

​@@Draliseth Pretty much every triple A game has been releasing in a poor state. Ubisoft is trying to get $120 for their "AAAA" games. As you hit the nail on the head that all the goodwill is gone. I think the old DLC system was way better game gets new content and grows to be a way better experience like paradox games. Base game gets cheap and bugs patched and the developers win by selling dlc.

[@benjammin105123]

Video games will turn into those shows that I like that noone else does that end on a cliffhanger, get cancelled, and leave me forever wondering what happens.

[@JamesSmith-sw3nk]

There isn't a lot of physical media anymore. I don't understand why game companies don't sell all new pc games for $19.99 each on STEAM. Digital distribution is very cheap on a mass market. They would sell a LOT more copies than at $70 each. I'd buy a mediocre game right away at $20, I won't at $70.

[@RedRingOfDead]

And then you have console players. Who would rather have the game on disc. To conserve it. And not be reliant on a sony or Xbox to exist until eternity. Or for our pc gamers, Epic Games or Steam (as market places on winshit) nobody can take away your physical games. Anyone can take away your online shit. Online drm makes it you can't play when the internet is out. I dont have that issue when it's on disc.

[@mryellow6918]

@@RedRingOfDead legally you can own a cracked copy if you have the license to the game, so really you can go buy a disk and burn the crack onto it if you really wanted. i have all my favorite games archived and compressed.

[@JamesSmith-sw3nk]

@@RedRingOfDead I think the last time I bought a pc game on disk was the original Crysis. I probably own around 1000 pc games on various market place services like STEAM. It's only happened a handful of times but if a game I like is pulled out of service then I'll just "crack it". I also highly doubt that disk versions really cost $50 more..

[@zulfika_]

@@waxcutter9813 Server and employee cost a lot of money

[@Burn_In_Oled_On_Purpose]

I get my free games from epic games. The games that I used to play are no longer on steam and other game libraries. I rather get free digital games or pirate the digital games that way I won't lose any money when the games are no longer available from steam and other game libraries from gog and g2a. With my game consoles, I only buy the consoles that support the physical media. The digital versions are already obsolete when they are no longer supported, they are discontinued and when the digital stores are closed and if the manufacturer chooses not to allow access to the digital games even though the customer already paid the for the digital games like what is already happening between sony and discovery with the digital movies that the customers already paid for and sony won't refund the money that the customers paid for when they supposedly "bought" the digital movies instead of choosing the rent option. I don't like throwing my money with digital products because it's already part of the process of supporting planned obsolescence. The manufacturers might as well as start serializing there consoles and games like how apple already does it with there iPhones and macbooks since the manufacturers already have gotten greedier and stingier every year in order to scree over the customers while making money in the process. Nintendo are assholes when it comes to emulators and roms and will take go far as taken down youtube videos about how to inquiring roms and emulators for the consoles they no longer make sell. Sony are being quiet and won't tell the customers what they are doing instead of being transparent to the customers and make up excuses as to why they are taking there customers money and they try to justify why they can get away with it. Microsoft implements things better for the game consoles like the support for the xbox compared to the support for windows even though microsoft makes and sells the xbox just like they do with windows on pc and the manufacturers give the consumers choices when they go the pc route. I wish microsoft windows pc's have windows support similar to the xbox. For example, the modern xbox has backwards compatibility compared to microsoft windows pc compatibility has certain restrictions since there are less restrictions on the xbox. I bought the xbox series x because I can still play games all the way back to the original xbox and I still have my original xbox and 360 games that are compatible with the series x. I wish I could still play my games that says games for windows on windows 11 on discs. Basically all versions of windows should have backwards compatibility just like the microsoft xbox game consoles. There were games that I downloaded from steam and are only compatible with windows 7 and I have windows 11. I had to contact steam to get my refund for the games that will only work with windows 7 and are not backwards compatibility with windows 11 even though the games were never updated to support windows 11 and only supported windows 7.

[@zachb1706]

It blows me away how close many studios are from going bust. Obsidian - the creators of Payday 2 which bought in shitloads of money - almost went bust years later after their Walking Dead game.

[@ynglink]

I've played multiple TellTale games (The Walking Dead, Batman, Borderlands) and in each of them I would wait until the story was finished. Not because of a price point issue, but because I, as a player, would forget what happened or what choices I've made. This is the core issue with episodic gaming. It's a bigger risk than it appears to be as there's a whole segment of people that don't want to wait months to a year for the next part of the story. This puts extra stress on the dev studio since they're missing funding that they were expecting to keep the story going. What I expect Sony's plan is to do is mostly cut up pieces of the game, say Single player vs Multiplayer, and they'll sell each side separately.

[@raptorjesus5488]

splitting it up like that makes a lot of sense. if you could buy campaign, multiplayer, and extra mode(cod zombies, tf2 mvm, ect) for 20-30$ each players could save money and the game gets more players(that they can sucker into micro-transactions)

[@kevboard]

people who talk about how SNES games and modern AAA games having similar prices forget that SNES games WERE SUPER EXPENSIVE to produce... as in making copies to sell in stores was super expensive. there are dozens of SNES games that literally have a 1 to 1 copy of the SNES' main CPU inside of the cartridge. other games like some Capcom games had chips in them that allowed for fast wireframe 3D graphics. and of course there was the SuperFX and SuperFX2 chips that allowed flat shaded and textured polygons. that of course came ON TOP of the price of the storage chips, the PCB, and the custom case that publishers had to source from Nintendo themselves. and games only being available in retail stores meant that those stores also got a cut of the price. so... what do you guys think the difference in revenue for the publisher it is selling a SNES cart with microchips and big cases sold in retail only, compared to a PS5 game sold as a digital download. in order to be 100% equal in concept, a PS5 game would need to come in a plastic storage box, that has an AMD ZEN2 CPU installed inside it... because, again, that's literally what happend with many SNES games... they had a fucking second CPU inside of them... that is such an outlandish concept from a modern perspective. so you can't compare SNES prices with modern game prices.

[@Tikthra]

The idea the pressure to up the sale price has anything to do with the money the developers and publishers pay their employees goes right into the Linus bad take bucket.

[@Clarity-808]

Starcraft 2 was in 3 parts and each part was amazing. I’d rather have that than a half-assed sequel any day.

[@Sarackosmo]

Cut celebrity voice actors, non-gameplay trailers and your left with 60 bucks. The cost increase inflation is irrelevant. The consumer base has inflated over the cost of a game.

[@x7heDeviLx]

Wasn’t part of the cost back of the-day the cartridge. Or even the blue ray, or shipping costs of dealing with selling thru brick and mortar store. Well it’s all digital now

[@McSteinmeister]

Im pretty sure, if this model works, it will be that standart ,even for some games like COD ,you will pay three times for the same amount of content and also for single player games, you will end up paying for 3 Episodes , 3 times full price and still only get in some games not more then 6h to 8h combined

[@michaelvanrheede7225]

Itll also naturally progress to games as a service

[@jasong6501]

dunkey made a good video about this. adjusting for inflation games used to cost the equivalent of 120+ today. selling games in parts will be a delicate issue to solve. It would feel really dumb to make the whole game and everyone knows it's finished then sell it for 3 separate parts. But selling part one after it's finished then selling the next pieces as they finish would go a lot better. Expansion packs are a lot easier to swallow but completely different. Metro exodus released as a large, full game. I could then buy and further explore the stories of the side characters to tie up lose ends, expansions done well. Subnautica did something really cool that I wish I saw more of. Subnautica was a massive project, and was very successful. They then reused a bunch of the work building subnautica with new assets and new story to release a second, "smaller" game to give us more lore to the larger story of subnautica. It could even be considered a part I and II even though the stories are a bit disconnected, they happen on the same planet, at different times.

[@qwertyioup195]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, AAA games that are monetized heavily through microtransactions should not be $70 or even $60. They should be free. When it comes to monetization in the game industry, it is never this OR that, it is this AND that. These companies exist to maximize profit above all else and if they can get away with monetizing every aspect of the games they make, they will do it.

[@daometh]

Server cost a lot to maintain. If the game was free to play the company would have to put a large part of their revenue to people that dont pay for the game. I really tend to avoid games with micro transaction either way.

[@mryellow6918]

@@daometh well good for call of duty because they rent out amazons

[@RenigadeWarrior1]

The thing is that Super Mario Bros. Launched in 1985 at US$25.00 ($74 Today) but the market in 1985 was barely a fraction of what it was today. Games then were made for less and sold expensively to make up for the lack of volume. Today AAA games are made very expensively and sold for "less" because the volume is so much higher. Any increase in price is just greed or overcoming an ill advised decision to make too "big" of a game with no real proof that the investment was going to pay off. For every AAAA $400m bomb we could have had 5 well made and considered AAA or AA games that took more risks, and even if only one of them became a huge hit the investment would pay off. This is what EA, Ubisoft, and Valve used to do in the early 2000s and we got huge multi billion dollar franchises from it.

[@shauncameron8390]

Due to manufacturing costs. Cartridges were not cheap. The unintended consequences of supporting Sony and Microsoft whose platforms encourage it.

[@jarik7658]

"because the volume is so much higher" Super Mario Bros for the NES sold 40 Million copies. Super Mario Bros Wonder has sold only 13.4 Million copies.

[@eliasvaldez161]

Bro Spider-Man 2 already felt short and they wanna split it up more? Jesus.

[@jacoblawton6350]

I don't think it felt that short, just sort of inline with insomniac games other titles. They are also one of the only studios able to bring out multiple games in 8 year time frames anymore, because they limit it a bit, 10 hour story + 5 hour side stuff feels ok if you are getting a game every 2 years. If they split up 3 and its 1 a year each one with about 8 hours + 3 hours then I think it would be more a return to ps2 games where they would come out more often because they were smaller/limited.

[@jmb3d]

I think for the episodic gaming method you would need to announce a schedule like with TV series. Part one will come out this day, part two on this day, etc. This way you will know and anticipate when you will be able to continue the game.

[@majurbludd]

Ill wait 3-4 years for the game to be 1/2 price.

[@blueshellincident]

Sometimes only a couple months like Starfield

[@CommodoreFan64]

Sometimes not even that long, when a game comes out, and then STEAM has a winter sale a couple months later, as was the case for Sonic Superstars where the entire game plus the DLC goes is on sale for $42 down from $70.

[@oliver-nation4377]

If games are gonna be sold in parts, it is time to bring out the good old pirate hat. (This is if a game can not do what it should. A 60 dollar games, should have a story that takes 60 hours to play)

[@bjarkisteinnpetursson9736]

If the structure of the story justifies being split into parts, I’d be ok paying $30 a piece for 3 chapters. I even like the idea of a game with a miniseries structure, 8-10 episodes at $8-$10 a piece. But it would have to be a Naughty Dog level story. Not just “good for a video game”. An actually great story.

[@synthiandrakon]

Hollowknight is a modern example of this where, when you start the game, the names of the devs appear on the screen during the intro and they can do that because there are like 4 of them

[@flarestorm9417]

Ultimately it comes down to what people are willing to pay for, but games are already expensive. In Canada games are about $20 more than they are in the U.S., so $70 USD games are $90 CAD, and I know other places have it worse. Sure, people cite prices back in the day for being similar, but you didn't need to spend money on a console + an online service + DLC + microtransactions + a subscription service. The game was one and done, even if it wasn't good. The AAA industry's prices are bloated as heck and not sustainable. Maybe Sony should try to push for something cheaper than the AAA, photo-realistic, $200 million+ cinematic games that they tend to make. It makes those Last of Us remakes/remasters look like acts of desperation to support Sony's mega AAA spending. Something has to break at some point.

[@declanmckeown323]

I personally won't spend over $30 on a game. That's what a game is worth to me. Others clearly are willing to pay $70 if not more, so that's what It's worth to them

[@Drenwickification]

I think the whole of the games industry will be going to more of a subscription model. Wouldn’t surprise me if we end up eventually where it is like music and film/tv where the best majority of content people consume is that from a subscription service and not bought. Like maybe we will see a ‘gamepass ultimate’ that will be 2-3x the price of normal gamepass but with it you can play ANY Xbox game. Then the revenue can be distributed based on how much time you spend playing each game.

[@red0death1]

What your describing would kill single player games...

[@Drenwickification]

@@red0death1 how would it?

[@yerielzamora]

@@red0death1 Unfortunately, unless something changes, AAA single player games are looking less and less profitable as times goes on. That's part of the problem here. Single player games are going to be noticeably smaller scale than multiplayer games going forward. It already is going that way, which is why BG3 was such a surprise and why other game companies rushed to say it was an exceptional case, because they cannot reasonably make single player games profitable enough when they're in such a corporate landscape that requires infinite growth to keep money flowing.

[@LorenzoJ0]

I would only support indie games if that's the case. Games are half a@@ nowadays. Its sad a AAA game needs a 50gig update in the first week. Na, I'm good. Plenty of indie developers to give my money to

[@dalanoyo]

That's not entirely horrible because it would incentivize game developers to actually put out good games. On the other hand they could be incentivized to make the game unnecessarily grindy so people spend more time playing it...

[@vectusvalorian]

I rather pay the 70 dollars for a good quality game. Games stayed in a good price range so far despite inflation.

[@PabAng]

I dislike the idea of episodic gaming like parting a complete game into sections to be bought separately. I do see a trend towards subscription based models, that while annoying, seems to be what every type of entertainment is turning to in modern times. What I think would be my ideal version of this is similar to what Luke describes in either adding extra sections to a complete game or doing something akin to what Nintendo did with Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask, where as the studio re-uses the engine, and a lot of the assets and mechanics of the base game to create something new with heavily reduced development cost.

[@logan5018]

Realistically, the price of games should be increasing. Even just considering the span of the last 20 years, adjusted for inflation a $60 game from january 2000 would cost $109.14 in todays money. If the cost of games is pegged at $60/70, then over time the "real" price of games will steadily decline due to inflation. For me though, $150 for a game is just too much (though i will admit, im a pc gamer who hasnt spent full price on a game for over a decade). For the right price, i think episodic games could be a good thing as they would give games an opportunity to buy into the game for a lower price to see if they enjoy it

[@outcast3873]

For me, I guess it depends on how much you get out of the game. What I will definitively say is that battle passes, in game currency, and other transactions that make the game p2w should not exist.

[@Culpride]

I don't want a pile of shame with each entry worth 60 bucks and one game from a long dead developer I play FOREVER because I LOVE it but they went bankrupt. I want 5$-9$ demos that ask me after one hour (or so) of playtime if i want to buy another hour for 5$-9$ or the full game for 65$ minus what I've already paid. Am I the only one?

[@kayzlazerbeam007]

It is a true shame, the world we live in requires ever increasing profits year on year for companies. Developers laid off not because of a lack of profits or revenue but due to lack of profit growth. With that in mind, in my opinion where the game industry is going with Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of games is very different to what we experienced with the Last of Us. What I see happening is essentially a fantastic opportunity (for companies not the consumer) to implement shrinkflation in this industry. We see it time and again at our local grocery stores, a packet of chocolate or can of beans is smaller compared to how it was, yet still as expensive if not more. The way the industry is going that will be coming to our games and to some degree has already started. I doubt it will be as obvious, we just have to look at the grocery store items, we don't blink twice about it at all really. Majority of consumers just go about their day. But companies like Activision will in effect create games that have a smaller play time yet price it as what we today consider a full game, and the same for the next part which will also be smaller in size compared to a full game but potentially similar in price. And maybe it won't be the decreasing play time, but maybe the advancement in graphics or whatnot, it'll all be done to a lesser degree with these practices implemented by companies. That's my opinion fleshed out a little bit, let me know what you think

[@ChompDude]

Overbloated budgets, war on physical, always online, multiple "editions", microtransactions and dlc, buggy and/or broken on launch, day one updates and games with mindless grinds that promised "hundreds of hours of content." I don't buy the notion of the new standard price of games when considering you sometimes can't get a physical copy of it and the onus of storing its data is now on _you._ Take into account the average size of games as well.

[@mancavestudios8955]

My guess is that the physical format of Super Mario Bros for the NES contributed greatly to its final sale price

[@sp3edstr]

I remember waaaay back in the early 2000’s Gran Turismo 3 was supposed to be released in three parts - a spec, b spec and c spec - but they left it at just a spec.

[@nunosanches3693]

its not about having or not having a conclusion , but more about the number of hours of contente the game provides, (ofc not counting recicling content). but you can have 1 game devided by 3 or more parts if the parts are long enough its fine.

[@RedRingOfDead]

Absolutely not. I'm not gonna pay 3x75 for a game that has as much content in total then what gra San Andreas single player had for 50. And that game was finished when it was released. Unlike games these days. This is some utter bullshit

[@DarcMagikian]

So game companies can add filler content to increase the numbers of hours.

[@RippahRooJizah]

@@RedRingOfDead I would disagree, in the sense that parts of a divided game can have the parts fleshed out enough to be worth something closer to full price. But that depends on the game. Final Fantasy 7 Remake is a good example.

[@RedRingOfDead]

@@RippahRooJizah just think about it, do you really think game studios are going to do this? We all know it's about cold hard numbers. And snipping a game in 3 pieces, having the same length as GTA San Andreas total is the way they probably are going to it. Having a game for example being 10hrs total playtime for what would've been 75. Now you get 5 hrs in the first for 75 3 hours in the second part for 75 And 2 hrs in the third part for 75. Games will not get better, only more expensive.

[@RippahRooJizah]

@@RedRingOfDead You know very well they would never sell a 2 hour part of a game for 75 dollars, that's unreasonable. The more unscrupulous studios will inflate that number at the very least. But, yes, I do think some game studios *will* flesh out the parts on good faith if it comes to that, because there is precedent. And I know some won't.

[@GucciCaligula]

1) I know I'm 6 months late to this discussion. 2) I think both the games industry and gamers need to realize we're not in the 90s anymore when that $60 price was set. Gamers need to realize that adjusted for just for inflation games should be around $150 ($60 in 1990 adjusted to 2024). But games studios need to realize if they want to charge the 1990 price they need to provide the 1990 product. A game that is complete and (mostly) bug free, a game that is on physical media that the purchaser owns forever, a game that will be worth that price if it receives no updates no new skins, no new modes, it would still be a "complete" game, and finally demos need to come back. Steam is really good for this but it needs to be industry standard, if you want to be able to charge a premium price customers need to be able to try before they buy. If the industry doesnt want to move back to producing a quality product like that or, gamers dont want to pay for it, I think we're going to continue to see this renegotiation about what level of quality and price are acceptable for games. I know I personally would be fine paying $150 for a game if a game was of the quality that I described. I would have hesitancy buying the first few games at that price because I lack the confidence that games are going to be able to deliver. But if a studio wanted to prove themselves I would be happy to start paying that.

[@Galaxy-Creator]

tomb raider 2013 and shadow of the tomb raider was a good example sort of a episodic release and both games stories "concluded" but tomb raider 2013's story was expanded to shadow of the tomb raider. But it should be a wrapped up story in each section with a option to expand story, missions etc in a new realise for example and players dont feel like they got scammed if the studio doesnt end up releasing the next game

[@Blockbuster2033]

And also the games were pretty long

[@Galaxy-Creator]

@@Blockbuster2033 true but still good games

[@SynthLizard8]

The problem stems from the fact these big triple A studios believe that a single player game needs a hollywood production crew behind it to mean anything.

[@BlueHasia]

The big thing is they need to be release in a timely fashion. If the game takes 2 weeks to beat but then they dont release part two for 6 months. i will have lost all interest to continue it most likely.

[@Tehbestestevasss]

"Episodic gaming is a tax on the impatient" While I understand the intention behind that, with games being purely online and servers getting shut down for games daily, that's not always going to be true. I can very easily imagine a day in which a game who's first episode was released long enough ago that the servers for it are shut down before the prices for the full story are discounted to a normal game's price level. Second tangent off of that.... What if the second part of the story of a trilogy doesn't sell well? Instead of getting a complete story, you're at the mercy of the company to decide to continue the story instead of just cutting their losses. Never leave yourself at the mercy of companies because they will always let you down

[@gulapula]

If AAA games are going to be 150 dollars, i'll just stop playing AAA games. For that much money you could buy 10 indie games, some of which are better than a AAA game.

[@metallboy25]

Ive already stopped. 70$ for an unfinished buggy mess? No thanks.

[@KptnAutismus]

To an extent, we already have episodic games. Frostpunk had the main story for like 20-30 bucks, and then had a few scenarios with a bunch of new content and lore for another 20-30 bucks. The witcher 3 and cyberpunk had this too. buy the game, play the main story and if you wanted more, sure just buy the DLC bro. although i think paying the same price again for the DLC is a bit steep, it is something i would definetely prefer to half-assed and rushed games every year for 70 bones.

[@fredsorre6605]

Everything I hated about episodic games on a large scale is in coming I really really hope folks are smart enough to really tighten their wallets and don't buy in to this shit.

[@blueshellincident]

Video games as a market are very broad nowadays, and unfortunately I think the industry has reached a point where it is too big to fail as ordinary people are more than willing to shell out exorbitant sums for games. My friends always buy the early edition of games where they get to play it a few days earlier for $10 extra. This is just the reality of the situation

[@fredsorre6605]

@@blueshellincident just because your friends are willing to pay to play a game early does not mean the rest of the world is also you have to pre-order as well to get the privilege to be able to pay for early access which has been known to be going down year over year for many titles.

[@OhChrumbs]

I think we really need to define terms here. If they're breaking the story up into multiple parts, but each part is a complete package by itself, that's just a sequel. If they release each part on a yearly schedule, that's just making it a yearly release. The only way we're not just talking about sequels is if each part isn't a complete package by itself, in which case we'll just be buying three unfinished games and hoping they add up to more than the sum of their parts.

[@OkuroSkye]

It's been a long time since I've been excited for a game. This year has been wild for having to come to the realization I'll never be the target audience for anything ever again.

[@jsnotlout3312]

Streaming and modern movies? Terrible! Triple A games? Terrible! Honestly the only thing worth doing is reading books anymore. And you can get those from the library without paying lol

[@fabianfeilcke7220]

You just became old. You will never get as excited again even though the games are objectively better than in the past. Just try playing some of your favorites from back then. You immediately recognise how clunky games were back then

[@inkoalawetrust]

@@fabianfeilcke7220 Lol, games have objectively gotten worse over time. Last I checked a game from 2003 didn't have paid cosmetics up the ass and enough dark patterns to make a crossword puzzle out of.

[@Sylkis89]

I liked how in Sea of Stars you can accelerate credits so you choose whether you watch all of them carefully in a slow reading pace or you just basically fast forward through them. Especially that it lists all the backers from Kickstarter

[@FelanLP]

In terms of episodic gaming and DLCs and stuff, it should be like The Witcher 3, where you have the main part which is a story you can call closed in it self, and then each DLC just releases new quests or even a new story branch or make it like Cyber Punk 2077, where the DLC is like an aditional route you can take WITHIN the main story. And then, again like The witcher, is each game closed in itself so that you HAVE Part 1, 2 and 3 but you can play all of them individually without even having heard of the others. And each BASE GAME PART is its own FULL AND COMPLETE game so it's obviously full price and the DLCs are way cheaper and don't "complete the story" but instead add to it. And about pricings, I would say, ANYTHING above 50 bucks for a copy of the main game is way to expensice. 60 is barely aceptable and if you charge me 80 there are better already ALL DLCs and extras included that will ever be released for that game. 100 Bucks and you have the collectors editions with physical extra stuff. But now it's not about the game anymore and therefor a different topic.

[@NeptuneSega]

It's not episodic. It's literally splitting a full game into pieces to charge you more.

[@Hamzaxi]

Even worse in the UK, games have gone from £40 to £70

[@shadowninja6689]

Yeah but part of that is because of the pound losing so much of it's value compared to the USD. The UK was one of the few markets that Apple raised the prices of one of their recent phones in because of the steep decline of the pound at the time.

[@fabianfeilcke7220]

How is this "worse"? If you just take the inflation from 1990 to today, games should cost more than double compares to the 90ies. I paid 50$ for civilization 1 in 1992. That would be 120 today. An that does not even take into account that e.G. CIV6 has magnitudes more content.

[@alumlovescake]

@@fabianfeilcke7220 You are joking right? Games are making more profit then ever before. Back in the day NO ONE could afford games, 99% of kids were lucky for the odd game or 2 a year. Games were at modern prices back then. Thats why they never went up in price

[@fabianfeilcke7220]

@@alumlovescake Some games are. Most are not. There is a reason why so many game dev studios go belly up.

[@alumlovescake]

@@fabianfeilcke7220 Yeah and its because they either make garbage or don't know how to budget

[@MitsyWuzHere]

I like the reverse of this situation where Halo MCC costed less at the beginning when you pre-bought all the games (as opposed to if you bought everything now) since you were buying a promise

[@marcokrauss5320]

Tbh for a solid gaming experience like GOW or Elden Ring I would pay 140€. But there has to be a commitment by the publisher to not alter the game drastically with micro transactions a few month after launch. Payed DLCs that give value and are not just artificially cut content from the release version are also fine in my opinion.

[@daniel7035]

Nope that’s so fucking expensive. You’d pay half the price of a console for a single game? If games were that expensive I’d be priced out of the hobby

[@maxourada5213]

The other problem with episodic gaming is that you now have to re-advertise for each of those parts.

[@yerielzamora]

I liked the first life is strange back in the day. Every episode was a cliffhanger that just left you itching for the next one. I recently replayed it and needed a break after the ending of episode 3 because it still hits hard even when I am already expecting it. Back then when we did not know what was next it was insane to have to live with it. It was an experience.

[@slayerdwarfify]

Yeah, episodic can be absolutely amazing. I just don't trust the majority of current devs/corporations to handle it

[@briang9581]

Star Wars: A New Hope: The Game Ending with the destruction of the Death Star and Medal Ceremony - Yippie Ending with the Falcon being tractored into the Death Star - Bantha Poodoo

[@jamesoncatlett6784]

*massively profitable corporate industry plans to triple prices* Linus: gawk gawk gawk yes daddy

[@MysticMylesZ]

Dan: But whhhy. 😂😂😂😂😂

[@jameslwjtoler]

Good developers will make it work well, and bad developers will rip off the idea and do it poorly. Love them or hate them, Sony has some of the best development teams around right now (Insomniac, Santa Monica, Naughty Dog, House Marque, Blue Point, and so on.) If something like this has the potential to work at all, they will find a way. The tricky part IMO will be dividing the games out in a satisfying way where they stand on their own, but also feel like pieces of something bigger. Miles Morales is actually a really good example of something like this. In another dimension, I could absolutely see that as an "Episode 2" for the original Spider-Man game.

[@Metsudo82]

We don't need to see evey freckle on a characters ass for a game to be good. If they want to cut production costs they can, they just don't want to. Using the graphics excuse lets them provide less actual game because 'it's so hard making games now'. They get to sell us less, call it more and charge more money. They pad stuff out with repeated content, climbing the same damn radio towers over and over. They reuse the same assets game after game. They make you pay for dlc just to get the game to a finished state like they used to be by default in the past. It's all a scam. Look at the shiny graphics, pay no attention to the hollow game hidden behind the curtain.

[@edsknife]

I bet I haven't spent more than $15 on a game in the past decade, especially for the ones I actually still play. Only exception would be some of my Nintendo discs; and I'll eventually buy some soundtracks, because that's what I'm personally into.

[@tekeagle2136]

Same for me. All the games I play were either free on Epic, on sale on Steam or official Steam Key websites. Star Wars Battlefront II for $4.79 or Horizon: Zero Dawn Complete Edition for $12.29. The most expensive game I purchased was Space Engineers for $20. I can't pay for a lot of $70+ (or $100 in the near future) games.

[@_____alyptic]

Big DLC? Sure, works for CDPR.... But otherwise just raise the price for the main game

[@CrystalFier]

Your games were $60 as a kid?? Damn. When I was a kid here in the states, $30 was triple A.

[@anynigma]

Not at launch. Game of the year edition maybe. Almost all triple a games at release were 60 for a long time.

[@AlecMHansen]

@@anynigmaSonic the Hedgehog 2 was 54.99 at launch. So you’re totally right on the money. Sometimes games like Baldur’s Gate 2 were $80 if I recall correctly.

[@CommodoreFan64]

Here in the US it depended on the platform as a game back in the 90's on the GameBoy, or Game Gear could be $25 to $40 depending on the game, and where it was bought from, but a game on the Genesis, SNES, 32X, PS1, Saturn, N64, etc.. could be $30 to $80 for a game like Earthbound on the SNES when it came out. Then we get into computers where a simple shareware game could be little as $5 all the way to $100 for a major flight sim title with all the extra goodies. but on average most games were $40 to $60 USD when new across the board for a very long time. Having said that no way I'd ever pay $150 for a game, and the most I'm willing to pay at the very very top is $80 if it's a really really good game, but I can always wait for an expensive game to drop in price, and play it later on.

[@ct4nk3r]

an atari cartridge was a lot more than $50, n64 games were $50-70

[@danieljames500]

this might bring back the days of demos, like life is strange giving you the first episode for free and then you pay to continue the story. since it’d be a bigger total investment, a free episode would give you a sense of the gameplay and story so you feel better about buying the rest