1y ago

Game prices are too low, says Capcom exec

www.eurogamer.net Game prices are too low, says Capcom exec

Capcom's president and chief operating officer has said he thinks game prices should go up.Haruhiro Tsujimoto made the …

Capcom's president and chief operating officer has said he thinks game prices should go up.

Haruhiro Tsujimoto made the comments at this year's Tokyo Game Show, Nikkei reported. TGS is sponsored by the Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association, a Japanese organisation which aims to support the Japanese industry, which Tsujimoto is currently the chairman of.

"Personally, I feel that game prices are too low," Tsujimoto said, citing increasing development costs and a need to increase wages.

Xbox @lemmy.world

Game prices are too low, says Capcom exec - Eurogamer

www.eurogamer.net /game-prices-are-too-low-says-capcom-exec

11 17

PC Gaming @kbin.social

Game prices are too low, says Capcom exec

www.eurogamer.net /game-prices-are-too-low-says-capcom-exec

6 14

You're viewing a single thread.

98 comments

The MSRP for Nintendo Entertainment System cartridges in the mid-80s, adjusted to today’s U.S. Dollar, would average around $150-200.
I don’t think games should cost that much, but we stuck with the $60 price point for literal decades so it’s not completely unreasonable for someone to talk about raising prices.
(I also write this while having only bought one game? two? In the past year.)
- Resident Evil 2 sold about 4.5 million copies on PS One, Resident Evil 2 Remake has sold around 12.5 million copies so far and climbing.
  They’re making more money now than they ever did, even with games costing more to make. More customers is supposed to equal economy of scale, not fuck it lets charge out the ass so executives can make more money than they’ve ever made in history.
  
  The economy of scale is what lets companies operate at higher costs. According to Wikipedia RE2 cost about $1 million to make. $1m might still buy a PS1 caliber game, but the remake cost at least an order of magnitude more. Many games now cost nine figures; GTA6 apparently cost $1 billion.
  I’m not saying games should haphazardly inflate with everything else for the sake of share holders, but I’m open to the idea that the formula used twenty years ago to decide that AAA games should cost $60 might be out of date.
  
  Online sale have reduced distribution costs and unlimited scaling compared to physical media, so successful games are far more lucrative now than they were and unsuccessful games don't have losses from overproduction and returns from stores.
  If selling at the current rate wasn't profitable, gaming companies would have stopped making games by now.
  
  Online sale have reduced distribution costs and unlimited scaling compared to physical media, so successful games are far more lucrative now than they were and unsuccessful games don’t have losses from overproduction and returns from stores.
  Certainly a factor that should be included in determining what a game costs, as is the 30% off the top taken by Steam, Microsoft, and Sony for most digital sales. Distribution in 2023 was not a factor in determining the current max price for a standard edition non-sports game, which was set in the early 00s.
  I'm also comfortable seeing games that cost less to produce carrying lower price tags, as in many cases they do, Hades and Hi-Fi Rush coming to mind.
  If selling at the current rate wasn’t profitable, gaming companies would have stopped making games by now.
  They continue to make $60 games, yes. No one can say whether some company would have made the greatest game of all time last year if they'd been able to sell it for $70, or $80 or $100. Maybe they're making it now as GTA6.
  
  Brick and mortar stores are closer to a 50% cut, so 30% is actually a better deal.
  
  That formula has to include charging what the market will bear. They can certainly increase the price and sell fewer copies, and maybe that’ll be more profitable for them in the end, but they certainly can’t jack up the price and assume all their current customers will stump up to grow their profits.
  People’s income hasn’t increased all that much, the wealth gap in many countries has only grown. Games cost more when they were a niche product, and cost less when the audience and potential sales grew. Maybe they’d prefer their billion dollar industry went back to being more niche and only for the wealthy.
- Adjusted price is a common talking point here, but it ignores the other side of inflation... that wages have stagnated and rising prices obviously means that people have less spending money.
  Consider also that there is a lot of choice with the back catalog on PC as well as free games (that people can make in their spare time at no cost thanks to FOSS tools and free information). Pre-broadband, gaming was more of a take-it-or-leave situation.
  So yeah, I think most people already see increasing prices as being motivated by greed. And some people likely see the $60 price as already greedy when games are often filler and spectacle (with poor QA testing on top of that, because they know people will pre-order it anyway, and then buy the later DLC or cosmetics).
  @MomoTimeToDie
- The problem is the game industry, in the meantime of never going beyond the $60 threshold, found a far far more lucrative way of making money than just raising the MSRP. In fact, they found multiple ways of making money: skinner boxes, loot boxes, micro transactions, season passes, FOMO storefronts, etc etc. And even though we may agree that the MSRP eventually has to increase, they won't suddenly give up on those anti-consumer, predatory practices.
- It's not unreasonable but at the end of the day, we buy these games to waste time. There's not a whole lot of justifying why im going to spend more on something i use to just unwind when i can buy plenty of 20$ games that will give me hundreds of hours of entertainment
- The MSRP for a NES cartridge includes the circuits, the manual, the box, the physical space, the license and a finished game. Do you get any of these with modern AAA games?
- How much of the cartridge sale was profit to the developer?
  The hardware of the cartridge cost money. Distribution to retailers cost money. The retailers took their cut.
  I wouldn't be shocked at all if the publisher's net revenue per game is significantly higher in real dollars than it was in the NES era.
  
  Okay but PS1 games were similar prices and printing CDs is cheap.
- They sell vastly more games than before. And there isn't a media anymore. And they should have increased their productivity in all these years.
  Video games are not a good. They're a digital product, a service. The cost is completely decorrelated from the amount you sell. Which is why it is so profitable.
- Can you help me understand your comment? What does MSRP mean?
  
  Ah, sorry. It stands for “Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price.”
  In the U.S. the law doesn’t allow a manufacturer to require that retailers sell their product at a particular price, but they’re free to “suggest” one so that’s how we ended up with the MSRP.
  It doesn’t carry any real weight, but it generally serves to anchor consumer expectations for a product’s value. (It also gives retailers an easy metric to compare sale prices against.)
  
  Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price

98 comments