I would pay $150 for a video game to save triple-A gaming

A reader suggests that video games would need a price increase to remain profitable, but they would still be cheaper than during the 16-bit era.

During the week there was a very interesting reader letter in the Inbox, about a former Square Enix guy who went into a lot of detail about the problems facing the games industry at the moment and why publishers feel like they can’t just do simple things. such as reducing budgets. I recommend reading the entire piece, but the gist is that these companies are set up to make games of a certain scale and trying to go backwards to make AA or indie style games doesn’t work.

They would never make enough to pay everyone and run everything; Plus, indie games are even harder to predict than triple-A games. Make a nice triple-A game and it will probably sell. Make a weird indie game where you try to get a high score in poker and you take a huge chance.

The publishers could downsize, but if they did it would mean cutting out their entire workforce and changing their entire business model to something they don’t know is going to work. So while they may try to change direction slightly and reduce costs, they are still in the business of making big budget video games. It would be like someone telling a major movie studio to make TV commercials instead of movies because they are cheaper. That’s just not an option.

PHOTO 1

The end result of this, as we’re already starting to see, is that fewer and fewer triple-A games are being released and they’re taking longer and longer to make. I know it seemed like Xbox had a lot going for them, but that’s because they bought out half of the games industry. Furthermore, most of what they showed would have started long before the current problems.

It all seems like a problem without a solution, a literal evolutionary dead end where publishers can neither go backwards nor continue as they are. And yet the most common attempt at a solution, by focusing on live service games, seems almost as risky as doing nothing.

However, there is another solution, one that can be applied immediately and would solve all problems in an instant. But it’s one that’s almost never mentioned: making video games more expensive.

Even with the $10/£10 price increase this generation, video games have seen almost no price increase in their entire existence. Mega Drive and SNES games usually cost around £50 in the early 1990s, which with inflation works out to around £110 today. There could also be more. Anything with an extra chip or gimmick, such as Virtua Racing or Starwing (aka Star Fox), can cost up to £70, which is a whopping £164 today.

We pay a lot less for a lot more today than we ever did in the golden age of gaming, and I don’t think that’s appreciated enough. Of course, there were generally fewer people playing games back then, so they had to charge more to make their money back, but we’ll kind of get to that now.

Companies, especially Sony and Microsoft, continue to complain about a lack of growth, with the numbers clearly showing that console growth has been flat since the PlayStation 2 era. The number of people interested in the kind of complex, console-style games we all take for granted is relatively small and not growing. So if it takes more time and money to make those games, you’ll just lose more and more money over time – it’s simple math.

Everyone says they don’t want a future dominated by live service titles, smartphone games and free-to-play nonsense, but are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Are you willing to go back to the days when a new game cost $100 or even $150? I am, but if you don’t, console gaming as we know it could quickly become extinct.

I just checked and a cinema ticket at a regular non-London cinema chain costs £16.49 for a 1 hour 36 minute film (Inside Out 2, the biggest film when I watched). That’s almost exactly £10 an hour in terms of entertainment. Now Elden Ring cost £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 is 84p per hour in terms of entertainment. That means Elden Ring offers more than 10 times the bang for your buck than watching a movie – and probably a lot more if you’re as interested in it as most people.

Or let’s take an extreme example at the other end of the spectrum, with Senua’s Saga: Hellblade 2. That’s the shortest big-name game I can remember hearing about recently and takes at least seven hours to complete. complete, while it costs £50.

That works out to £7 per hour of entertainment, which is still significantly better value for money than a movie – and yet that’s the bare minimum of what a modern video game can 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 offer great value for money, but they are expensive. But you get what you pay for many times over. My suggestion is that if we want console games to remain as they are, we will have to accept a price increase, probably of at least twice as much. That would still only hark back to the prices during the 16-bit era, when it only took a few hours to beat most games, and as I hope I’ve proven, it’s definitely worth it.

Triple-A video games don’t grow on trees and I think we’re at the point where we have to accept paying more for what is essentially a luxury item. It’s either that, or pay the same (or less) for something that only vaguely resembles the great video games we have now. And if that means people only buy two or three full-price games a year, then that’s fine with me.

I know I’d much rather pay £150 for a game with the quality of Elden Ring or Zelda than face a future where everything is free-to-play battle royales and live service games.

By reader Cranston

Reader characteristics do not necessarily represent the opinions of GameCentral or Metro.

You can submit your own 500 to 600 word read 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 Stuff page and you don’t need to send an email.

MORE: A Summer Game Fest Trailer Costs $250,000 for One Minute of Screen Time

MORE: Suicide Squad’s flop cost Warner Bros. $200 million, but Rocksteady is a safe claim report

MORE: Monopoly Go Spent More Money on Marketing Than It Cost to Make Spider-Man 2

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.