Re: Thanks a lot, Nintendo!

On Mon, 5 May 2025 09:17:55 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 05/05/2025 02:45, Zaghadka wrote:

On Sun, 4 May 2025 09:40:13 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:
 

Saying that, none of this really matters to me personally as I just
don't buy the big budget titles any more.

 
^This
 
You always have the option of not spending anything. Certainly not on
Call of Duty LIV.
 

>
I tend to agree, there's lots of great games out there that cost far
less money and aren't just recycling the same old IP and rather tired
openworld format. If people want to spend (and lots of them do) £80 on a
game then that's their call.

While I generally agree (like many here, I've given up on paying
full-price for games), this change will still affect even us. It sets
up a new baseline for game-prices, and even if Indies don't use the
$80 price point, we will still see an overall rise in prices.
Similarly, even if you wait for sales, you'll still be paying more.
e.g., 50% off of an $80 game versus 50% off of a $60 game means you're
paying $10 more.

And regardless of all of that, there are a huge number of gamers --the
majority, in fact-- who are quite happy to pay full price for triple-A
games. I mean, I don't get the fascination with "Call of Duty: Modern
Advanced Ghosts Infinite Black Warfare XXIII" either, but that series
sells. And if those are the games which can push an $80 pricetag
(while more esoteric titles struggle even at $60), you can bet the
publishers -whether Indie or Triple-A or anywhere in between-- are
more likely to focus on that sort of gameplay.