this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
299 points (91.2% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

7122 readers
5 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Game prices for the past 30 years haven't kept pace with inflation.

I recognise the argument that publishers are shifting larger volumes of units now, which has been a factor that has allowed the industry to keep price increases below inflation for the last 30 years.

Wages not being even close to keeping up with inflation (especially housing inflation) is the real issue here, not the $70/$80 video game.

You should be angry at your reduced purchasing power in all of society, not just with the price of Nintendo games.

(Secondary less unpopular opinion, the best games out these days are multiplatform and released at least 5 years ago, buy them for << $80 and wait for sale the new releases, when they too are 5 years old)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Huh, unpopular opinion.

Does Lemmy know that popular opinions need to be downvoted? Smh....

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

The subreddit has the same problem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

The unpopular part is that I disagree with the discussion which is microscopically focussed on raging at game publishers, citing corporate greedy as the only reason game prices are so high.

$80 should be an affordable amount of money to spend for someone on an average wage for a game (not unpopular).

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This is really about late stage capitalism and chasing infinite growth. Every year profits must go up X percentage. There is never enough. So they have to find ways to make it to up, cutting wages and increasing prices is the obvious way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

An $80 game today is cheaper than $60 games decades ago. There are also a large category of free to play games which didn't exist before the Internet.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

They also don't have to print games to discs and ship them around the world anymore.

They also don't have to develop their own engines. Some dude with little to no experience can make a functional game in a few days now. Not to mention functions in UE5 like LOD control do a lot of the work that devs had to handle.

They also have Moore’s Law on their side: The average laptop can now develop what required a $10,000 workstation in 2000.

They also now pack games with microtransactions to make even more money.

They also now sell DLC for games to make more money.

They also now re-release games, which takes a fraction of the effort and still charge a disproportionate price.

Games, objectively, should be cheaper. This is just the hunger for more and more.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yep, and truth be told if I had the option of paying 90 € for an actual physical copy without microtransactions, DLC instead of having all content in the game from launch, no online access required and no copy protection on the disc, I'd gladly pay that. 100 € even, if it's a particularly good game.

But I have zero trust in that being the case with the increased prices, it's just going to be the same thing we now have, more expensively.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Hell ya, I would, too, 100%. Imagine actually owning a game with all of the content on a disk you can share and resell.

I agree with you, though; there is no incentive for companies to do this; they would make less money and have less control over the content. They can't stand that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Same with porn. But now, the only fans type sites are ridiculously expensive and you don't even know what the hell you're paying for until you pay.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Game prices are absolutely a problem still. The price of a game is just the entry fee. Then there's subscriptions, MTX, etc. If you add in everything you need to make a game a complete experience like they were pre-download era, games cost more even with inflation factored in.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Depend on the game. There are still many single players games that don't have any MTX etc, Sony first party games are like that, and so are most Nintendo games. Sony often release a DLC, which cost more, but that's more money for more content, and you don't need DLC.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thankfully, that's true! But looking at the industry as a whole, they're making far more money than they ever have and the costs of creating physical copies has even decreased significantly since it's mostly digital now. Games with a heavy focus on online play or that have MTX should cost less, but they never do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Completely agree, for every case where the increased price may makes sense, there are dozens (if not hundreds) where it makes no sense at all (other than increasing the profit of shareholders, which makes complete sense).

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah this is absolutely correct. When you look at prices and adjust for inflation $80 now is about right.

The value of money has gone down, and the value of pay cheques and salaries have not increased to keep up.

Unfortunately this often gets sidelined with "what aboutism" - like what about the dysfunctional AAA market, and predatory big publishers like EA that churn our crap, or all the publishers trying to build microtransactions into games. These are also ALL valid issues, but it doesn't change the fundamentals that video games cost around $80 in 2000 when adjusted for inflation.

The video game industry can be dysfunctional AND we're also being screwed over by dysfunctional unequal capitalism causing declining living standards at the same time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

no. they don't even make physical media anymore. the cost is lowered on each copy. they ask for a ton of extra payments. they can suck shit and die. games can be 30 bucks and still stay profitable. the games industry makes more money than Hollywood. stop defending them while they're trying to pluck your last dime.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

How much did a video game cost to make compared to today?

Same thing with movies. With everything.

We're not playing polygon tomb raider anymore.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

how many copies could they sell back then vs now? how much did it cost to make, stock and ship a physical copy worldwide vs being able to provide infinite copies everywhere only using the bandwidth when necessary?

no one's asking for billions to be spent on games. companies being horribly managed by businessman who have no idea how games work or what's important in a game, forcing i live service bullshit, chasing trends, making big empty worlds full of pointless busywork does not mean the games should cost 80 dollars.

ninja theory already proved you can make an insanely good looking game with a tiny budget and sell it for 30 bucks and turn a profit. meanwhile the biggest companies including ones owned by evil billionaires can easily shit out concord and starfields wasting years and millions on steaming turds.

also things haven't only become more expensive. they've become cheaper too. there are more tools, better hardware and software for cheaper if not free that allows people to do more than ever before with less than ever before. the indie scene is 1000x more powerful today than it was back then for this reason.

and you're talking about polygon tomb raider while these companies are trying to sell you recolored skins for 10 bucks even though it took an unpaid intern about 45 seconds to use a color swap on a 2d texture.

load more comments
view more: next ›