Games Should Not Cost $60 Anymore (The Jimquisition)

Your stalwart stance on pro-consumer practices is refreshing as usual. Won me back Jim, I thought you would. Keep up the good fight.

there is a blistering indictment of capitalism in this video and i'm here for it

Never stop Jim!!

Paul Kasinski

Jim it's not your job to fix the industry's problems, but hopefully you can keep trying to show the public those problems so that they can make sensible choices when spending their money. Big companies thrive where there is ignorance.

Andy Latham

At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth here, I don't think there's much we *can* do to make publishers stop. Take the oft-mentioned Battlefront for example - public outcry and disgust made them back off for now, and brought the issue to light with the outside world, but as both this video and EA themselves mentioned it... didn't actually *hurt* EA, or give them any reason to change practices in future. It just cost them the Star Wars license and that's it. (Maybe? I haven't heard much further on that, so not sure). It's become a self-perpetuating machine, sadly enough, and the most anyone can think to do is cause justified outcry where they can, and vote with their wallets when they can't. I like to think I'm not a cynic, but... really, what other options do we have?

I'm sorry, Jim: I think you're badly mistaken on this one. I don't think re-pricing AAA products as free-to-play would create a viable business model OR somehow dull or ameliorate the more destructive and customer-hostile policies of big publishers. It would just cripple the independent scene. The place where innovation still takes place, but struggles with visibility. One of the few things small teams have going for them is that $10 or $20 games sometimes get a glance when the AAA alternatives cost $50 or $60. Put those same games against the sparkling and shiny offerings of big publishers with massive advertising budgets that suddenly cost nothing? The AAA industry would STILL die, quickly or slowly, they'd just take the "good guys" down with them. And, NO, "word of mouth" isn't going to save the better offerings- it might dredge a fraction of a fraction, which will barely keep a few indie studios alive just long enough to get swallowed by a big publisher or collapse when their next offering only manages to pull an 8 out of 10. At the risk of sounding like another "why can't you be more positive" whiner, maybe we're asking the wrong question. Maybe instead of mulling about how we can best breathe smog, we should ask why so much smog is being produced in the first place. Policies that make customers hate AAA publishers aren't just despicable; in the long term, they're self-destructive. Cynicism isn't automatically realism or pragmatism; the big companies don't HAVE to be this way, as evidenced by the fact that they WEREN'T always this way. Instead of feeding into their worst tendencies, maybe we should ask what would make them stop.

Kraken

New Zealander here. Ditto. We get to enjoy launch prices of NZ$79.99 to NZ$99.99. If I recall correctly, <i>Arkham City</i>, just as an example, was NZ$95.99 on launch, not including DLC. As another example, <i>Just Cause 3</i> was around NZ$80 and NZ$120 if I wanted to get the expansions. I <em>never</em> buy big-budget games on launch now. (I did buy <i>Senua's Sacrifice</i> full price because I love what they're doing!)

Twit In A Hat

I think Jim addressed this in last week's episode, although bloated development costs wasn't the <em>main</em> focus.

Twit In A Hat

Oh, Jim, Jim, Jim… I watch you <em>because</em> you're ridiculous. Seriously, you're the only source of "games news" that I follow, because you're entertaining as well and don't take yourself too seriously. Game drama is stupid, but Jim Fucking Sterlingson is ridiculous.

Twit In A Hat

I'm logging in for once to chime in on a point I rarely (if ever) see anyone make - in some parts of the world, games never cost $60. Where I live, direct USD to AUD is closer to $80, and some games decide to skip that entirely and jack up the price further. I distinctly remember having to wait to buy Skyrim until the price dropped, because they wanted upwards of $100 AUD. I can't remember if that was due to dlc or not, but the price tag was scary enough to ruin a sale. Also, as a funny side note, this Jimquisition was uploaded at 4:20 am where I am. Cute.

Normally I would agree with you on this issue. But there is a significant problem with this. Warframe can still be played completely free of charge. Jim paid money to deck out his warframe but he could have played the game without doing so. Overwatch on the other hand must first be bought for 60$ before yo can play the game. That would be fine by itself. Now add in their shady buisness pratices (for example: seasonal skins that are only available through lootboxes to increase lootbox sales). It is less excusable for a paid-for game to do these things than it is for a free-to-play game. I do agree with you on the last part though.

I still don't understand how Warframe gets away with the shady business practices Jim outlined in the last video with a cloying "please don't do this Warframe" from Jim, but Overwatch either doesn't do the shady shit Warframe does OR doesn't go nearly as far as Warframe, but it gets shit upon. Battlefront II, Shadow of War, Destiny 2, those all take dickitry to extreme levels, and are lambasted accordingly. But when Jim presents the case for both games, and one seems to be shadier than the other, but the less shady one gets blasted because it costs $40-$60 up front, that sucks. Seriously, Warframe costs $80 because randomly the company decides to fuck over their users? At least in Overwatch you know when the seasonal locked content is coming and going. And it isn't even as if the skins give you stats and prestige like in Warframe. Either blow them both up or don't, otherwise you look hypocritical saying that Warframe is the lesser of two evils because you personally like it. Anyway, I say games should be priced direct and up front. If you need to sell a game at $100 a pop and you don't make your money back then you're bad at making video games, end of story. We're seeing more and more publishers pricing downloadable games at varying prices and it works. The rest is bullshit.

Orphansmith

Up-front prices can be used to pace launch bottlenecks and pay for physical knickknacks, sure. But if they’re using gated dlc and skins for their support... why are we paying an up front price more than a fancy dinner and a movie?

Crissa Kentavr

I really want a supercut of all the Sterdust footage from your wrestling events. I'm not even someone who is into wrestling as a thing, but I just get a thrill out of seeing you do something you obviously love so much. I'm excited for you.

Kitty Seraphic

Nobody ever wants to talk about the flip side of this issue: If $60 is no longer enough to earn back the development cost, then *games cost too much to make*. Depending on consumers to open their wallets wider and wider each year to fund increasing costs isn't a smart move.

Sphinx of Black Quartz

Spicy

Mysterio is using illusion to make himself bigger, I thought that only happened in anime..... so i guess Mysterio is a purple haired shouta who has an inferiority complex..... They should cost half that if they want all the DLC and micros... if they really want to raise the price 120 is fine, as long as that's all you pay for that game and all its dlc and micros. With how AAA is going the base game should be free but have half the content, then the DLC and micros can double in price... that way you can wait 6-20 months for bundles to cut prices 95%! Bethseda has not made quality driven story content since Oblivion or Fallout 3.... Darn it stop making me think and rant, by the end I thought of another reason why I support Open IP, no more exclusive distribution only revenue over 40k a year to protect fair use is limited and even then 30% of the revenue you make without a license goes into the system that pays out to IP owners. No more mafia telling you what you can and can not do, if you make a buck you pay into the system.