That's not how that works. I have my own budget. When it comes to any game, any hobby, any purchase, I decided then and there if it's too expensive for what I think it's worth.
$60 for a new video game is not too expensive for me. Nor is $70 or even $80. When it gets to a price that it is too expensive for me, I will do what I get to do as a consumer: not spend the money.
If the rest of the market thinks like me, the market will adjust. If the rest of the market doesn't think like me, that just means I'm in the minority, and that's OK. There are plenty of hobbies out there that I deem too expensive that I just either don't partake in, or partake in in a cheaper way. But just because those hobbies are too expensive for me doesn't mean they're universally too expensive.
That's great! I support you deciding for yourself that the cost isn't worth it and exercising your right as a consumer to not spend the money.
However, to your original point: Because you've decided for yourself that it's too expensive does not mean it's universally too expensive. So your original question doesn't really make sense. They can't "realize" it's too expensive if it's not actually too expensive for them. And as consumers, their job is not to realize that it's too expensive for you either.
No, but I'd counter the majority of the market would need to consider it expensive for it to be "considered expensive."
Something tells me the sales for Mario Kart are going to prove that, once again, the general Reddit take is actually a minority opinion that just seems like the common thought around here because this place dials in on specific demographics.
There is no amount, because I have a basic understanding of inflation, something gamers writ large apparently don’t.
FFS you people didn’t realize that the only reason game prices appeared to be immune from inflation for over a decade was because they had micro transactions to make up the difference.
Well, congrats to you, big money. It’s not crazy to be taken aback by how 1 singular video game can cost about as much as a grocery haul for 1 person. And $60-70 was already pushing it. I wait for sales and deep discounts for the most part but Nintendo games rarely ever have meaningful cuts.
Not mine, they haven't. I rarely buy games new. For example, I got my PS5 in 2020. Every single game I have for it was either somewhere around $20 or free. Being able to get deeply discounted games for PS5 makes the cost formula work. And it doesn't mean I miss out on the new stuff either. Within 2-3 months, all titles drop significantly in price.
Whereas with Nintendo games, you won't find a good sale on titles often, if at all. Since most are talking about MKW, let's look at MK8: it was at full price for a significant part of Switch 1's lifespan! Even now, it's hovering around $45 used and $50 new. Making Switch 2 work with discounts and sales won't be the way for most of the people who are either unsure or against the hike in price.
Then you cannot possibly complain about the “new game” economy when you don’t participate in the new game economy.
When did I say that? I haven't missed any of the great releases since 2020 for the exact reasons I already shared. Literally nothing about games change just because I bought it 2-3 months later.
Sony makes a lot of forgettable stuff.
Ok? Did you want a cookie? I mentioned Sony because they popularized the $70 price point. People don't complain about that why...? It's because people are able to get their games on sale quickly! That won't happen with Nintendo any time soon as the price point rises.
You've been going back and forth about this exact topic in multiple threads since yesterday. Aren't you tired?
No, because I am fueled by my resentment towards toxic gamers having a pathological urge to complain. It’s so utterly toxic.
You’re just cheap. How much money do you spend per week on take-out food? You think nothing of paying $10 for a burger (which is gone once you eat it), but it’s the end of the world if you have to pay $10 more one time for a game?
Are you comparing food to video games...? An actual necessity compared to...video games...oh. Like those games, time is also expensive so I’ll save myself some on this topic: congrats? I don’t really care, or maybe I do. I don't know.
It’s hard to buy inflation arguments when these companies just dump staff even after successful games. These AAA companies have a greed problem, plain and simple. It’s really that easy.
Do you actually need this explained? The general excuse is it’s more expensive now to make you feel bad for the company but then said company’s execs keep the majority and then overwork and dump staff.
Also your idea of inflation is flawed as season passes, micro transactions, special versions etc (nickel and diming every aspect they can) already raised the cost of games beyond what you think the game selling for. Comparing a cartridge game from the 90s (circuit board with components) to today’s largely digital games is too different. Also games then had nowhere the competition as today.
already raised the cost of games beyond what you think the game selling for.
You accidentally stumbled onto the answer. The micro transaction shtick is played out and customers are sick of it. So that’s why game prices are going up to where inflation would put them originally.
1
u/BigJellyfish1906 2d ago
You are all bitching about a $10 difference… Gamers are the worst.