The controversial boss of Embracer Group has discussed the topic of increasing the price of video games beyond $70 amid rising development costs and an increasingly competitive market.
Controversial take but having the industry fixed at $60 only will increasingly encourage predatory models as inflation continues. Price should be reflective of the quality and content of a product, not a fixed standard.
I’d agree with you if studios producing actual high-quality games (like Elden Ring or Baldur’s Gate 3) were hurting for money, but they don’t appear to be. So what is the justification for the higher price? All I see is more money being shoveled towards investors, or used to buy (and bleed out/close) smaller studios.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Controversial take but having the industry fixed at $60 only will increasingly encourage predatory models as inflation continues. Price should be reflective of the quality and content of a product, not a fixed standard.
I’d agree with you if studios producing actual high-quality games (like Elden Ring or Baldur’s Gate 3) were hurting for money, but they don’t appear to be. So what is the justification for the higher price? All I see is more money being shoveled towards investors, or used to buy (and bleed out/close) smaller studios.
I think if a studio had more money they could improve the conditions for their emplyees. But of course the executives are just going to pocket it