Game prices have nothing to do with inflation (or even production costs) and everything to do with arbitrary price points the industry just settles upon. Nothing forces them to charge that much, yet they do it because they think they can get away with it for now.
Rising prices have had an effect on me - I’m definitely not buying as many games as I used to, least of all impulsively on hearsay, and I’m not trusting any publisher enough to preorder stuff anymore. So they went past my pain point, sorry. If they keep doing this, they’ll run over everybody. I don’t think this is a sustainable direction.
In my local currency (Aussie Dollars) AAA games cost $120. Like, man, I’m not spending $120 on a game. I can’t remember the last time I bought a game at that price.
Prices will only come down if the company decides to stop being greedy. Inflation is just a word to oppress the poor, theres no need to keep prices raised if record breaking profits are made.
Why are people so desperate to play new games, I’ve got a large pile of games I bought on sale that I haven’t even played once yet. Why would I ever pay launch price for a game knowing full well it’ll be worth 10$ a couple of years down the line, and till then I’ll play the games I already own.
It is possible, but financial types will tell you that you will lose your job. Which is funny, because most products and services require labor to make any money from them, so it sounds to me that if deflation occurs and profit is still required, you have the option to layoff a bunch of people or get creative.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d be a lot happier if I had a bunch of employees that know how the business works and know where things can be improved and do it. Maybe like getting rid of managers who only know how to change the headcount of their bit of the org.
I just wish we’d have neither inflation nor deflation.
Candy bars used to be $0.50 when I was a kid. That would probably equal the buying power of $1.25 today. But candy bars are like $2, and about half the size.
I just want it to be still $0.50, and not get smaller.
If wages rise in conjunction, I don’t see any issue. The theory is that slight inflation encourages putting money to use, either by consuming it or saving in a bank account (where the bank can lend it out) or investing it etc. That’s why some inflation is generally considered desirable.
As you said, it had the buying power of $1.25. Therefore, at the same size and at the price of $1.25, it would be perfectly alright.
Don’t blame inflation, blame greedy companies increasing prices above inflation AND also shrinking portions.
I doubt that $0.50 was only $1.25 today, if you actually do the math, I think you’ll find it’s $2 or more.
I don’t know when this fabled $0.50 candybar was, but here are some inflation numbers given different start dates (source):
1970 - $0.50 -> $4.14
1980 - $0.50 -> $1.94
1990 -> $0.50 -> $1.22
2000 -> $0.50 -> $0.93
FWIW, I remember the big candy bars (king size or whatever) being $1 in the late 90s/early 2000s, so that absolutely tracks with current prices at $2 or whatever (just checked Walmart and that’s about accurate).
Exactly. And the trend is downward, and that includes this $80 price point. Prices will likely stay flat for the Switch 2 generation, so by the end it’ll be below the current $70 price point in inflation adjusted dollars.
Yeah, it sucks, and I get that. I wish games were cheaper too. But that doesn’t mean $80 is unreasonable.
Candy bars were 30p in Ireland in 1990s and that equates to about $0.50. I went on a trip to the USA around then and most things, especially junk food, was cheaper.
For that you would have to completely change how currency is issued and managed. Money is created by being borrowed directly or indirectly from the central bank, and the reason it is possible for those loans to later be repaid is because even more money is loaned out later, so it’s not going to be a game of musical chairs where there isn’t enough money going around to pay them all back, they keep bringing in more chairs. There is always an increasing amount of money in the system, and they make it that way on purpose to keep things running the way they want them to.
Personally what I hate about this setup is, a person who meets the requirements to obtain a business loan can now take this money that was created out of thin air, use it to coerce labor out of people who have no way to get money other than working, and keep the profits. What if our lives would all be better off working a bit less? Too bad, that decision isn’t up to us, how much we must work is indirectly decided by monetary policy, which the average person realistically has zero influence over, and the goal is a high level of “economic activity”, ie. as many people as possible subject to financial coercion.
Central banks can adjust the inputs to the formula that result in inflation or deflation, but not the result. It can be a difficult target to hit, as you can see if you followed the news in the past 3-4 years.
Tell people to stop having more than 2.1 kids, then. As long as the population increases, without making changes to the currency supply, money is going to become more scarce. Keeping it exactly in line is impossible, so it’s better to keep a small amount of inflation.
The US population in 1980 was around 226 million, and in 2020 it was around 330 million. That’s an increase of about 50%. By comparison, the GDP in 1980 was about $2.75 trillion; in 2020 it was over $20 trillion, an increase of more than 600%.
The problem isn’t that we’re spreading out the same amount of money over too many people. It’s that we’re making much, much more money, but concentrating it in the hands of a tiny number of people and letting everyone else scramble for scraps.
Alright, how about the fact that the TFR in the US has been below replacement since the 1970’s, then. (It got close to 2.1 during the 2010s and then dropped again, and is currently around 1.6-1.7.) Is that relevant enough for you? Antinatalism is just as toxic as pronatalism these days. I swear, neither side is willing to actually look at facts.
I never said that any birth rate was good or bad. I only said that if population increases, and currency supply does not increase, you will experience deflation (and that slight inflation is easier to achieve than aiming for balance and ending up too low).
It’s more run away/chain reaction type events you want to avoid I think rather than a low % inflation or deflation that remains relatively stable, swing too far in either direction and you’ll have problems.
Conventional economic theory holds that a small, consistent level of inflation is the most beneficial. In short, you don’t want hoarding cash to be a smart long term economic decision, you want more of that money invested/moving in the economy. I recommend reading about the Japanese deflation in the 90s if you’re curious what the effects of even relatively moderate deflation can be.
Yeah, prices will only go down if sales go down massively. And since video games are likely being used as an emotional coping mechanism, that seems unlikely.
The thing about demand/supply ratios is there’s also cost.
AAA games aren’t coming down in sticker price without actual deflation. That’s just not how it works. That they were selling at $60 for so long is a function of cost reductions in an industry where the only thing left to cut is employee costs or the widespread adoption of AI dreck.
If you want a game for less than $80 you’re going to have to buy games with smaller development scopes.
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]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Game prices have nothing to do with inflation (or even production costs) and everything to do with arbitrary price points the industry just settles upon. Nothing forces them to charge that much, yet they do it because they think they can get away with it for now.
Rising prices have had an effect on me - I’m definitely not buying as many games as I used to, least of all impulsively on hearsay, and I’m not trusting any publisher enough to preorder stuff anymore. So they went past my pain point, sorry. If they keep doing this, they’ll run over everybody. I don’t think this is a sustainable direction.
Yeah, I mean, free to play is the future, right?
Lol. I won’t buy them, so I don’t care.
Indie games are the future.
That’s not how inflation works.
In my local currency (Aussie Dollars) AAA games cost $120. Like, man, I’m not spending $120 on a game. I can’t remember the last time I bought a game at that price.
I just want to say inflation decreasing doesn’t mean that prices will go down
If anything, inflation measures the acceleration of price increases.
If this acceleration still is positive, but, less than before, there is still a price increase.
It is only less than it would have if it hadn’t decreased
Degrowth economy baby!!! We’re getting it!
A headline in the near future:
“are millennials killing the gaming industry?”
Millennials are no longer the media scapegoat; we’ve aged out. Gen Z are copping all the blame now!
The problem with millennials is that they firmly believe a McChicken should never cost more than a dollar.
A McChicken is definitely not worth more than $1 lol
I was born in 85 and I think 1.50 would have been an appropriate price for McDoubles and McChickens. But not three fucking dollars
PC + emulators = fuck greedy corporations. Get fucked Microsoft. Get fucked Nintendo. And Sony? Fuck you too. Indie devs tho, you’re cool.
Yeah, thankfully with PC gaming there are no large corporations involved.
Prices will only come down if the company decides to stop being greedy. Inflation is just a word to oppress the poor, theres no need to keep prices raised if record breaking profits are made.
Why are people so desperate to play new games, I’ve got a large pile of games I bought on sale that I haven’t even played once yet. Why would I ever pay launch price for a game knowing full well it’ll be worth 10$ a couple of years down the line, and till then I’ll play the games I already own.
It’s basically FOMO, people just want to be a part of living culture.
And game companies and media outlets advertise the shit out of them because they drive console sales.
I much prefer to be on Steam, think, “Oh, that looks cool,” then forget about it on my wishlist for two years until it pops up at 80% off.
Inflation positive --> prices increasing
Inflation near zero --> prices stable
Inflation negative --> prices decreasing, but you are in a huge economic crisis
Inflation near zero and salaries increase -> purchasing power increasing, which is something we can only dream about
Well, yeah, but games would still have an eighty dollar sticker price in that scenario.
That’s not something that can be solved by changing interest rates. To increase wages you need unions and for those unions to go on strike.
The US was on its way to that, until Trump and Republicans decided to trash the entire world economy.
It is possible, but financial types will tell you that you will lose your job. Which is funny, because most products and services require labor to make any money from them, so it sounds to me that if deflation occurs and profit is still required, you have the option to layoff a bunch of people or get creative.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d be a lot happier if I had a bunch of employees that know how the business works and know where things can be improved and do it. Maybe like getting rid of managers who only know how to change the headcount of their bit of the org.
That’s… not how inflation works.
Inflation is a measure of price increase. If inflation goes down prices keep going up, just slower.
If prices go down that’s deflation and its own whole separate problem.
Inflation decreasing just means that prices aren’t rising as fast anymore.
That’s thinking like a corporation. The rest of us just stop buying games.
Also, if you’re rooting for deflation: more often than not, when deflation happens, things are not going great in terms of economics.
LOL, yeah… Cause shit is going great in America right now.
Deflation bad, fascism good.
I just wish we’d have neither inflation nor deflation.
Candy bars used to be $0.50 when I was a kid. That would probably equal the buying power of $1.25 today. But candy bars are like $2, and about half the size.
I just want it to be still $0.50, and not get smaller.
If wages rise in conjunction, I don’t see any issue. The theory is that slight inflation encourages putting money to use, either by consuming it or saving in a bank account (where the bank can lend it out) or investing it etc. That’s why some inflation is generally considered desirable.
Soooooo…you see the issue, right?
As you said, it had the buying power of $1.25. Therefore, at the same size and at the price of $1.25, it would be perfectly alright. Don’t blame inflation, blame greedy companies increasing prices above inflation AND also shrinking portions.
I doubt that $0.50 was only $1.25 today, if you actually do the math, I think you’ll find it’s $2 or more.
I don’t know when this fabled $0.50 candybar was, but here are some inflation numbers given different start dates (source):
FWIW, I remember the big candy bars (king size or whatever) being $1 in the late 90s/early 2000s, so that absolutely tracks with current prices at $2 or whatever (just checked Walmart and that’s about accurate).
Here’s a decent article about inflation-adjusted game prices that shows a general downward trend. Here’s the most revealing chart, which shows nominal (sticker price; blue) vs real (inflation adjusted; orange) game prices:
As a couple examples, here’s the purchasing power today of game prices for various consoles:
At $80 per game, games are a little more expensive than the current gen, but only by a little, and that’s because prices are sticky in a given gen.
Finally I’m seeing someone giving proof that games were more expensive back in the days.
Of course the gaming market was smaller, but I remember my parents buying me shitty games for a really high price.
I’m not asking for a price increase, but clearly games were more expensive in the 80-90-00s.
Exactly. And the trend is downward, and that includes this $80 price point. Prices will likely stay flat for the Switch 2 generation, so by the end it’ll be below the current $70 price point in inflation adjusted dollars.
Yeah, it sucks, and I get that. I wish games were cheaper too. But that doesn’t mean $80 is unreasonable.
You doubt they were a kid in 1990?
I doubt candy bars were $0.50 in 1990.
Candy bars were 30p in Ireland in 1990s and that equates to about $0.50. I went on a trip to the USA around then and most things, especially junk food, was cheaper.
For that you would have to completely change how currency is issued and managed. Money is created by being borrowed directly or indirectly from the central bank, and the reason it is possible for those loans to later be repaid is because even more money is loaned out later, so it’s not going to be a game of musical chairs where there isn’t enough money going around to pay them all back, they keep bringing in more chairs. There is always an increasing amount of money in the system, and they make it that way on purpose to keep things running the way they want them to.
Personally what I hate about this setup is, a person who meets the requirements to obtain a business loan can now take this money that was created out of thin air, use it to coerce labor out of people who have no way to get money other than working, and keep the profits. What if our lives would all be better off working a bit less? Too bad, that decision isn’t up to us, how much we must work is indirectly decided by monetary policy, which the average person realistically has zero influence over, and the goal is a high level of “economic activity”, ie. as many people as possible subject to financial coercion.
Central banks can adjust the inputs to the formula that result in inflation or deflation, but not the result. It can be a difficult target to hit, as you can see if you followed the news in the past 3-4 years.
Tell people to stop having more than 2.1 kids, then. As long as the population increases, without making changes to the currency supply, money is going to become more scarce. Keeping it exactly in line is impossible, so it’s better to keep a small amount of inflation.
The US population in 1980 was around 226 million, and in 2020 it was around 330 million. That’s an increase of about 50%. By comparison, the GDP in 1980 was about $2.75 trillion; in 2020 it was over $20 trillion, an increase of more than 600%.
The problem isn’t that we’re spreading out the same amount of money over too many people. It’s that we’re making much, much more money, but concentrating it in the hands of a tiny number of people and letting everyone else scramble for scraps.
That’s a separate problem.
Alright, how about the fact that the TFR in the US has been below replacement since the 1970’s, then. (It got close to 2.1 during the 2010s and then dropped again, and is currently around 1.6-1.7.) Is that relevant enough for you? Antinatalism is just as toxic as pronatalism these days. I swear, neither side is willing to actually look at facts.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA
I never said that any birth rate was good or bad. I only said that if population increases, and currency supply does not increase, you will experience deflation (and that slight inflation is easier to achieve than aiming for balance and ending up too low).
Fuck off. The richest 1% own over half the world’s wealth. That’s where the money is going, not Mrs. Johnson down the street having 3 kids.
It’s more run away/chain reaction type events you want to avoid I think rather than a low % inflation or deflation that remains relatively stable, swing too far in either direction and you’ll have problems.
Conventional economic theory holds that a small, consistent level of inflation is the most beneficial. In short, you don’t want hoarding cash to be a smart long term economic decision, you want more of that money invested/moving in the economy. I recommend reading about the Japanese deflation in the 90s if you’re curious what the effects of even relatively moderate deflation can be.
I’m otherwise not super deep into economics so thanks for the correction. TIL.
Yeah, prices will only go down if sales go down massively. And since video games are likely being used as an emotional coping mechanism, that seems unlikely.
The thing about demand/supply ratios is there’s also cost.
AAA games aren’t coming down in sticker price without actual deflation. That’s just not how it works. That they were selling at $60 for so long is a function of cost reductions in an industry where the only thing left to cut is employee costs or the widespread adoption of AI dreck.
If you want a game for less than $80 you’re going to have to buy games with smaller development scopes.
True. This may actually be a boon to smaller devoplers who can sell games for less money because there development costs are less ambitious.