Pop goes the games industry | The Sopa Box

So former Sony Chairman Shawn Layden has gone on record suggesting the AAA gaming industry is seeing unsustainable costs due to bloated development budgets and in the future AAA games will likely have to be shorter or cost more. The present push as per a number of publications is for the price of games to go up. Now in the UK the RRP of a AAA game is presently between £49.99 and £54.99 that's between $62.68 and $68.95 already and I'm old enough to remember when games were £34.99 to £39.99 here in the UK so prices have been rising over here.

It's funny because this has been a problem in the making for years and I'm sure I mentioned it in the past but no matter dwelling over a dying site sinking into its irrelevance as it becomes more corporatized and filled with little wanna be fascists.

AAA gaming doesn't have a problem making money. Many of the companies in AAA gaming make tons of money. The problem is they are hitting the growth ceiling so far. Rather than expanding teams and making more games to cater to more different audiences the AAA sphere has been going in big on single large games trying for mass appeal and trying to make every game appeal to every person. This attempt to appeal to everyone explains some of the recent decisions and directions some games have been taking, putting in token gestures to various groups in the hopes that they'll snap it up just because the developer gave them said token gesture.

The problem in gaming is a similar kind of issue the comic book industry faced in the 90's. Yes those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it only this time we won't have the silliness to laugh at.

Image Source = Wikipedia

While the comics industry had the speculator bubble the games industry now has the investor bubble. The games industry became the most profitable entertainment industry and suddenly a number of people who didn't notice the games industry before turned their greedy eyes upon it. Now the games industry is likely dealing with investors after maximum return as fast as possible and that means as much company growth and profit as quick as possible. If they don't see the continuous growth then they'll likely pull out and invest somewhere else, or they'll try to get the head of the company pushed out and replaced by an executive more willing to try and please them. This issue is worse still when the executives in question get massive bonuses in the form of stock options.

The new push for shorter games or more recently the $70 price tag on games raising them in cost will just be the latest move by an industry of bloat and waste who fight to have the highest graphical fidelity with the expense that always comes from being on the cutting edge. This is an industry where some-one thought they should hire Peter Dinklage to do voice acting in Destiny. I don't have anything against Peter Dinklage I think he's a great actor but it seems like he was hired just because he was popular coming from how successful Game of Thrones was getting and some-one hoping it would help boost the game up by using Peter Dinklage's popularity. If some-one wanted him in Destiny because they're a fan of his work then fair enough but it was never said that's why he was hired for the role and as such Destiny comes off as trying to get a boost of his reputation. The industry doesn't need big name celebrities attached to a project to sell it, video gaming isn't the movies after all. Nor does the industry need $300,000 to $500,000 to have Lara Croft have each strand of her hair have its own physics and be animated, or realistically shrinking horse testicles thank you Rockstar games. I mean come on we're talking about an industry where the best selling game of all time looks like this

Image source = The Sony Playstation store

The new idea of the $70 price likely won't see publishers get rid of microtranactions or any of the other practices they've come to rely on because they know if they don't keep up the unsustainable growth trouble will start. So the industry is hoping to try and get even more money from customers initially and still charge them more for things like season passes and microtransactions. The industry would rather go all in on single big projects because if they're a hit they can become huge hits but it also means only 1 big title flopping can cause a whole studio to end up having to shut down. Oh and you can bet the extra money won't go to the workers who already don't see royalties like many in the film industry and don't have the protection of unions to stop abusive working practices. No the money will go towards some executives 3rd yacht and weekend bunga bunga parties.

If the industry wants to charge $70 for a game they need to prove they can be trusted to do it otherwise next year it will be $80 and the year after $90 because if the history of the games industry has shown anything it's that they will always push it further. They will always test the limits and they will always take the piss. So it's up to the games industry to prove to consumers that they can be trusted to sell a game for $70 without milking consumers more and what's the first game coming out with the new price point?

Image Source = 2K website

Well done you stupid smegheads in the games industry. You picked the title in a franchise that had literal gambling mechanics from real world gambling machines in it, does the games industry not get how this looks or do they just not care anymore?

But that's me done for the time being and remember

THE REVOLUTION WILL BE LIVESTREAMED




Note: The Sopa Box is somewhat deliberately over the top by design