I would pay $150 for a video game to save playing triple-A

A reader suggests that video games need to increase in price to remain profitable, but they would still be cheaper than during the 16-bit era.

There was a very interesting reader letter in the Inbox during the week about a former Square Enix guy who went into a lot of detail about the problems the games industry is currently in and why publishers feel they can’t just do simple things. like cutting budgets. I recommend reading the whole thing, but the bottom line is that these companies are set up to make games of a certain scale, and trying to go back and make AA or indie games doesn’t work.

They would never earn enough to pay everyone and manage everything; moreover, independent games are even harder to predict than triple-A games. Make a good looking triple-A game and it will probably sell. Make a weird indie game about trying to get a high poker score and you’re taking a huge chance.

Publishers could downsize, but that would mean gutting their entire staff and changing their entire business model to something they have no idea will work. So while they may try to change direction and cut costs to some extent, they are still in the business of making big budget video games. It would be like someone telling a major movie studio to start making TV commercials instead of movies because they’re cheaper – it’s just not possible.

FIGURE 1

The end result of this, as we’re already starting to see, is that fewer and fewer triple-A games are being released and they’re taking longer and longer to produce. I know it looked like Xbox had a lot in their showcase, but that’s the result of them buying half the gaming industry. Moreover, most of what they demonstrated would have been initiated long before the current problems.

It all seems like a problem without a solution, literally an evolutionary impasse where publishers can’t go back, but they also can’t continue as they are. And yet the most common attempt at a solution focusing on live service games seems almost as risky as doing nothing.

But there is another solution which can be applied immediately and it would solve all the problems in no time. But it’s one that’s almost never even talked about: making video games more expensive.

Despite this generation’s $10/£10 price increase, video games have seen almost no price increase in their entire existence. Mega Drive and SNES games were normally around £50 in the early 1990s, which works out to around £110 today with inflation. There could have been more. Anything with an extra chip or gimmick like Virtua Racing or Starwing (aka Star Fox) can cost anything up to £70, which is a staggering £164 today.

We’re paying a lot less for a lot more today than we ever were in the golden age of gaming, and I don’t think that’s appreciated enough. Of course, back then there were fewer people playing games overall, so they had to charge more to make their money back, but now we’re getting back to that a bit.

Companies, notably Sony and Microsoft, have constantly complained about a lack of growth, with numbers clearly showing that console growth has stagnated since the PlayStation 2 era. The number of people interested in the kind of complex console-style games we all take for granted is relatively small and not growing. So if these games take more time and money to make, you’ll just lose more and more money over time – it’s simple math.

Everyone says they don’t want a future dominated by live service titles, smartphone games and free-to-play garbage, but are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Are you willing to go back to when a new game cost £100 or even £150? I am, but if you’re not, console gaming as we know it may be dying out fast.

I’ve just looked and a regular chain cinema ticket outside of London is £16.49 for 1 hour 36 minutes (Inside Out 2, the biggest film when I watched). That works out to almost exactly £10 an hour in entertainment. Now, the Elden Ring cost £50 at launch and according to How Long To Beat, the fastest you could beat is 59 and a half hours. Although I don’t know anyone who hasn’t spent at least 100 hours on it.

But let’s take the shortest number, which works out to 84p an hour in terms of entertainment. That means Elden Ring is more than 10 times better value for money than watching the movie – and probably a lot more if you’re into it like most people are.

Or take an extreme example at the other end of the spectrum, with Senua’s Saga: Hellblade 2. That’s the shortest big-name game I can remember hearing about recently, and it takes at least seven hours to complete and costs £50 .

That works out to £7 per hour of entertainment, which is still significantly better value for money than a movie – and yet it’s the bare minimum of what a modern video game has to offer. I literally can’t think of worse value for money than Hellblade 2 (I’m not saying it’s not good, I haven’t played it).

Video games are amazing value for money, they’re just expensive. But you get what you pay for many times over. My suggestion is that if we want console games to continue as they are, we have to put up with price increases, probably at least twice. That would still be a throwback to the prices during the 16-bit era, when most games only topped a few hours, and I hope I’ve proven that it’s definitely worth it.

Triple-A video games don’t grow on trees, and I think we’re at a point where we have to accept that we have to pay more for what is essentially a luxury item. Either that, or pay the same (or less) for something that only vaguely resembles the great video games we have right now. And if that means people only buy two or three full-price games a year, then I think that’s fine.

I know I’d much rather pay £150 for an Elden Ring or Zelda quality game than face a future where everything is free to play battle royales and live service games.

From reader Cranston

Reader features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.

You can submit your own 500-600 word reader at any time, which will be published in the next appropriate weekend block if used. Just contact us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our Submit Stuff page and you won’t have to send an email.

MORE: Summer Game Fest trailer costs $250,000 for one minute of screen time

MORE: Suicide Squad flop cost Warner Bros. $200 million, but Rocksteady is safe news

MORE : Monopoly Go spent more money on marketing than Spider-Man 2 cost to make

This page is protected by reCAPTCHA and Google’s privacy policy and terms of service apply.