Why Games Cost More and Provide Less

While most of the world has languished through a 2 year recession the gaming industry has seen a drastic rise in profitability and sales. According to NPD, the industry turned in U.S. sales of $5.53 billion in December, up 4 percent from $5.32 billion a year earlier. These are not starving artists we are talking about here. Most of the gaming industry is dominated by multi-billion dollar corporations and they did not get there by being nice or by paying their employees more than they were worth. When they see an opportunity to squeeze out a couple extra bucks for something they go for it. Just like any big corporation, it is all about the bottom line with no real regard for the consumer.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
-Alpha2838d ago (Edited 2838d ago )

I don't understand the point the article is trying to attack. Games cost more because they require more to make. Factor in that $10 fee consoles have too and you have your answer as to why it costs so much.

There is also nothing in this article that proves that games provide less either, especially in correlation to the first part of his article. He uses Black Ops on PS3 but that is an issue of bad porting, it has nothing to do with inherently offering "less". In fact, BO offers more than any COD to date. Also when did EA charge to play online? If this is in regards to the online pass then they have every right to protect themselves from used sales where developers/publishers get no return on profits. I'm not for it, but I can understand EA's strategy and in no way are they "charging for online" the way the article makes it sound. They aren't offering "less"

Also, regarding TA not investing time into supporting their game: this is an exaggeration.

If anybody followed the game's community you would know that TA has done many hotfixes and PS3-specific fixes for the networking issues and the game has run a lot smoother than launch. To say they don't care or that they are off with your money is an appeal to the reputation of Activision more so than fact of the matter. Too many times have I seen BO relentlessly bashed by association and not by what is actually happening with the game. I've seen them support the game tremendously with patches and new features (contracts), and they have been the most flexible team in regards to tweaking gameplay to the community's desire. A simple investment into the community of TA would show you that they are very active in communicating with the community.

But I support the criticism regarding games releasing unpolished games on brand name alone. However, I don't see how this relates to the topic.