When Microsoft released the Xbox 360 on November 22, 2005, it marked the first time that console gamers would be treated to high-definition graphics in all their detailed glory. It also marked the beginning of an era where major game publishers would impose a $10 next-gen tax -- $60 per game instead of the usual $50.
The best argument for justifying $60 games is the inflation of other mass media entertainment. Since 1984, the average cost of a movie ticket has nearly doubled. A hardcover book costs 30-50 percent more than it did in the same year, and cable prices have nearly tripled for the same period. Console video games, by comparison, tarried at a steadfast $50 per game for more than 20 years.
What about a rise in development costs -- the primary argument publishers used back in 2004 when first exploring the $60 game standard? While games undoubtedly cost more to make today than they did 20 years ago (think: HD visuals, voice acting, online support, motion-capture), the application of a $10 price increase is inconsistent at best.
"They want you to believe the devs under them are super stoked to work generative AI into their processes," continued Gaider, "but I assure you what they took as excitement was really a veiled wail of despair not unlike the time that team was informed of their new 'really cool' live service mandate.".
I think anyone with some common sense knew this, im glad i don't support their games anymore, what a sh!t company.
I said this yesterday. AI isn't what we want when it comes to crafting artistry. Alas, these soulless corporate morons don't care about their work, only about cutting corners as much as possible.
Has the rapid growth of Xbox made the ship too heavy? Following the closures of Tango Gameworks, Arkane Austin, and Roundhouse, we explore what the future of Xbox could look like.
This ship was never meant to sail, this ship was made from the get go to sink as fast as possible. It almost feels that they want to lower the standards of quality in the industry so that they can fit in
I disagree, Xbox from the get go innovated and changed the industry. They did a lot of firsts and standardized a lot of others. It wasn’t till the beginning of the Xbox1 era that things started to go south.
Yep, although I’d argue it started going to shit when they tried to hock Kinect on their audience instead of continuing to invest in their studios and IPs. 2001-2010 Xbox was peak gaming, though.
@Stevonidas
I agree they never should have focused on it after the 360 era. But you do have to remember they were faked out by the huge volumes of Kinects sold. To quote info on Wikipedia, “Project Natal, It was first released on November 4, 2010, and would go on to sell eight million units in its first 60 days of availability.” So if your Xbox and see these huge sales on a peripheral where are you going to put some money? Criticism in hindsight is worthless…..if only we could all see our future. In other wards they had no way of knowing. Plus they had engagement numbers and a lot of signs pointed to people wanting it.
Their biggest mistake wasn’t the Kinect, but unlike Sony after the PS3 debacle. They didn’t double on down on exclusive good games. The other huge mistake was letting Call of Duty go to Sony.
Xbox has no soul and Phil has no confidence, and it's impossible to say either do when they killed Tango and Arkane Austin.
Everything they've said since has only made them look worse to a point that they're actually less competent than Embracer.
Whe you release something like the series S and expect it not to hurt your business model, and developers have to have parity with games. Then you know Microsoft don't care. Series s is the final nail that broke developers,
Skewed and Reviewed have written an Opinion Piece covering issues in the gaming industry, how current issues were issues years ago, and what can be done to help restore consumer trust.
Nothing. It's up to the gamers to stop consuming content from companies that they don't agree with.
How do you know if you agree with it or not unless you play it? Which without conventions forces gamers to rely on trailers. Perhaps Demos should be made more frequently. But companies need to do better as well.
But is that not what they have now? Tons of gameplay or are you talking about watching actual gamers play it versus the trailers and streams? The big issue is that some companies pay streamers and influencers and they create content but for me; that is hardly a fair, unbiased, and factual look at a game.
They usually are attached to the money sadly. It would be nice to have gamers in charge but you have so much money invested that business people are needed. Hence the issue; you need people who know business but are also gamers who know have an eye to the community. It sounds simple in theory that if you give gamers quality games that they want to play; money will be made. But that is not always so.
Here in the UK, a game is released at about £45. Thats $90 dollars!!!! The only time of recent that we haven't been screwed compared to you guys was for the Halo Legendary Edition, which we only paid the equivelent of an extra $10. 60 dollar game = 30 pound ... I wish!!
And don't even get me started on Console prices. When you guys complained about a $600 PS3, we got it 5 months later, and had to pay the equivelent of 850 dollars!!! And your $350 Xbox360, 500 dollar equivelent we pay now!
Well, thats my rant over
I've never complained about the price of games. If there's something that I think costs too much I'll wait until I can get it used. As for people in Europe and Australia I do think that you guys are getting screwed on prices. But a large portion of that is taxes that the government is imposing, not greed from the corporations.
If you're going to raise the price of games, raise the quality of games. Pretty graphics and too short or crappy gameplay isn't worth $60.
i would be over the moon if games cost £30 here in the UK!!!
$44.95 for TMNT (nes) for $44.95 in '89 was rough. eu & aus/nz definitely getting screwhole prices.