Don't worry, I've made it my life's goal to spend all income on fifa packs to fund the EA machine. All hail our corporate overlords

by Anonymous 4 hours ago

There are some opinions that are unpopular because of a unique taste, and there are some opinions that are unpopular because they're dumb. This is the latter.

by Lupton 4 hours ago

You have to understand, that most games are not $100 for a reason. The game studios know how to make money better than you do. If it was more profitable to make the games $100, they would make the games $100. $70 is what is most efficient for whatever reason.

by Decent-Key-1676 3 hours ago

I basically robbed the devs and now they refuse to create a sequel because they're out of money (please release Silksong.) Do you have a source for that? TLDR: Video games are worth a lot more in enjoyment and time value than people estimate and are much more budget efficient than other entertainment options, so they probably should cost more upfront (but ideally have less micro transactions) Or maybe the cost of entertainment in other things should be lower. Instead of decreasing the efficiency, shouldn't we aim to increase it?

by Vandervortkylee 3 hours ago

Fortnite makes plenty despite being free to download lol

by Timely-Friend-9890 3 hours ago

You know you can buy the game more than 1 time also you can gift the game to your friends, or buy collectors, buy merch all this. And no games are not worth 100$, and hours playtime is not a measurement of quality. My favourite game this year is silent hill and i finished the game in 15h meanwhile you can play fifa gambling games for millions of hours and that game still sucks

by reillydeon 3 hours ago

Of course the quality of enjoyment is not the same across every game (or every type of entertainment for that matter). And yes, gambling games like FIFA are super predatory. But Silent Hill 2 costs $70! And if you really, deeply enjoyed it than more than a movie you would pay to watch in theaters than it was (in terms of your total enjoyment) probably worth more than that to you. Of course, that's your favorite game of the year, and your mileage will vary on other games. But the point is that if GTA VI released tomorrow and cost $100, you'd have to believe that a lot (if not most) of the people who are looking forward to it would get their money's worth from it even though everyone would complain about the price.

by Anonymous 3 hours ago

Weird. Nintendo just keeps the game at their launch price while balancing costs with expected returns, and it seems so make them tons of money. Perhaps companies should take greater care with what they're doing instead of making the consumer pay more. You also have a flurry of flaws in your reasoning, but I don't have the time or patience.

by Immediate_Reason6678 3 hours ago

It's called market forces: supply and demand. Consumers typically have a maximum price point they are going to pay, called willingness to pay. The higher the price for a video game, the lower the demand. Best pricing is about maintaining a balance between setting a price and getting as much consumers to pay for the product/service. Also, try to apply your way of thinking to you mention about other "entertainment options." That would mean we should pay more for them. For example, a bike. The amount of entertainment I can receive until it breaks down could be very long depending on quality. Does that justify me paying thousands of dollars instead of hundreds of dollars for a bike? Why is the line you set for "more budget efficient entertainment options" only for video games?

by Anonymous 2 hours ago

This could alllll be fixed if they included demos to see if you would actually like the game

by Weak_Abies2866 2 hours ago

I see you Andrew Wilson.

by Dangerous-Rest-4585 2 hours ago