But as it stands right now there are two companies being barraged with community hate the most. One rightfully so and the other not so much, but before I get into defending evil corporations lets do a brief history of the cost of a video game and their prices adjusted for inflation. Side note: I'm focusing on Console Games because those are what is purchased and played by the majority of consumers.
The following prices are the at retail during the launch window of most first party games.
The following prices are the at retail during the launch window of most first party games.
Atari 2600 Cartridge
1980 - $25
2017 - $80
NES Cartridge
1990 - $50
2017 - $96.81
N64 Cartridge
1998 - $70
2017 - 106.85
Playstation 2 Disc
2005 - $50
2017 - $64.87
One important fact about all of these games is that they were made before the days of online gaming, dedicated game servers, and patches. Once a game was completed and released that was it. The publisher never touched it again unless they made a sequel or remaster.
The next thing to look at is MMO's World of Warcraft and Elder Scrolls Online two of the more successful and loved. They have monthly subscriptions, content locked behind paywalls, and micro-transactions. But unlike previous generations of console games MMOs require constant (usually weekly) server maintenance and patching to maintain game balance and software stability. Which requires staff and resources to do. People who need to be paid for their work and hardware that has to be maintained.
So, back to the console side of things.
During the previous generation of consoles, the 360 and PS3 systems, online gaming started to emerge. Most of the games, like their PC counterparts over a decade before them, had direct connections from system to system as their multiplayer functionality. The stability of a Multiplayer game being based on the hosting systems processing power and internet connection. Which, in some cases required a small post release patch to make sure the a particular game maintained stability over the internet. At this point both players, and companies, started to realize that direct system connections could not support large scale stable game play.
During the previous generation of consoles, the 360 and PS3 systems, online gaming started to emerge. Most of the games, like their PC counterparts over a decade before them, had direct connections from system to system as their multiplayer functionality. The stability of a Multiplayer game being based on the hosting systems processing power and internet connection. Which, in some cases required a small post release patch to make sure the a particular game maintained stability over the internet. At this point both players, and companies, started to realize that direct system connections could not support large scale stable game play.
Which brings us to modern day: the end of the 360/PS3 era into the current generation of console games, where games are becoming increasingly online and less off. And to maintain the staff, hardware, and servers to keep these games playable, console games are starting to see micro-transactions, subscriptions, and paid DLC for games.
All of what I stated above brings me to the press surrounding two modern games and their respective companies.
Destiny 2
All of what I stated above brings me to the press surrounding two modern games and their respective companies.
Destiny 2
and
Star Wars Battlefront 2.
If you look at gaming from a historic perspective $60 at retail for these games is relatively inexpensive. If they were stand alone games that did not require servers, updates, and patching it would be more than enough money. The $100 that Destiny asked for it's basic game plus it's 2 DLC's over the next few months, historically, is what the actual retail price of a full game should be if pricing trends had followed inflation.
How Star Wars Battlefront is Doing it Wrong.
Star Wars Battlefront 2.
If you look at gaming from a historic perspective $60 at retail for these games is relatively inexpensive. If they were stand alone games that did not require servers, updates, and patching it would be more than enough money. The $100 that Destiny asked for it's basic game plus it's 2 DLC's over the next few months, historically, is what the actual retail price of a full game should be if pricing trends had followed inflation.
How Star Wars Battlefront is Doing it Wrong.
The rage directed towards EA in the case of Battlefront is justified. They released an online game that is meant to be competitive. However, the balance and competitive edge has to be purchased. Which even though pay-to-win micro-transactions pay the bills and keeps the servers up an running it makes the game much less fun for those who do not have the money or the time to sink into unlocking the items or characters to be able play fairly against those that do.
How Destiny 2 is doing it right.
How Destiny 2 is doing it right.
For starters, the price. $100 is historically fair for a full game. $60 is the modern standard, but that is also the standard pricing for games who's primary play is offline, and does not require server maintenance. Someone has to pay to keep the servers up as well as pay the team who fixes all of the balance issues and things that keep the game playable and fair for both new and old players.
When looking at the micro-transaction purchasable items in Destiney: they are cosmetic. They do not effect game balance. A fresh starting player can still compete with a weathered veteran if they have similar skill levels.
I'll admit that it's kind of crappy for certain game modes to be locked behind DLC as it drops. But, on the flip side an extra $20 to $40 to keep the servers up and keep access to all of the game content is a small price to pay compared to the average of $15 a month most MMO players pay just to have access to their game vanilla or not.
TL:DR Welcome to the real world of continuous online gaming. It's expensive.
TL:DR Welcome to the real world of continuous online gaming. It's expensive.
