Games Should Not Cost $60 Anymore (The Jimquisition)
Jimquisition Merch

There is a constant problem plaguing the game industry, if its spokespeople are to be believed. Games cost $60, and that price doesn’t work anymore!

Weirdly enough, The Jimquisition agrees with this assessment. “AAA” games should indeed not cost $60 anymore, and they most certainly have outgrown it.

Loot Box Spiderhead in thumbnail by the talented Jude White!


25 thoughts on “Games Should Not Cost $60 Anymore (The Jimquisition)”

  1. You can still have physical copies of Free to Play games, just charge something for them ($20, $30 or whatever) and include that amount worth of fake-in-game gems, loot boxes or whatever that game has inside. It's happened before.

  2. With regard to your opening point about receiving hate, I still don't understand others' preoccupation with what others do. You're welcome to criticise, and I'm welcome to disagree with you. It doesn't mean you're a fuckknuckle, or that I should force you to swallow some salty wisdom. As it stands, I've only ever heard you spew truth from every orifice, so I'll continue to watch and enjoy your ragey indignation. More power to you, Mr. Jim.

  3. Honestly, I think most of the good stuff in Super Bomberman R (which is a lot in my opinion, I actually love that game and the free updates keep pulling me back) is a result of HexaDrive's involvement. I imagine most of the game was done by them with Konami just kind of overseeing it. They have a history working on games that may not be the best, but definitely have a lot of love put into them and I get the feeling their the source of it.

  4. Look here is the deal with the "games are too expensive" argument, it boils down to simple math. If you look at the list published on Wikipedia of "most expensive games to develop" you'll see that the highest game cost for development and marketing is 265 million. With a 60 dollar price tag that means they would need to sell <4.5 million copies to break even. So when I hear people make that complaint I just laugh. SWBF2 (2017) sold around 7 million copies meaning that even IF it cost as much to make as GTA 5 (the aforementioned 265 million) it STILL would have made a cool 155 million. Now remember that SWBF2 (2017) was a sales disaster due to a massive PR blowout and that their actual goal was 8 million. Kinda telling isn't it? These games can cover costs then make their original investment or more in profit JUST off the price tag. Then you add in $20-30+ dollar season passes and that just makes it even EASIER to make their money back. Games are not too expensive to make such that they NEED microtransactions and a "live services" model. This isn't even hard shit to figure and takes a level of math so simple a child could do it and a five minutes of research to show how wrong the argument is.

  5. I really don't understand this argument as in the UK, AAA games used to cost £30. Then they went up to £35 and then £40 and now cost £55-60. So how have games not gone up in price exactly? They don't even fucking convert the currency for us.

  6. Let's not forget youtubers who do these lootbox videos where they "win" all these high end, shiny items. They are among the worst offenders promoting these monetization methods with their average viewer being kids. Kids who can beg their parents or steal their credit cards to buy these lootboxes or whatever microtraction publishers have dangling in front of them.

  7. They cannot do there job anymore. Like for 60$ is 477.53 sek. like one uds is 7ish sek. so im paying a fuckton of money for what? an half arsed game with first day dlc and dlc and microtransactions and other shite… Like i have stoped bother geting ea or ubisoft games and wanerbrothers and the rest of the big devs. What the hell happend to the days when you payed for a full fucking game with minor bugs… Now it is a fuckstorm only the ppl from eastern europe use the old ways and they do not have any problem with money at all…

    Now im going to see the video…

  8. This generation has been such a disappointment to me in terms of new titles that it's not even a question of price points. I haven't bought a new game for nearly two years, and the only games that have been worth my interest I could count on one hand. My X1 is basically a Rocket League machine with the option to play 360 games (and Rise of the Tomb Raider) and the PS4 went ages ago, shortly after I'd played the excellent Until Dawn to death and found nothing else to be excited for.

    I've done the Battlefront 2's and Call of Duty's years ago in various forms. nowadays, the very concept and popularity of them makes me feel bored and part of an oddball minority, which detracts me from making any effort to find a diamond in the rough. I know games such as Resident Evil 7 and Xcom 2 are supposed to be very good, but to me they lack the spark of games such as Mass Effect 2 or Catherine from days not too long ago that compelled me to play them. I've heard the argument for Indie's being the future for a long time. To me they're often great idea's that fixate on something in particular and sacrifice and too much in most area's. Perhaps I'm just getting too picky…

    I bought the original FEAR for my Xbox 360 this week for 99p, and I was more excited to play that than I have been for any new release for the last two years. What that's saying I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's fair to say that I'm no longer playing a significant part in shaping the future of games, both in terms of content and price. If new games continue to be so utterly unappealing to me, the X1 might just be my last gaming machine, leaving me to plug in an old console once in a blue moon as a break from watching TV.

  9. I don't understand how this isn't obvious. Budget a game to be sold at a certain sales level and sell the game for a price that is enough to make a profit based on the expected sales. If the game needs to be sold at $100 to make the game profitable (like the complete edition of Assassin Creed Origins), then sell the game for $100. If the game needs to be sold at $40 to make the game profitable (like Uncharted: The Lost Legacy), then sell the game for $40.

    In no other business can you demand supplemental income to expect a profit. LG can't manufacture an oven for $100 and sell the oven for $120, and then hope that "whales" will to buy all the extra pots and pans and potholders to fill in the extra $200 that is needed to make a profit (and supplement the losses from from people that didn't buy the accessories). It is a ridiculous business model.

    Sell the product at the price that is required or don't make the product…

  10. I am somehow okay with this. let tripel ei paint itself into a nice corner and stay there with a very clear "service" label on its face. . It will try from that corner get into my cycle of online games – which indeed has only so much time to be played. Chance of success. 0%. In a way excellent turn of events. Also gives a nice divider on your friendslist. those who do tripel ei in the future are all no no. Like full dota or cs go friends on steam.

  11. A quick word about Bethesda…please note that Beth created a closed market economy by providing 'mods'/DLC/micro-transactions to the console community with the Creation Club, and provided staff to quality control and manage it, for both Skyrim and FO4, but consistently over a period of years, resisted fixing the damn bugs in those games, bugs which have been a main feature of the damn half-arsed engine that they use.  Beth is no better than any other scammy rip-off merchant development house.

  12. Overwatch may be 60$ but goes on sale often. That loot boxes are just skins, sprays, and voice-lines so it's not really hurting anyone if someone wants to buy loot boxes to get more stuff. Warframe tho, I love Warframe Devs and the way they do their business. I might of not spent as much if I didn't have faith in them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *