Video games are not too expensive to make

Watched the first minute and couldn't take his rambling and felt like I forgot to put on my tinfoil hat.

As usual, making this a video rather than an essay doesn't do anything useful.

Edit: actually, I suppose covering up the writer's disorganised thought processes might have been useful, for him.

Hah.

Y'all need to take up whittling. Oh, that's right, I forgot, making wood is too expensive.

Or maybe he thinks in the reverse order to way most people think.
I know that feeling all to well -I have the tenacity to speak backwards.
Sometimes I find I am talking like that the green imp from star wars without trying.
It take conscious effort to speak or even type in normal fashion that most understand... -if they even can.
Wow.
Never knew that was physically possible... disgusting but still news to me.

It can be... especially if you break the law to get it on a forest preserve... at least via my cousins' info.

Agreed.
The more the merrier.
The more the data the less the bias.

I can tell 2 minutes into this video: The title is actually a bit misleading.

The argument he's presenting here isn't that games aren't too expensive but rather than adding micro-transactions, a bunch of DLC, season pass, etc. and everything is not required in order for the industry to stay alive.

He uses public information about the financials from major publishers to try and show that, once accounting for inflation, the cost of physical production(making the box, dvd, etc.) of games has gone down as expected because of digital distribution, the cost of developing a game has remained pretty stable but gone up slightly, and the money being made has also remained pretty stable but is trending upward.

However what they've done is reduced the overall number of games being released in favour of focusing on a small number of franchises because sequels tend to be more consistent in sales than new IP, and business loves consistency in profits.

Personally I don't currently have the time to verify that his math on the financials over the last decade for EA, Ubisoft, and Activision are spot on but I agree with the general idea that EA didn't put loot boxes in ME:A MP and other micro-transactions in other games because the games couldn't possibly turn a profit without them.

No.
And nor do I care whatever politicians say - no matter the side.
They are all greedy hacks and hasbeen wanna-bee people of importance.
So again no I have not listened to a president since Reagan.

No.
I got one worse than that but why go back to 2012...it is just an artistic vision.

Sounds like I still disagree with his premise, but that is the joys of living where we do.  I can respect that he feels that way, but I am allowed to disagree with his point of view.

No, but they're making neutral arguments like "They really don't affect the game play". The companies themselves are making the arguments that games are too expensive. We're just swallowing that line of bullshit and accepting it.

Manufacturing discs costs money. Marketing costs way more, and the games would sell anyway.

Marketing of video games has tried to universalize gaming as a past-time everyone enjoys. That is simply not the case, never will be, and they market primarily to deaf-ears. The marketing lands on the salivating fans, but they knew more about the game before they saw the marketing.

It, like the pharmaceutical industry, is in the business of selling shit people don't want or need to them and convincing them that is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of the sheep baah and chew on the grass.

Interesting video. Thx for the linkage, goishen!

You're assuming the the market stayed the same size. It most definitely did not.  But whatever man.  We can go about bandying back and forth numbers and what success and failure means.  Whether or a game was a financial success or a social failure.  Or vice versa.  


Oh also, this :





Yah, no.  Depressed economy aside, they don't have slaves.