Video games are not too expensive to make

When he starts talking about the physical production of a disk being responsible for much ("a lot") of the cost, I almost fell off my chair laughing at his ignorance. His ignorance is a great and intimidating beast indeed, lol.

Watching it, he's made a crucial mistake in the first few minutes. When he says that game prices have remained the same he's being disingenuous at best and plain wrong at worst. Taking inflation into account, $60 in 2017 is the equivalent of about $35 in 1991. $60 in 1991 is the equivalent of about $110 in 2017. When he said the full price of Battlefront was $110, and 50-60 dollars grants you access and over 100 bucks gets you the full experience, you could actually justify that. However he states the increased price should offset the increased cost of game development - sorry but the increased price merely puts it in the same realm as the price of games in the 90s, it hasn't increased the price (in real terms) at all.

This is the inaccurate piece of information that dooms his analysis. "So they already found a way to make a game cost more than $60" BZZZZZT! Nice of you to participate Jim, but that is where your analysis completely falls apart. The increased price puts games at about the same price as the past. Because he hasn't taken into account inflation he can find no justification for microtransactions, and that's not because there is no justification it's because of Jim's dodgy analysis.

There is an argument to make that companies do go overboard with microtransactions, to find that argument you'll need to get away from Jim who tries to appear edgy and angry to gain viewers and money (he's playing you like a fiddle) and find someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

EDIT: His full video is confused and is something like this -> apologists whine about inflation, but it's obvious that to get the full experience of games people often have to fork out more than 60 bucks for the game counting essential DLC thingies (but not all games,) he claims this increase (which isn't an increase) offsets costs (it doesn't, possibly increased market does but he never mentioned it,) talks about microtransactions which he doesn't view kindly at all, and then talks about the value of a game declining over years stating that content is cut from video games (how this relates to the value of a game declining over years I dunno. His mind must be so special I just can't fathom his thought processes.) He ends the video making an unsubstantiated claim that gamers don't ask for increased technical value in games, and another unsubstantiated claim that it's video game execs that want increased graphics and not gamers. It's a confused video at best.

Nice top hat and cane, though.

Here is Ask A Game Devs response to Tarmac's video.

Direct Reponse

He also posted a link to the video he references in that post (its about a hour long).

EEDAR Video

I will let you draw your own conclusions about what they are saying, but at the same time it makes sense to me.

I really don't think they would be paying a lot.  Now it might be different with the unions in play here, but when I went to work at a different location with a different union, my pay was based on the union of the location I was working at.  So a well know movie star might be only paid the same as the more well know voice actors like Nolan North.  The other thing is that they aren't recording for a long period of time maybe a couple of days, so it isn't like they are paying a large sum of money for months of work.

I really have no idea what you are talking about, for I am none of those things.  I give my opinion and its my opinion only.  If you are trying to compare people maybe you should take a look in the mirror before making comments like that.