• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

I want to thank Microsoft and Sony for helping me save money.

feynoob

Banned
XBox had 1st party studios for 20 years.
Not enough. They were dry during OG xbox and X360. The issue with their owned studios during that time was quality games. Most games werent AAA. Just small games, which wasnt enough to make AAA games.
 

GHG

Gold Member
Unbelievably tone deaf and ignorant. Go back to whatever rock you've been hiding under.

Yet the sales charts and user data for the major gaming platforms across the western world states otherwise.

I genuinely wonder how anyone can think hundreds of millions of people can afford ~$400+ hardware but then suddenly can't afford $70 for games every now and then. But then this is also somewhere that was once full of people that thought the ATVI deal would "easily pass" so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. You're welcome to come to the real world at some point.

You're welcome to look up average disposable income figures at any point in time.
 
Last edited:

coffinbirth

Member
Yet the sales charts and user data for the major gaming platforms across the western world states otherwise.

I genuinely wonder how anyone can think hundreds of millions of people can afford ~$400+ hardware but then suddenly can't afford $70 for games every now and then. But then this is also somewhere that was once full of people that thought the ATVI deal would "easily pass" so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. You're welcome to come to the real world at some point.

You're welcome to look up average disposable income figures at any point in time.
Doubling down on the tone deaf and ignorant. Got it.
 

feynoob

Banned
Yet the sales charts and user data for the major gaming platforms across the western world states otherwise.

I genuinely wonder how anyone can think hundreds of millions of people can afford ~$400+ hardware but then suddenly can't afford $70 for games every now and then. But then this is also somewhere that was once full of people that thought the ATVI deal would "easily pass" so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. You're welcome to come to the real world at some point.

You're welcome to look up average disposable income figures at any point in time.
I dont want to be rude. But let me ask you this question?

How many games do you think people can afford?

Do you think people can afford 20 games a year?

What time do people buy their games? Day1? 3 month later? 6 month later? 1-2 year later?

What is the total cost for all of those games?
 

feynoob

Banned
The blame is on XBox leadership. Sony invested on 1st party and produced quality with steady quantity.
Its on MS who were stongy with money.
If Xbox had proper budget, it could have turned different.

We can blame the management as much as we want to. But when the owner of the business isnt investing that much, then what is the point?
 

GHG

Gold Member
I dont want to be rude. But let me ask you this question?

How many games do you think people can afford?

Do you think people can afford 20 games a year?

What time do people buy their games? Day1? 3 month later? 6 month later? 1-2 year later?

What is the total cost for all of those games?

Here's the thing, most people don't play 20 games per year nor have any desire to.

The scenario you're literally describing (and then attempting to extrapolate across whole populations) is this:

*spends hundreds of hours per week playing every and any game possible including a bunch of mediocre ones*

*complains about being broke*

surprised-pikachu.gif


That is not the average person.

Doubling down on the tone deaf and ignorant. Got it.

At any point you are free to provide me with user data from Sony, Nintendo, Xbox that proves most of their userbase cannot afford full priced games.

Meanwhile Call of Duty broke franchise records this year and that was not available on any subscription services.

An average of $112 per month was spent on games by millenials alone in 2019.


Plenty of other data has been collated here (warning, may require reading and may be informative):

 

feynoob

Banned
Here's the thing, most people don't play 20 games per year nor have any desire to.
20 games is almost 2 games a month.
Most people dont complete the game, but they play alot of games.

The scenario you're literally describing (and then attempting to extrapolate across whole populations) is this:

*spends hundreds of hours per week playing every and any game possible including a bunch of mediocre ones*

*complains about being broke*

surprised-pikachu.gif


That is not the average person.
1 year has 12 month, which has around 30days. or 52 weeks in 1 year. that is 17 games in every 3 week. or as you would like 15 hours of playtime in every 3 week (5 hour a week).

That is playing normal, and not quitting the game.

I am going by your example, that you play your games, which you actually spend money on.
 

coffinbirth

Member
Here's the thing, most people don't play 20 games per year nor have any desire to.

The scenario you're literally describing (and then attempting to extrapolate across whole populations) is this:

*spends hundreds of hours per week playing every and any game possible including a bunch of mediocre ones*

*complains about being broke*

surprised-pikachu.gif


That is not the average person.



At any point you are free to provide me with user data from Sony, Nintendo, Xbox that proves most of their userbase cannot afford full priced games.

Meanwhile Call of Duty broke franchise records this year and that was not available on any subscription services.

An average of $112 per month was spent on games by millenials alone in 2019.

[/URL][/URL]

Plenty of other data has been collated here (warning, may require reading and may be informative):

[/URL][/URL]

moving-goalpost.gif

Ignored.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Gold Member
20 games is almost 2 games a month.
Most people dont complete the game, but they play alot of games.


1 year has 12 month, which has around 30days. or 52 weeks in 1 year. that is 17 games in every 3 week. or as you would like 15 hours of playtime in every 3 week (5 hour a week).

That is playing normal, and not quitting the game.

I am going by your example, that you play your games, which you actually spend money on.

The data available to us points towards most users purchasing far fewer games than that per year but then putting further spend into those games (dlc, microtransactions etc), rather than purchasing a wide breadth of games with the same amount of money.

Figures were sat at 10 games owned per user on the PS4 on average:


That combined with the available average monthly spend figures for those most invested in the medium points towards individuals putting a disproportionate amount of money into games they already own (or even F2P ones), and other crap (twitch/youtube donations etc) over purchasing new games outright. So it's not that most people can't afford to purchase X number (2 in this case) of games per month, it's that they are choosing not to.

Anyway, the results of the survey revealed the average gamer spends roughly $76 per month on gaming or about $58,000 over the course of their entire life. Millennials spend the most out of all gamers at roughly $86 per month and $66,000 per lifetime.


I think there's a conversation to be had about whether or not people will want to purchase full price titles given the current economic climate in a lot of countries, hence we've seen subscription services continue to gain in popularity while net spend in other areas decreases. But the suggestion that this hobby is now an upper-middle class one or that the average user who owns a console (or PC capable of playing modern AAA games) cannot afford $70 games is a false one and I'm getting the sense that some people are projecting personal circumstances across the broader populous. That assertion looks even more ridiculous when you look across at mobile gaming and see that titles like Genshin Impact are raking in ~$175 million per month, and then this statistic from the article I shared above:

  • On the other hand, 23% of parents allow their children’s mobile game spending to exceed $50-$100 a month.

UE3qAUP.jpg
 
Last edited:

bender

What time is it?
I dont want to be rude. But let me ask you this question? I'll be rude for both of us, don't worry.

How many games do you think people can afford? Tree Fiddy

Do you think people can afford 20 games a year? Your mom can.

What time do people buy their games? Day1? 3 month later? 6 month later? 1-2 year later? 1:43PM

What is the total cost for all of those games? Ask your mom.
 

Nydius

Member
Unbelievably tone deaf and ignorant. Go back to whatever rock you've been hiding under.
No, he's 100% accurate.

My teenage ass could afford to buy $74.99 SNES games from just mowing lawns during the summer. Adjusted for inflation, the $74.99 I spent at Toys R Us in November of 1991 to buy Final Fantasy 2 (US) is equal to $162.01 in November 2022 dollars (Source: BLS Inflation Calculator). The endless whining about games being $70 in 2022 is tiresome. If not for Sony and others pushing for the normalization of the $49.99 price point in the mid-1990s when the PlayStation launched (which increased to $59.99 at the start of the X360 generation 11 years later), we would have been paying well over $100 for games a long time ago.
 

feynoob

Banned
The data available to us points towards most users purchasing far fewer games than that per year but then putting further spend into those games (dlc, microtransactions etc), rather than purchasing a wide breadth of games with the same amount of money.

Figures were sat at 10 games owned per user on the PS4 on average:

[/URL]

That is the source of your post, which is utter useless because not everyone plays the same game. Console attachment rate is small, but that doesnt speak the volume of gamers and their buying habits.
The console also has too many 3rd party games. It doesnt really tell you how many games people buy.
That combined with the available average monthly spend figures for those most invested in the medium points towards individuals putting a disproportionate amount of money into games they already own (or even F2P ones), and other crap (twitch/youtube donations etc) over purchasing new games outright. So it's not that most people can't afford to purchase X number (2 in this case) of games per month, it's that they are choosing not to.


[/URL]
I think there's a conversation to be had about whether or not people will want to purchase full price titles given the current economic climate in a lot of countries, hence we've seen subscription services continue to gain in popularity while net spend in other areas decreases. But the suggestion that this hobby is now an upper-middle class one or that the average user who owns a console (or PC capable of playing modern AAA games) cannot afford $70 games is a false one and I'm getting the sense that some people are projecting personal circumstances across the broader populous. That assertion looks even more ridiculous when you look across at mobile gaming and see that titles like Genshin Impact are raking in ~$175 million per month, and then this statistic from the article I shared above:
None of these answers the big question. Stay on topic here.
How many games do people buy?
There are tons of games released every year.
2019 games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_in_video_games
2020 games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_in_video_games
2021 games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_video_games
2022 games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_in_video_games
Here is upcoming 2023 games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_in_video_games

All these games would need to be bought by gamers. Because a gamers job is to play video games. And they do that by buying games, something which you are trying to weasel your way out, by bringing those stats.

So for the last time, how do many games in these category do you think gamers buy? and how much would it cost them to buy them?

Again, dont waste your time bringing those useless stats.
 

coffinbirth

Member
No, he's 100% accurate.

My teenage ass could afford to buy $74.99 SNES games from just mowing lawns during the summer. Adjusted for inflation, the $74.99 I spent at Toys R Us in November of 1991 to buy Final Fantasy 2 (US) is equal to $162.01 in November 2022 dollars (Source: BLS Inflation Calculator). The endless whining about games being $70 in 2022 is tiresome. If not for Sony and others pushing for the normalization of the $49.99 price point in the mid-1990s when the PlayStation launched (which increased to $59.99 at the start of the X360 generation 11 years later), we would have been paying well over $100 for games a long time ago.
"Most working adults if they budget accordingly can in fact afford $70 for their games."
You think this statement is accurate? Ok then.
 

feynoob

Banned
"Most working adults if they budget accordingly can in fact afford $70 for their games."
You think this statement is accurate? Ok then.
The problem with people here, is that they are thinking that you can buy alot of games, just because you can spend 70$.
It will take a lot of money for people to buy those games.
All you are left with is choosing which games you will spend your money on, while not being able to buy the rest.
that is what subscription services is saving you.
it eliminates that choice, and allows you to buy the actual games that you want to buy.
 

yamaci17

Member
entire discussions dismisses countries with low vages. game pass has been a great boon for us. it is impossible to afford 60 bucks games even if youre working adult person. especially so when ur monthly wage is a mere 400-450 bucks and you barely see the end of the month.

game pass is super valuable for such countries (alongside with local regional pricing)
 
I do not understand how grown adults have so much free time and so little money that subscription services make sense. I actually play through maybe 4 full-length new release games per year because there aren't actually that many games released in a given year that are compelling enough to warrant devoting the time to. If the choice is playing some trash on Gamepass or going out drinking with friends I'll choose the latter.
im like this, I simply don’t have time to be playing all that trash, even if its not trash.

Heck I haven’t even bothered to play TLoU part 1. And I love that game.

The intervals Sony releases exclusives really serves me well, and they are quality productions.

GOW didn’t disappoint. Horizon sorta did writing wise, but that game fixed all my annoyances of environments in games.
 

Kagey K

Banned
im like this, I simply don’t have time to be playing all that trash, even if its not trash.

Heck I haven’t even bothered to play TLoU part 1. And I love that game.

The intervals Sony releases exclusives really serves me well, and they are quality productions.

GOW didn’t disappoint. Horizon sorta did writing wise, but that game fixed all my annoyances of environments in games.
They don't disappoint, except when they do and that's OK.

Wtf kind of behavior is This?
 
They don't disappoint, except when they do and that's OK.

Wtf kind of behavior is This?
I had huge expectations for Horizon, I had mid expectations for GOW2? They both exceed the presentations of the rest of the games out there.

I still enjoyed them both?

you ok buddy?
 

Kagey K

Banned
I had huge expectations for Horizon, I had mid expectations for GOW2? They both exceed the presentations of the rest of the games out there.

I still enjoyed them both?

you ok buddy?
I'm fine. I was simply responding to the statement.

GOW didn’t disappoint. Horizon sorta did writing wise, but that game fixed all my annoyances of environments in games.
It's fine to not something.
 
Last edited:

begotten

Member
I can't imagine leeching off Gamepass, PS+ and all the other small crappy subscription services.

It'd remind me of going to Video Ezy back in the day and looking at the same shelf full of shit to play that I won't actually finish.

Video games are my only financially inducing hobby, so I can not be soulless and actually own what I want and build a retro collection.
 

Chukhopops

Member
I can't imagine leeching off Gamepass, PS+ and all the other small crappy subscription services.

It'd remind me of going to Video Ezy back in the day and looking at the same shelf full of shit to play that I won't actually finish.

Video games are my only financially inducing hobby, so I can not be soulless and actually own what I want and build a retro collection.
That’s a good try but you need to add a few more insults. The condescension bar has been set quite high in this thread.
 

Fredrik

Member
I genuinely wonder how anyone can think hundreds of millions of people can afford ~$400+ hardware but then suddenly can't afford $70 for games every now and then.
The hardware cost is nothing compared to the software cost if you’re buying full priced games.
Try to add up your software cost for last gen and you’ll see.
 

feynoob

Banned
The hardware cost is nothing compared to the software cost if you’re buying full priced games.
Try to add up your software cost for last gen and you’ll see.
Plus every 3rd party games adds up in price, and you end up with huge chunk of spending.
 

GHG

Gold Member

That is the source of your post, which is utter useless because not everyone plays the same game. Console attachment rate is small, but that doesnt speak the volume of gamers and their buying habits.
The console also has too many 3rd party games. It doesnt really tell you how many games people buy.

None of these answers the big question. Stay on topic here.
How many games do people buy?


Attach rate is the exact indicator of how many games the average person buys, but it doesn't fit your narrative so you want to dismiss it.


Most of these games are trash and most people don't play them, rightfully so.

All these games would need to be bought by gamers.

No they don't, as with every other free market, consumers dictate what products get rewarded and which ones don't. Only the games that most people see worth purchasing and playing get rewarded.

Because a gamers job is to play video games.

No, it's not a job, it's a leisure activity. Your job is to spend most of your time doing an activity outside of gaming that allows you to pay for your hobby. Anyone doing the opposite will inevitably not be able to afford games. Funny that.

And they do that by buying games, something which you are trying to weasel your way out, by bringing those stats.

So for the last time, how do many games in these category do you think gamers buy? and how much would it cost them to buy them?

Again, dont waste your time bringing those useless stats.

Again, I've provided you with countless statistics but you're dismissing them because you're obsessed with the idea that people can't afford to buy the games they want to play. If that were the case then God of War Ragnorak doesn't break sales records, not even close:


Here's what the data we have available says:
  • Most people who own gaming hardware capable of playing modern AAA games can afford full price releases
  • Most people who play videogames don't care to purchase or even play 20+ games a year
  • Of the games that people do select to purchase and(/or play if free to play) they are happy to put disproportionate amounts of money and time into that selection of games instead of spreading that across a number of games
Your personal gaming habits might be different (mine are too) but we can only look at the industry data to understand firstly how much money is being spent and how that money is being spent. From that data we have, even in the latter part of this year in the face of an economic crisis, there is nothing to suggest people cannot afford to purchase new games.

The hardware cost is nothing compared to the software cost if you’re buying full priced games.
Try to add up your software cost for last gen and you’ll see.

Not sure what your point is. Over the life cycle of consoles of course most people spend more on software, but that cost is spread out over time. Because over the course of 7+ years it totals up to be more than the cost of the console are you suggesting that means people suddenly can't afford it?
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
Attach rate is the exact indicator of how many games the average person buys, but it doesn't fit your narrative so you want to dismiss it.
Attach rate doesn't tell the entire story, because not everyone is fan of those same game.

Most of these games are trash and most people don't play them, rightfully so.
Way to dismiss these games.

No they don't, as with every other free market, consumers dictate what products get rewarded and which ones don't. Only the games that most people see worth purchasing and playing get rewarded.
So why do games have more than 500k sales then?

No, it's not a job, it's a leisure activity. Your job is to spend most of your time doing an activity outside of gaming that allows you to pay for your hobby. Anyone doing the opposite will inevitably not be able to afford games. Funny that.
It's a job, as you are dedicating your time playing them, and making appropriate time for your play time.


Again, I've provided you with countless statistics but you're dismissing them because you're obsessed with the idea that people can't afford to buy the games they want to play. If that were the case then God of War Ragnorak doesn't break sales records, not even close:
Again, you are dismissing the entire point of this topic.

Reminder our topic is affording alot of games, especially when game price is at 70$.

We aren't talking about buying a single game here, as these people have no need for subscription services.

Most people who play videogames don't care to purchase or even play 20+ games a year
This is the data that matters here.
When you are planing for your budget, your options are limited.
Subscription service removes this limitations, by removing the purchase barrier.

Before you only had selection of games, due to your purchase power. But now with those games available, you have the option to play a lot of games, without spending too much money.

That is the entire point of this topic here.
 

Fredrik

Member
Not sure what your point is. Over the life cycle of consoles of course most people spend more on software, but that cost is spread out over time. Because over the course of 7+ years it totals up to be more than the cost of the console are you suggesting that means people suddenly can't afford it?
You said you wonder how people can afford $400 hardware but not $70 games. I’m saying that frequently buying $70 games is going to be way more expensive than $400, it’s just 6 games, so downplaying the software cost is completely missing the point why people like subscriptions. And it’s not about being poor. You pay less for more. Who doesn’t like that?
As an example Xbox and PS stats said I played 89 games in total in 2022, using the prepayment deals I payed $120 for that. I obviously wouldn’t have bought 89 games if I didn’t use subscriptions but I know that I would’ve bought way more than what I payed for.
 
Last edited:

Petopia

Banned
Everyone is complaining about subscription services and how they dumb down the quality, Innovation etc and many praise them because the option they provide and possibilities. For me subscription services are god send.
The last 6 moths i have saved over 200€, i have played many games that were on my shopping list that i had to delete them after 3-4 hours of gameplay because they were hot garbage or not my taste. If subscription services did not exist I would have bought this games and be forced to play them at least because i bought them, even if i sold them i would lose money. Games like Bioretard, Ass Valhalla, Mortal Shit, Werewolf, Final Fantasy 7 etc.
But also i found good games i would never buy like Control, Like a Dragon, Guardian of the Galaxy etc.

This year i bought only 3 games. Forgotten west and that was waste of time and money ( loved the first one), Elder Ring (completed 3 times with different builds over 300 hours) and God of War (awesome game but it is something that does not entice me to replay it).
In my opinion the combination of subscription services and buying games individually is time and money saver.

Praise Jim and Spencer.
Hot take but I think the opposite cause we all know those who pay for subscription fees cap for the principle due to not completing them on said services like game pass, compared to those who spent money on games cause it costed so much.
 

Sanepar

Member
You can find almost any game in 6-12 months with 50% off or more.

Pay 3-4 full price games per year on a service you own nothing doesn't make sense to me.

Sure if u are a kid with a lot of free time it makes sense.

But if I get my top10 from 2022 the only game available on these services were Plague Tale.

I don't have time for 10 games a year, so these services are a waste of money for me.
 

Ronin_7

Banned
I cancelled both Plus+GPU, got plenty of cash to buy top tier games 👍

Currently subscribed to Disney+ & Netflix on a monthly basis.

That's the only subs I'll keep.
 

RAIDEN1

Member
Everyone is complaining about subscription services and how they dumb down the quality, Innovation etc and many praise them because the option they provide and possibilities. For me subscription services are god send.
The last 6 moths i have saved over 200€, i have played many games that were on my shopping list that i had to delete them after 3-4 hours of gameplay because they were hot garbage or not my taste. If subscription services did not exist I would have bought this games and be forced to play them at least because i bought them, even if i sold them i would lose money. Games like Bioretard, Ass Valhalla, Mortal Shit, Werewolf, Final Fantasy 7 etc.
But also i found good games i would never buy like Control, Like a Dragon, Guardian of the Galaxy etc.

This year i bought only 3 games. Forgotten west and that was waste of time and money ( loved the first one), Elder Ring (completed 3 times with different builds over 300 hours) and God of War (awesome game but it is something that does not entice me to replay it).
In my opinion the combination of subscription services and buying games individually is time and money saver.

Praise Jim and Spencer.
Hmmmm.....I might just check out God of War at cut-price then, rather than paying full whack for it...
 

Iced Arcade

Member
Already have gamepass for another 3 years and just subbed to PS plus extra for a year on my PS5. Subscription works for me because I don't play the same game over and over once I beat it.

Games served with games on top of games with a side of games
 
Last edited:

FoxMcChief

Gold Member
I couldn’t agree more. Already having an Xbox Series X and game pass was golden. I just bought a PS5 with found money, and was thrilled at the library offered with PS+ Extra.

Subscriptions are the future in gaming. Anyone saying otherwise is dragging their feet in the direction of progress.

Currently playing on these subs;

PS5: Demon’s Souls Remake
Series X: High on Life
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Already have gamepass for another 3 years and just subbed to PS plus extra for a year on my PS5. Subscription works for me because I don't play the same game over and over once I beat it.

Games served with games on top of games with a side of games

I couldn’t agree more. Already having an Xbox Series X and game pass was golden. I just bought a PS5 with found money, and was thrilled at the library offered with PS+ Extra.

Subscriptions are the future in gaming. Anyone saying otherwise is dragging their feet in the direction of progress.

Currently playing on these subs;

PS5: Demon’s Souls Remake
Series X: High on Life


Dj Khaled Compliment GIF





Want a game you like on retail that isn't on a service ? buy it or rent it as needed.

Want to play something from a big library any time, libraries which include tons of AAA content as well ? You got the subs to rely on.

Happy gaming.
 
Top Bottom