this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
181 points (100.0% liked)

games

20806 readers
552 users here now

Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.

Rules

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Mario 64 was 60 dollars in 1995 meaning that it would be about 100 dollars today"

Pay has NOT kept up with inflation. People are poorer.

Folk need to stop pretending like people have as much money as they did in the 90s. Rent costs, house prices are astronomical.

Xbox's business is still impacted today by outpricing people with their initial Xbox One reveal pricing a decade ago.

Nintendo Treehouse comments are absolutely packed with people complaining about prices.

Again, I'm vastly aware that game budgets, inflation etc have increased!

but Pay has NOT increased accordingly. I don't know the solution, but that's the reality.

And I make these points as someone who is lucky enough to earn well enough to just buy them regardless. Most aren't as fortunate.

Game bubbles regularly disregard the poor, unfortunately, as the industry has an above-average number of middle-class background workers.

Price increases combined with physical knock effectively prices the poor out of legally gaming (Buying directly from them/the digital store)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Future_Honkey@hexbear.net 20 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don't know why it's a problem consumers should care about. Games are the same price for me on steam as other places so it is worth the price for those companies who choose to host them there.

It's not like if valve took 0% cut we the consumers would see a single dollar of that discount, feel me? So no offense but i disagree that it's something we consumers should spend a single second of thought on.

[–] Enjoyer_of_Games@hexbear.net 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's not like if valve took 0% cut we the consumers would see a single dollar of that discount, f

This is not really true. The steam price is what sets the market price and the developer just pockets a bit more money if you buy it elsewhere. They do not drop the price on other stores due to agreements with steam similar to the Amazon "most favored nation" clause.

Steam's high cut is inflating the price of games right now but is at least delivering a good service in return. Once Gabe kicks the bucket though you'll be longing for GFWL over what steam will have become.

[–] Future_Honkey@hexbear.net 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Sorry, but i don't buy this at all. Steam sets market price? Nah, fam. Show me a link, cuz im too old for vibepinions.

N I'm s'posed to think it follows that if steam went 0% cut the prices of games would drop?

Gimme a damn break. When have you seen this happen?

I know I'm comin hot, but you're whole comment is just bad.

Though you are respectfully speaking, you're also talking out your ass which angers me to no fucking end.

[–] Enjoyer_of_Games@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm only speaking with an element of vagueness as I can't know the exact details of the private agreements and because Valve users subtler methods than the example of Amazon.

We can see some of the contours from the active lawsuits regarding the situation

N I'm s'posed to think it follows that if steam went 0% cut the prices of games would drop?

If distribution costs drop in a competitive market there will be eventually be a corresponding drop in price. Games are not a commodity so you would likely see price drops on some games inside saturated niches while more unique games could retain a higher price.

[–] Future_Honkey@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago

Lol i can't even with this shit. Take it easy mayne, maybe read a lil theory as a treat

[–] FortifiedAttack@hexbear.net 5 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Not really speaking about the consumers but it has a big impact on Indie developers, and I care about those too.

[–] KoboldKomrade@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago

A partly counter, many devs wouldn't have had a chance at reaching "this is my career now" without steam either. Games like Terraria, stardew, gmod, all would not have sold nearly as well without steam.

As a kid/teen, my dad was much more willing to buy from the same service (steam, amazon, fuckin' runescape, whatever) then let me put his cc into minecraft(.)net. My friend grabbed nubby's number factory because he knows he can throw 2 hours into it and get a refund easily (and is definitely keeping it). Even now, I'm much more willing to buy from steam/itch then go to the devs directly, because then its all in one place that I can see. (Vintagestory is a decent example, having to go grab the updates manually, because they had to recreate a distribution system, was annoying.)

Definitely not saying 30% is fair, but 70% of $1,000,000 is better then 90% of $1,000, or $10,000, or $100,000. Taking the hit is worth it for most devs, especially if they can kick start their development credibility. Ultimately, as someone who wants to make some games, the biggest hurdle isn't taking the 30% hit on future sales, its justifying "investing" my current savings on a project that might not make it to steam, or itch, or my friends at all.

The system sucks, it especially sucks when the "solution" is downloading yet another piece of software and supporting the fortnite factory.

[–] mamotromico@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Honestly, every indie dev I see speak on the matter said that the 30% is easily worth it for how much benefits the steam ecosystem offers. Beyond just the storefront (which is better than average on discoverability), you also have systems to easily set regional pricing, APIs for multiplayer integration, friends, invites, achievements, etc.

Of course it would be better if it was lower, but 30% is not unreasonable for how much steams facilitates your work.

[–] Future_Honkey@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago

Fair enough my friend :D