[semitext]

Unfortunately, barring some major unforeseen cultural and/or technological changes, I don't see those days coming back. The issue is that back in the late 80s/early 90s the cost of a new game was $60, and the cost of a new game today is... $60. That is, despite decades of inflation and an increased amount of development cost/time, that price point is stuck. I am not in the game dev industry, but I'm guessing they have loads of market research data explaining why that is that have to do with consumer psychology. While the industry is in a big growth phase that fixed price point isn't an issue because you make it up with an increased volume in sales. Now that the industry is more mature and saturated however, and so one response to the fact that $60 isn't what it used to be is micro-transactions, seasonal DLC passes, and anything else some suits can dream up to get a couple of extra bucks. The other response is indie game development, a back to basics approach where you make a game with a handful of people instead of 60+, and with a clever design and a lot of luck you can have a game that gets a lot of attention and do well for yourself even if your game only costs $30 or $15. Unfortunately, indie games are also saturated at this point, so standing out in the crowd gets harder and harder as time goes by.

The micro-transaction thing really is a sad turn of events though because it is not a content neutral change to games. Certain types of game mechanics are more amenable to to micro-transactions, and it creates an incentive to create artificial difficulty spikes in a game.

[pedrosorio]

> The issue is that back in the late 80s/early 90s the cost of a new game was $60, and the cost of a new game today is... $60

You also mention in your comment that this is not an issue because sales volume has more than made up for it.

If the industry is just now becoming more mature and saturated, "inflation over decades" is not relevant.

Companies are moving to micro-transactions simply because it is now very easy to setup and a guaranteed way to increase revenue. And that's what companies do (optimize for revenue/profit), regardless of inflation.

[EdgarVerona]

I think it's important to distinguish between types of microtransactions. For me, where I draw the line between ethical and unethical is when the microtransaction is built to act like a slot machine, with variable ratio schedule rewards.

If a microtransaction provides a clear indicator of exactly what you're buying and its cost - or even if it doesn't but provides an honest and upfront maximum ceiling for how much you will have to pay to get the item(s) you want - then a consumer can make an honest cost-to-value analysis and decide whether or not to buy the product. And I'm fine with that - though the latter example I'm less fine with, it at least provides a mitigation: an avenue for doing that analysis in a rational way and creating a maximum amount of spend that prevents open-ended cycles of addiction and spending.

A loot box or other fully randomized model has no such financial ceiling, and calculations of expected value have to be performed by users entirely like measuring odds in a casino. And casinos, like video game companies, take advantage of the fact that humans are intrinsically bad at that: and that people can easily become addicted to systems that provide rewards randomly and intermittently. And unlike a casino, we ask both children and adults to try to make that on-the-spot assessment when we talk about loot boxes, which as a society we have found unacceptable for other forms of variable ratio schedule-based transactions.

My thought process is pretty straightforward. If, in order for a product to survive, it has to/tries to trick a user into misunderstanding the cost-to-value of their financial transaction, then the product can't actually stand on its own merits and doesn't deserve to exist. Or the product should admit that it is a casino game: and as such it should be heavily regulated, kept out of the hands of children, and I want nothing to do with it.

[stronglikedan]

Back in the late 80s/early 90s the cost of a new game was only $40, if you were part of the glorious PCMR. Now we're just subsidizing the console plebs.