[everforward]

> Games are so monetized now that some are now borderline (or ought to be considered) gambling. At least there is still some amazing creativity coming from independent development studios.

In their defense, games have gotten an incredible amount larger and more complicated without adjusting the price of the games since the 90's. We're effectively paying half the price we would have in the 90's due to inflation.

I don't know that people would buy them at inflation-adjusted prices. Adjusted from the early 90s, a game would now cost ~$120. And that's discounting the difference in development costs. The latest Call of Duty had a budget of $250M; Ocarina of Time had a budget of $12M, which is ~$21M after adjusting for inflation.

I don't love the direction either, but they have to make money somewhere.

[thejammahimself]

I do understand that argument. Games have certainly gotten much more expensive, which I think is inevitable because the increased computational power of newer consoles is leading to developers wanting to fully utilise this power. I am however skeptical that this has lead to an increase in quality.

I agree that people probably wouldn't buy games at inflation-adjusted prices. People would find it hillarious if a company came forward, and offered a base game at $120 (although we do sometimes see games with addons that cost this much; the Assassin's Creed Valhalla Complete Edition costs nearly £120 (British pounds) but this comparison comes with the caveat that this includes stuff that wasn't in the original base game.) But if micro transactions are considered the consequence of having high-budget games then, frankly, I don't want them. As I said, there are still some incredible games made by independent studios, and these games are often made at a fraction of the price of their AAA counterparts.

I suppose I can't complain too much because my solution is just not to buy, and sink money into high-budget games, and just opt for the smaller budget games.