So like an early access game that requires constant work to fix bugs and add content?
No, not like that. Maintaining a massive service like Netflix isn’t comparable to updating and bug fixing an indie project.
Even you said that Minecraft did the same
I’m specifically referring to using inflation as a cover. I’ve said multiple times that it’s fine for these projects to increase the price if they feel they’ve added enough content to warrant it. That’s what Minecraft did.
and I'm sure I can find plenty of early access games that did the same
That used inflation as an excuse to increase an existing game’s price? Go for it.
Either way, the fact that only two indie games in the entire industry are the only two to do this sort of proves my point. Sooo why would I be angry? Hell, I already own Satisfactory lol. But oh well, good luck to ya.
Hosting costs and labor costs aren't equivalent to the costs of building a game from the ground up.
And no, dlc isn’t the equivalent of bug fixes and updates lol. Factorio is a great example of that - they increased the price arbitrarily and plan on releasing a paid dlc.
Paid subscription services increase because constant work has to consistently be put into them at a regular rate. There is no end point. It’s not as if a subscription server is “finished” and then only requires small updates and bug fixes - it’s a constant thing that requires endless man power and resources to keep afloat.
There’s a massive different between Netflix and Oblivion lol.
And in what world is everyone doing the same? The literal only other game to increase the price of a game over half a decade old has been Factorio. Literally nobody else, not even the scummiest publishers in the space, have done this.
Regardless, as I’ve said, it’d be more than fine if the price was increased due to an official launch, or even if they just felt that they’d added enough content to justify it. But hiding behind inflation is scummy imo, and makes me regret supporting them in the first place.
Tbh I feel it’s totally worth the price, and if they said that they increased the price due to the added value since releasing into ea I’d be totally fine with it. But using inflation as a cover, like the Factorio devs before them, is gross and deceptive. Hell, I’d rather them just say “we want more money”. At least that’s honest.
Like I said, it’s fine if they want to increase the price due to an official release, or simply because they feel there has been significant value added since launching into early access. Lots of devs do that, it’s not a big deal. But none of them lie about inflation somehow affecting an existing digital good in any meaningful way. Well again, except Factorio lol. But that guy also excused statutory rape so…
If you unironically think No Man’s Sky should cost over $100 now I can’t help you. The fact that it doesn’t, the fact that no game released over a decade ago does, should be all the evidence you need.
If EA or Activision genuinely thought your take had any weight they’d be charging over $100 for all of their older titles. Thank god not everyone is as braindead as the Satisfactory fan base seems to be…
This isn’t about the price going up. This is about the explanation as to why. If it were due to the amount of content added since it released into ea, or due to an upcoming official launch, that’d be fine. But using the Factorio “inflation” excuse isn’t it.
Other industries follow the same standard. Buying a movie on Amazon that released in ‘95 doesn’t cost 100’s more dollars today than it did back then due to inflation. Like I said, digital goods aren’t affected in the same way that physical goods are.
No you’re right, Minecraft did do that. At least they didn’t hide behind inflation though, they simply increased the price as content was added.
Regardless, office pay has next to nothing to do with this. The consumer doesn’t directly pay the worker’s salary. The worker makes the product, the consumer buys the product, end of transaction.
Pay is handled by the studio. If the devs want a pay increase, which is more than deserved, then the studio needs to find the funds for that. If they don’t have the funds then they need to create more product. Simple as. Artificially boosting the price of existing products isn’t the answer.
Again, it’d be like if CDPR decided Cyberpunk was suddenly worth $90 after the 2.0 update. That’d be silly.
Look, I don’t mean to be a dick but unless your reading comprehension is abysmal you’re purposefully misunderstanding my point.
Like I said,
That’s very different than deciding to increase the price arbitrarily in the middle of developing an early access title that’s been in development for 5 years, and isn’t releasing officially yet.
I’m okay with how Minecraft did things. Same with titles like BG3, Hades, Shovel Knight, and countless others. This is different, and if you can’t understand that after I laid it out twice for you then it’s clear you’re not arguing in good faith.
Again, there’s literally no reason for you to believe that this price increase somehow means you’ll never have to pay for dlc. Have you never heard of Factorio?
And for the record, like with your Minecraft example, I’m not against devs charging less for Early Access versions, alphas, betas, etc, and charging more for the finished product when it fully launches. That’s a very common practice, in fact it’s the standard.
That’s very different than deciding to increase the price arbitrarily in the middle of developing an early access title that’s been in development for 5 years, and isn’t releasing officially yet.
So you’re saying that because of that, all things must also rise in price, just inherently?
By your logic any movie released decades ago should cost far more now than it did back then, right? To rent or buy, it should be infinitely more. What about games from the 90’s or 00’s? They should be far more expensive.
Why don’t I have to pay 100’s of dollars every time I watch A Clockwork Orange? Why doesn’t it cost hundreds of dollars to play the original Half-Life? After all, counting for inflation they should all cost far, far more than they currently do. Actually take a second and think about it.
Why do you think buying a digital copy of something is cheaper than buying a brand new, physical copy? Because each physical copy had to be built from the ground up, taking all new materials to do so, whereas the digital copies can effectively be infinitely reproduced. They’re not affected in the same way.
Nope, they decided to accept purchases for a game that isn’t finished, and in doing so promised that one day it would be. If they stop now they’ll just be scammers.
They should do what Larian did. Release the game in EA, develop the game with those new purchases helping to keep things going, then release it when it’s complete. No artificially changing the price, no bs.
And in what world has what we’ve gotten from free Satisfactory updates constituted would-be paid dlc? Or are you just using hypotheticals that aren’t relevant?
Hence why you release a new product. You can’t indefinitely make income from one thing until the end of time.
You can charge more for a new product, as you can actually scale for inflation when you have to make it from the ground up. After all, the tools and manpower it required cost more now. So you can charge more.
But asking for more money for a product that was made half a decade prior, that didn’t cost what it costs now since inflation wasn’t where it is now, isn’t the answer.
Listen, as a general rule of thumb, if even EA and Activision won’t go there, maybe you shouldn’t either.
