- Dec 12, 2016
- Reaction score
I think that's pretty unfair, we've had quite a few changes:What has changed in the two recent generations except for a thinner endgame and no Battle Frontier-mechanic? Besides the atrocious Sun/Moon tutorial.
Something that screams "casualization", that is.
- Significantly improved online features in Gen 6 (yes, Gen 7's was terrible, but Gen 6 still has the potential to influence future online)
- A whole new type
- At least a hundred new Pokemon
- Megas and Z-Moves
- Super training and hyper training (which is hardly casual)
Even exaggerating, saying that a 60$ with less content than 40$ games should cost more than it already does is a pretty big statement, I don't know why you think people would brush that off.The $100 number is a bit of an exaggeration I didn't really mean for anyone to latch onto that point.
None of these arguments make sense?But here's my source:
- He says that AAA games cost 60$ in 2005, and maybe that's true for XBox and Playstation (I don't know, I don't play those systems), but I know it wasn't the case for the Nintendo consoles. You can't adjust for inflation on 60$ and get the right price if the game wasn't 60$ to begin with.
- He's saying that what was worth 60$ in 2005 should be worth 75$ now, but he doesn't define why it should be worth 60$ in the first place. Yes, production costs are a factor in price, but that doesn't mean they're the end-all decider, affordability and customer satisfaction are, too. I can't charge 200$ for one sandwich because I used expensive ingredients in it, for example.
- His estimated price is based almost totally on a gut feeling. He gives no sources or stats for where he pulled that number from. Closest he gets is the inflation rate, which is only "60$ in 2005 would be worth 75$ now". How is he deciding that production costs and sales justify that price?
- And even then, he still acknowledges that there's good reason not to raise the price further.