• Zangoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    It doesn’t matter if a $60 game in 2008 is work $88 now if wages haven’t gone up to match that. Did you know that (at least in the US) food prices usually aren’t included in inflation calculations because they fluctuate too much? People have other things to pay for with their wages that aren’t video games, and those costs aren’t going down either.

    • ysjet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Literally nothing ever has stayed in lockstep with wages, that’s not even relevant to the discussion at hand. Not sure why you think video games would be special, especially video games by Nintendo, solijce they’re literally the last ones on the “raise video game prices” train.

      • Zangoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Entertainment is not a necessity, it’s not like people need it to survive. When it doesn’t move with wages people find ways to make it affordable (e.g. piracy, 2nd hand markets, or sharing physical copies with friends), or they find something else (steam, indie games, etc.). Wages are directly responsible for game prices in a lot of ways, and there are pretty good Steam statistics on this as well (which is why a lot of Steam games aren’t priced with 1:1 conversions in different regions, because doing so would basically price entire regions out of buying games).

        Pricing fans out of games is exactly how AAA studios go under. A big AAA game flopping is basically a death sentence for a studio in the current landscape, and if Microsoft isn’t immune to that then Nintendo definitely isn’t.