> Most of what used to go to the retailer apparently goes to the console maker now ($7/60 vs $18/60), so the studio hasn't really gotten much of a benefit from digital.
There isn't any less microtransactions and loot boxes on PC, even with PC-only games, where you can sell directly to customers without any store or platform cut - and most big publishers do just that. All these additional money grabs have one reason only: because they can get away with it and make more profit. If selling games for more than $60 was more profitable they would do that too.
> And costs are astronomically higher.
Only because AAA publishers choose to chase photorealistic graphics. Why? So that they can appeal to more customers, making them more money. Yet again and again there are games (mostly from independent studios) that proove that graphics are not the most important thing to many players.
> It's ludicrous to assume that in the cut-throat gaming market (unless it's the 1000th iteration of a franchise) game developers are looking to increase the price "just because they can".
It's ludicrous to believe AAA publishers' claims that games are not profitable when their CEOs can pull in $150 mil [0]
> The main reason there are no more mid-market games (i.e. between AAA franchises and indie small-scales) is that it is absolutely not profitable or sustainable.
There are mid-market games, they are just not as profitable as AAA franchises so most big pusblishers avoid them.
There isn't any less microtransactions and loot boxes on PC, even with PC-only games, where you can sell directly to customers without any store or platform cut - and most big publishers do just that. All these additional money grabs have one reason only: because they can get away with it and make more profit. If selling games for more than $60 was more profitable they would do that too.
> And costs are astronomically higher.
Only because AAA publishers choose to chase photorealistic graphics. Why? So that they can appeal to more customers, making them more money. Yet again and again there are games (mostly from independent studios) that proove that graphics are not the most important thing to many players.
> It's ludicrous to assume that in the cut-throat gaming market (unless it's the 1000th iteration of a franchise) game developers are looking to increase the price "just because they can".
It's ludicrous to believe AAA publishers' claims that games are not profitable when their CEOs can pull in $150 mil [0]
> The main reason there are no more mid-market games (i.e. between AAA franchises and indie small-scales) is that it is absolutely not profitable or sustainable.
There are mid-market games, they are just not as profitable as AAA franchises so most big pusblishers avoid them.
[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/activision-blizzard-pulls-...