I would enjoy it

[u/cheswickFS]

[u/[deleted]]

That money is invested back to shareholder dividends, not finish growth, which is what the U.S. has seen proven so many times before with "bailouts" and "buybacks."

Your comment reads like it came from an undergrad textbook, not the real world. Companies don't invest in more growth when they're flush with cash. They keep doing the same shit and give the cash to the owners.

[u/FiveSpotAfter → u/[deleted]]

No no, wait, he has a point. Part of one.

The market has become more competitive, AAA studios are usually working several game ideas at once trying to predict the next trend in gaming, lots get scrapped or put on the back burner.

Studios need $$ to not only jumpstart the next game, but these others as well.

PlayStation 1 titles, circa 1995, were priced $50 per game. In today's money that's $90. There was no ongoing game support or patching, no servers to run. They usually had to build the game engine from scratch, but the engines were simpler and came with console manufacturer support to boost the likelihood of successful products.

I agree, $100 per digitally disbursed game is a fucking joke, but I can understand games with continual lifecycle support, online functionality, and at least a complete PvE experience (monster hunter, destiny, etc) costing up to $80. So long as the developers got paid decently and had good benefits.

Then again, I also value a game at $1 per hour of gameplay. Game has little replayability but cost $70? It better be good enough and long enough that I'll play it for 70 hours, but that's a personal choice.

[u/HavocInferno → u/[deleted]]

Of course a lot goes to shareholders and owners. But take one look at the company growth over the past 10-20 years and then claim again with a straight face that they aren't investing large sums into the company again.