Battlefield 2042 is $60 right now. One of my friends on Steam plays Battlefield 2042 and I thought hey, that would be pretty cool to play with him. I’m sure it wouldn’t be that much because that game came out a long time ago and was extremely poorly received and like, I’m sure it would be really easy to buy that game or get it now since it’s been so long and again, very low reviews. The game is $60!! But when it goes on sale, it’s like 8$, so 80% off. Truly unbelievable. Why do they do this? Like, they’re basically trying to kill the game or something because no one in their right mind would pay $60 for this game, so 90% of the time when it’s not on sale, no one buys it or wants to try it out… Also, lots of old games that are “on sale” constantly for like $5 and the base price is 40-60$, so it makes it seem like SUCH a good deal, when in reality, the value has just depreciated…
They never seem to lower the base cost of anything, making it deceptive. Is it really 80% off of a $60 game if no one in their right f*cking mind would pay that much for it ever?
I get the concept behind it. But it just seems so predatory that older games never depreciate in value. Back in the olden days of GameStop, they would adjust prices. An old game was reduced in price after a certain time since it’s no longer new.
Now, that’s no longer the case. Valve seems to be the only one that does this, as an exception. Left 4 Dead 2 is now $10 standard and that’s not some crazy percentage off discount. That’s just the base price now. Other games though are silly as hell with the pricing. Battlefield games are the most obvious. Priced at a full $60, but the value plummets to $8 when on sale. Why don’t they reprice it to $30 and then on sale for $8? Seems less psychologically manipulative
I agree that it’d be nice if they depreciated in value like in the days of physical media.
In those days though, the store only has a certain amount of shelf space. So in that sense it makes sense that they depreciated because a new game is always going to have a higher perceived value.
Digital storefronts don’t have that problem. The game can be shared infinitely without accruing a ton of publishing costs. There’s always more shelf space.
In this sense, there’s no financial motivation to depreciate. And we all know the social responsibility of big companies will be to only do what they’re forced to do.
We often feel games ought to depreciate because that’s how it’s always been. But just because that’s how it’s always been doesn’t mean that’s how it always will be.
Battlefield is an interesting case though where each game in the franchise is highly derivative of the previous game. So if each new game is essentially an upgrade of the previous one, then I’d agree that there should be an expectation that the older version is less expensive.
The same could be said about many of the giant titles. Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed, and most major sports games come to mind.
One final thing to think of is that many games have continuing development. It’s basically the early access model (a whole other can of worms), and you could argue that many of these games appreciate in value. Some notables have - Factorio comes to mind.
I don’t think Battlefield 2042 falls into that category though