The “$70+ Games” Argument Loses All Credibility When It Comes From Embracer Group

At some point, you must have pondered it too that video gaming is slowly but surely becoming quite expensive. What with the $70 games and all the DLCs and Season Passes costing extra, it’s getting tough being a gamer. This is precisely why the game subscription services are a godsend. Instead of desperately waiting for sales, you can now pay a small fee for many games in a collection.

However, the fact remains that certain games suffer from overpricing issues when compared to what they offer. Yet, the game companies believe the ceiling can still be raised regarding pricing. The infamous Embracer Group believes even the $70 tag is not enough. Seriously Embracer Group?

Is A Price Hike Acceptable?

Before discussing what exactly Embracer Group is trying to pull here, let’s see where we stand on raising the price first. Forget Embracer and its game for a moment, and consider it in a more general context. Would you be willing to pay more than $70 for AAA games? If you ask me, I think I’ll be leaning more towards “No way.”

Game industry: We need to charge 70 dollars. Games are too expensive to make and we’re not making enough.
byu/GoodVillain101 inTwoBestFriendsPlay

Of course, I have my reasons for saying this. First and foremost is the matter of differentiation. An argument can be made that a game with more content can be sold for more, but how will this “more content” be judged? The way I see it, once a game crosses this $70 threshold, it won’t be long before it becomes the norm, regardless of the content.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in for the “quality over quantity.” I’ll always appreciate a short but extremely well-done game, and criticize a long but repetitive game. Pricing is a different matter though. Even now, I believe certain games didn’t do enough to justify the $70 price tag. However, considering the lengthy development cycles and high production costs of AAA games, it can’t be helped.

I understand that, but that is all the more reason why we need more AA and indies in the meantime of this lengthy development. These short adventures can be created and subsequently sold for less while providing both ample entertainment and be easy on the pocket. Of course, it all comes down to whether the greedy companies will allow something like this.

Indie games seem better than AAA nowadays?
byu/relxp inpcgaming

This brings me to the next point. Video gaming has become so much of a business that a price hike is out of the question if seen from the consumer’s perspective. Even when games are $70, the concepts of live services, microtransactions, battle passes, incomplete games in the guise of “paid post-launch content,” and stuff like this are running amok.

Embracer Group’s Credibility Is Shot

Now, for the second part. For a moment, imagine a game that is so full of quality and creative goodness that it persuades you to spend more than $70. Is that by any chance an Embracer Group game? I don’t think so. Games like The Lords of the Rings: Gollum and Saints Row cannot make a justifiable case.

Has any single company done more damage than Embracer Group to the gaming industry?
byu/TenOunceCan ingaming

If this was any other company, one with a spotless track record and an overwhelming game lineup, I might’ve been persuaded to give it a second thought. But coming from Embracer? The argument loses its entire credibility.

If you must know, Embracer Group is responsible for the damage no other company ever managed to do. When this peculiar giant first arose, it started purchasing studios and IPs like there was no tomorrow. Not a day went by that you didn’t hear “Embracer Group has acquired X studio and Y IP.” This buying spree was already a massive red flag, and as expected, it all backfired.

When Embracer Group’s boundless greed caught up to it and a $2 billion deal fell apart, it was all its subsidiaries that suffered. From canceling beloved games and irreplaceable gems to laying off countless employees, the price of Embracer’s mistakes was paid by the entire industry. Plus, it didn’t help that the conglomerate was responsible for some of the worst games of recent times. It produced bad games and axed good ones.

NEWS: Embracer Group has canceled a Deus Ex video game that was in development for ~2 years and laid off an unspecified number of staff at Eidos Montreal: https://t.co/VU7bmdMULI

— Jason Schreier (@jasonschreier) January 29, 2024

When it still couldn’t escape this hell of its own creation, the company cleverly split but not before throwing all its debt onto a scapegoat. Till the very end, Embracer’s nasty tactics didn’t seize. Thus, there’s no way I can see this current notion as anything more than a heinous, anti-consumer move. Embracer is in so much loss that it’s trying to recover by raising prices. It creates nothing but an unplayable mess and then has the nerve to ask a ridiculous price.

Enough With The Predation

Thus, all I’ll say is that Embracer Group can never justify this argument after what it has done, and no one will ever take it into consideration. A price hike is already a sensitive topic, but coming from Embracer, it can only be seen as a ludicrous tactic.

Comment
byu/SlowReference704 from discussion
inpcmasterrace

Besides, as long as this concept of charging extra for content that should obviously have been a part of the game persists, a price increase is far from acceptable. Even if I’m paying $70, I still have to pay more for the in-game monetizations and extra stuff. Why would I agree to paying more for the base game, while still having to bear these ridiculous additional expenses?

Deliver complete games with no hidden motives, and take out the absurd tactics of “charging extra later on,” and then we can talk.