(But it’s also heavily on sale right now, for $15 - https://store.steampowered.com/app/526870/Satisfactory/)
Personally, I don’t mind at all. For one I bought it at $30, but also I have 2,000 hours logged. Per hour that’s a cost of $0.02 per hour (at the new price) if I had bought it at $40. I’m all for calling out studios like ubisoft for being greedy, but coffee stain has done a very fair job with Satisfactory IMO, and they very well deserve $10 more for the game.
That being said, go pick it up now for $15
They are still developing it. Aren’t they? If it’s got more stuff in it than when it originally came out a price increase could make sense.
By that logic any game that gets updated should have its price increase. No Mans Sky should cost like $100.
Yes, and?
Trying to make money from games with long term support is a tricky thing that companies keep trying to do - it can lead to season passes, microtransactions, deluxe/supporter editions, buyable maps and expansions - or stuff like this.
Companies try to get money to support game, more news at eleven…
Maybe games as a service shouldn’t be a thing then. Just a thought.
Well then, devs should be able to increase the price as inflation increases so the equivalent cost stays the same.
I wrote is elsewhere but I’ll write it again here:
Selling the game is the devs income, if everything else costs more and you don’t increase your income you’re just becoming poorer.
Just because you’re doing office work do you believe you shouldn’t get a raise?
Hence why you release a new product. You can’t indefinitely make income from one thing until the end of time.
You can charge more for a new product, as you can actually scale for inflation when you have to make it from the ground up. After all, the tools and manpower it required cost more now. So you can charge more.
But asking for more money for a product that was made half a decade prior, that didn’t cost what it costs now since inflation wasn’t where it is now, isn’t the answer.
Listen, as a general rule of thumb, if even EA and Activision won’t go there, maybe you shouldn’t either.
So they should just stop development on a game that’s still considered early access and leave it in an unfinished state and start working on something else that they can charge more for and just stop working on it once inflation catches up no matter the state it’s in? That’s what you’re saying devs should do?
EA, Activision, Ubisoft don’t do it this way, instead they charge you for all extra content separately.
Maybe that’s what the Satisfactory team should do, release the game as is as being complete, not change the price and then release paid DLC that would otherwise have been updates so in the end people need to pay more to get the full game… Damn, we’re back to square one but now people who already paid for the game also need to pay for updates…