Is *Red Desert* being used for price comparisons? Are Japanese publishers’ prices really that outrageous?

In this controversy, what concerns me most is not actually “who is more expensive,” but what kind of experience players are really willing to pay for. Price is a lot like whether the effort and return in a relationship are balanced: you don’t have to be cheap, but at the very least, you have to make me feel it’s worth it.

Recently, a user on Tieba made a post questioning whether some Japanese publishers’ games are “low-cost, high-priced,” and even brought up Crimson Desert for comparison, arguing that some Japanese titles consistently sell over 10 million copies per game, yet their development costs are only one-tenth of Crimson Desert’s, while their prices are even higher. As soon as this claim came out, the comments section quickly erupted into debate.

As for the role of games themselves, although this is an industry discussion rather than a specific story analysis, I can clearly feel that what people are arguing about is not just numbers, but “what kind of games I like.” Some prefer the realistic, open-world, long-playtime experience typical of Korean games, while others feel that these kinds of products naturally have a louder presence in the domestic market and are closer to local players’ tastes to begin with.

But what left a deep impression on me was how sincere another group of players sounded. They do not agree that “bigger means better value”; instead, they are increasingly fond of shorter games under 50 hours, with linear progression and semi-open “box garden” design. A finely crafted game like Super Mario Odyssey may seem not “long enough” to those who prefer realistic giant maps; but to another group of players, its compactness, clarity, and reduced aimless wandering feel more like a thoughtfully planned date—comfortable in rhythm and not exhausting.

This is also how I see the question of whether Japanese publishers’ pricing is too high: you can’t judge it only by cost, and you can’t judge it only by map size either. Semi-open, linear, action, narrative—these were never the same kind of approach to begin with. Measuring every game by the same yardstick of “playtime/area/technical spectacle” feels somewhat awkward. But on the other hand, if a game achieves neither design density nor sufficient polish, yet is still sold at a high price, it is completely understandable that players would feel dissatisfied.

Of course, some people in the discussion also poured cold water on the topic, arguing that Crimson Desert itself is fairly mediocre in quality, so using it as a benchmark does not really hold up. This reminder is important, because it shows that player communities today are not easily swayed by a single example. People will push back and ask: is the thing you’re comparing against really persuasive?

If I were to give ordinary players some buying advice, I would put it very directly: don’t let “high or low development cost” set the tone for you right away—first figure out what kind of experience you actually want. Are you after a replayable open world, or a highly polished short-form experience? Do you care more about realistic technology, or level design? Once you’ve thought that through, then look at the price, and your judgment will be much more accurate.

In the end, this heated discussion on Tieba also launched a poll, with a very simple core question: do you agree that “some Japanese games have low production costs but high prices”? In my view, the truly valuable part of this debate is not deciding whether Japanese or Korean publishers come out on top, but getting more players to acknowledge one thing—that the good games we want were never all meant to look the same.