-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Is it time for games to start costing $70+ new????!?????
- Thread starter Vex
- Start date
It's worth noting that many games nowadays make MORE money from MTX than from the base price of the game. A bunch of these companies could lower, or even eliminate, the up front cost of most games and still make huge profits
OP
OP
I feel like that is why the season pass or GaaS system was created. It was created specifically because they knew raising the standard asking price could have caused issues. So enter: the "cut content age" where people complained about content being cut from the game (remember SFxT??) and reintroduced for a price. And now look at where that got us.
You do realize the people who run these companies will just keep treating their workers the same and they'll pocket the extra $10, right?
Surely you can't be that naive.
And it won't stop microtransactions ans lootboxes either. There's no reason to.
Surely you can't be that naive.
And it won't stop microtransactions ans lootboxes either. There's no reason to.
The OP also assumes that that crunch is desperately needed for these games to make money. However publishers are recording record profits year after year. And guess where all that extra money is going? Definitely not towards the development teams. At least not at the same proportion as these CEOs are making.
No, they were created because companies don't just want to make money, they don't just want to be profitable, they want to be as profitable as possible. As long as mtx make boatloads of money they will never go away no matter the base game price
except they did raise the price when dlc became a thing. games used to cost 50 dollars during the ps2 and were raised to 60 during the ps3
This is the only way we will see 1080p 60fps with no hiccups or screen tearing. Way less dithering at this price as well if my calculations are correct.
Yes and it's still more expensive because we get paid less. So I don't see the point you're making.I hate it when Canadian users make this argument:
Games are 92 bucks with taxes up here in Canada so adding another 10 bucks would bring AAA games over a 100 bucks in Canada...I mean c'mon man ;)
Welcome to Europe! And 69,99€ are 78,35$ ! It's pretty crazy to buy a game digital at MSRP in Europe.
Last edited:
Yeah even though we're now getting games all the time that pretty much just do what SFxT did, it was bumpy at first.
The explosion of F2P games changed the perception of the medium from being a buy once and you're done affair into something much more flexible and standard retail AAA releases have reaped some rewards from that as well.
OP
OP
Holy shit you guys are fuckedWelcome in Europe! And 69,99€ are 78,35$ ! It's pretty crazy to buy a game digital at MSRP in Europe.
The video game industry is making massive amounts of money while still somehow calling their products "disappointments" and treating their employees like complete garbage. Their profits aren't the issue here.
Those aren't real dollars tho :p
I'm not American, I live in Europe[/spoiler[
So, if they already 'raised' the price of the game via MTX, Season Passes and GaaS economies, why they haven't raised the devs salary yet? or stopped exploiting them? Spoiler: Because they've no interest on doing any of that no matter how much money they make per game
I can understand the justification for making them be more money.
But straight up, $60 is already so much money for one video game. It's just a lot of money. It's a good chunk of my paycheck, which mostly evaporates anyway. I can rarely, rarely justify buying a game new, and this would turn this into basically never. It's just too much money, I'm sorry. Like, no matter how you slice it, $60 is a lot of money to most people. It's even worse for people in other countries.
Plus there's the issue that companies are already rigorously trying to focus on profits over employees. Raising the prices of games would just go straight to CEO bank accounts. That's simplifying it a bit, but not practically wrong.
But straight up, $60 is already so much money for one video game. It's just a lot of money. It's a good chunk of my paycheck, which mostly evaporates anyway. I can rarely, rarely justify buying a game new, and this would turn this into basically never. It's just too much money, I'm sorry. Like, no matter how you slice it, $60 is a lot of money to most people. It's even worse for people in other countries.
Plus there's the issue that companies are already rigorously trying to focus on profits over employees. Raising the prices of games would just go straight to CEO bank accounts. That's simplifying it a bit, but not practically wrong.
No. We're already paying more than enough for games.
They're already just over $90 here after taxes. I'm not paying more. And if they do go up, I'll buy fewer games or wait longer.
They're already just over $90 here after taxes. I'm not paying more. And if they do go up, I'll buy fewer games or wait longer.
No, the base price of games should not increase. They're already effectively more than that given the amount of nickel and diming that goes on with DLC, loot boxes, etc, and it's not my responsibility to further line publishers pockets.
Increasing the prices would do nothing to alleviate crunch. Without developers having collective bargaining power, publishers are almost always going to choose more profit over better rights for workers.
Increasing the prices would do nothing to alleviate crunch. Without developers having collective bargaining power, publishers are almost always going to choose more profit over better rights for workers.
Wouldn't care as I'd still continue my practice of only buying stuff day one if it's stuff I know I'll play day one or if it's an LE I want and thus am spending more on anyway.
Conversely, maybe split the single player and multiplayer parts of games up for me. Some games I have zero interest in multiplayer, so I'd be more likely to buy them earlier.
Conversely, maybe split the single player and multiplayer parts of games up for me. Some games I have zero interest in multiplayer, so I'd be more likely to buy them earlier.
As always, hell no. Companies are making far more than they ever have, games being $60 still isn't an issue, and it never has been. We have microtransactions, DLC, "Deluxe" and "Gold" editions that are frequently $80 and $100+ dollars, subscriptions, etc. I would say at this point in time $60 is asking a little to much considering how little everyone gets paid these days. (speaking just for the US, if it isn't clear)
No amount of raising the base price would help employees, and you would still see the microtransactions and every thing else regardless. The games industry is at peak capitalism. Record profits and shitting on employees is the name of the game.
No amount of raising the base price would help employees, and you would still see the microtransactions and every thing else regardless. The games industry is at peak capitalism. Record profits and shitting on employees is the name of the game.
I think it's time every game costs 50 million USD.
Think about it. You only need to sell about 2 copies to break more than even.
It's so simple
Think about it. You only need to sell about 2 copies to break more than even.
It's so simple
OP
OP
That's a good point.
This is hilarious lmao. only millionaires can play!
If we accept $70 games, we will get $70 games + season pass + microtransactions.
Is it time for this thread to stop popping up once a week?
On-topic: no, for all the reasons already explained. It's not a magical solution.
On-topic: no, for all the reasons already explained. It's not a magical solution.
The thing about corporate greed is that there is no upper limit at which point they'll be satisfied and decide to give back. It's just an all consuming machine designed to keep trying to get more and more money more and more quickly forever
as someone who used to be in gamedev, the prices *need* to raise. It's pretty painfully obvious to anyone involved that $60 is an outdated price tag. Pristine, AAA experiences lacking in Microtransactions/etc should be fairly priced at an $80 premium IMO. I'm not in biz dev or finance though so what do I know, lol.
A meaningless point. It's still more expensive for a Canadian to buy a game at the end of the day, and it would be that more expensive with the price hike of OP.
Why not lower back to $50? I find even $60 a steep price when there are so many great games out there for so much less. Gaming is getting so rich and diverse its getting tougher and tougher to invest lots of time/money into just 1 game. Also prices plummet. I just bought three $70 LABO kits for $20 each last month. I probably would have bought each one at $50 on day 1 but $70 was a joke.
If we could go back to games being complete on release. Not the dlc mtx fuck fest we have now...
Sure. I was fine with the raise to $60, I would've been fine with $70. We're past that now. The way they monetize games now they make enough, I don't want to increase it even more and then still get MTX to death.
Sure. I was fine with the raise to $60, I would've been fine with $70. We're past that now. The way they monetize games now they make enough, I don't want to increase it even more and then still get MTX to death.
Game devs will not get a single extra penny if the prices were raised. Additionally keep in mind that the most profitable AAA game on the market right now costs literally nothing in terms of up front costs