But you haven't explained the reason behind the price increase if games companies are, again, posting record high profits. Why are you talking like you've explained the price increase lol you haven't
-
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.
A discussion on the price increase in the industry
- Thread starter jman1954goat
- Start date
Maybe read my previous reply to you on how games, team sizes and technology behind them have increased?
There's no reason for games to be $70 when so much cost is recouped through micro-transactions, DLC, etc. in the modern age.
On top of that, there's definitely no reason for first-party games on any platform to be $70 given that platform holders like Sony don't have to pay a cut to publish the game.
I remember when everyone thought the advent of digital downloads would make games cheaper to download since they wouldn't have to pay for manufacturing or shipping or retail space. But instead now we see that publishers will always find a way to charge you more and more for less complete games (looking at you Activision).
On top of that, there's definitely no reason for first-party games on any platform to be $70 given that platform holders like Sony don't have to pay a cut to publish the game.
I remember when everyone thought the advent of digital downloads would make games cheaper to download since they wouldn't have to pay for manufacturing or shipping or retail space. But instead now we see that publishers will always find a way to charge you more and more for less complete games (looking at you Activision).
They have increased, but same time industry is making more raw profit than ever before and those too increase year to year. That is also from data before price increase to 70USD / 80euros.
Raw profits and CEO bonuses are going to take strong spike upwards now.
If increase in production costs had negative affect on profit margins we wouldn't have observed year to year constant gains in profits.
Those comments are a reactions to the constant Complaints about pricing which are even more annoying since you have options. You budget, you wait for a sale or you adjust your luxury hobby to a lower-end model like gamepass.
Sony titles are about as high-end in production value as they come. It's luxury goods. Honestly its fine to become a sneakerhead on a budget but if you're gonna complain about the price whenever the new jordan drops then it may not be for you.
Anyone who is poor knows that you have to make choices and like the Era Choir has already said, the choice here is to not buy new games. Yes, I know FOMO is a thing, but you're the only one who can break out of that. I'm usually about a year behind the curve when it comes to games and I'm fine with that. There are so many games available that there's always something to play.
It sucks when prices go up and you're already struggling for money, but that's capitalism and greed for you.
Everything is relative. People are allowed to have opinions on their situation and complain about it, even if they're not living on the streets with bombs flying over their heads.
It sucks when prices go up and you're already struggling for money, but that's capitalism and greed for you.
Everything is relative. People are allowed to have opinions on their situation and complain about it, even if they're not living on the streets with bombs flying over their heads.
Last edited:
I mean, growing profits are also real and a lot higher than both inflation and developpement cost growth.
If anything, I'd say the price of day one games could even drop.
People complain about a couple of frames dropping: ☺️
People complain about games becoming 16% more expensive: 😡
Have either of you actually thought this through? Where does the money come from to create these AAA games? Who puts up that amount of money to create these large AAA games if capitalism and profit isn't involved for shelling out all this money to create it? Why don't they do that now? Why are there so many publishers who handle all this money to fund these AAA games if people would just band together to create their own large scale AAA games? The fact that it doesn't happen now combined with the money involved means these AAA games don't exist unless there is a profit motive involved in the process. The scale, scope, and money involved is just too large for it to happen without profit motivations to be involved.
When or rather if someone says "playing videogames" is a luxury, I would heavily disagree.
But I have to agree with "playing the most expensive kind of game on day one and keeping it" is a luxury.
You can buy R&C on friday, finish it over the weekend, and sell it for at least 50-60€ next week.
If you choose to keep the game, that's a luxury.
Edit: Never mind, the person I was responding to was needlessly vitriolic and I shouldn't dignify it with a response.
All I'll say is that the comparisons to luxuries make less sense when the product remains the same, yet the price still rises, and, in fact, is monetized in more ways than ever before after you've purchased it. It makes zero sense. It's just greed.
All I'll say is that the comparisons to luxuries make less sense when the product remains the same, yet the price still rises, and, in fact, is monetized in more ways than ever before after you've purchased it. It makes zero sense. It's just greed.
Last edited:
Record profits mean that this is accounted for. Small devs aren't going to be the ones pricing their games at this tier, large publishers who are already posting record profits will
Why argue in favor of gaming becoming this type of luxury?
"Surely under a socialist system resources would be devoted to organizing hundreds of people together for two to four years to produce top of the line luxury entertainment experiences that would be distributed freely to the masses."
To which someone will rebut that this is a Strawman and that games don't have to be massive AAA projects.
To which I will respond: Absolutely correct. So why are you complaining about the AAA games being $70 when there are cheaper (often better) games available now, and whose purchase will go to the individuals behind the game, as opposed to the publisher, that you could be buying instead?
To which someone will rebut that this is a Strawman and that games don't have to be massive AAA projects.
To which I will respond: Absolutely correct. So why are you complaining about the AAA games being $70 when there are cheaper (often better) games available now, and whose purchase will go to the individuals behind the game, as opposed to the publisher, that you could be buying instead?
Gaming has always been that type of luxury. If you hadn't noticed, perhaps you're coming from a place of privilege. Which makes the sudden outrage seem far less genuine.
This is a childish argument imo. There are so many alternatives to dealing with the 15% increase.
1. Don't buy at full price
2. Rent the game (GameFly)
3. Buy used
4. Buy old (PS4)
5. Switch to another console (Series X/S)
6. Buy Nintendo games ($60)
7. Update your budget
Take is from someone in their 30s, don't feel pressure to buy everything that is brand new. Be patient. There are gamers that know damn well they aren't getting a new console until their is a price drop. It can wait.
1. Don't buy at full price
2. Rent the game (GameFly)
3. Buy used
4. Buy old (PS4)
5. Switch to another console (Series X/S)
6. Buy Nintendo games ($60)
7. Update your budget
Take is from someone in their 30s, don't feel pressure to buy everything that is brand new. Be patient. There are gamers that know damn well they aren't getting a new console until their is a price drop. It can wait.
User Warned: Antagonizing Other Member
This post is gross, you sound like and asshole.
If game development are getting expensive then why do third party devs still doing exclusives or timed exclusives. Is it better to let be available on all platforms that can run it? Or the amount of $$$$ given to them is more than the amount of money they will make on other platforms?
what actions do you envision, because apparently "don't buy games at $70, wait 'til they're cheaper" is lame-ass garbage from corporate bootlickers who look down upon the poor (????????????)
I don't think a game being $70 is the problem, I think the problem is that for consoles at retail, for the longest time the industry has normalised the idea of a controlled price for a "real" game. This isn't a natural thing and not something you actually see across the board. Look at any digital storefront, or the pricing for other types of toys or hobby stuff. Usually there's a broad spectrum of prices. Ideally games shouldn't feel that they need to cost [x] just to be seen as a "full game" or to go into retail.
When consumers can see the sort of value you can get for a 10 dollar game, a 15 dollar game, a 20 dollar game, a 30 dollar game, a 45 dollar game, a 55 dollar game, a 70 dollar game, or a 100 dollar game, and differentiate between what it means for them and what they might prefer, then it is far easier to make informed choices based on value and preference.
A company wanting to release a 70 dollar game is fine, but if someone feels it isn't worth 70 dollars there shouldn't be this societal pressure to conform and excuse it because "that's how much all games cost anyway."
Haven't bought a physical game in quite a while now, here's what I've been spending on games in the past few months:
$1 Game Pass PC (new trial subscription):
- Ori 2
- Doom Eternal
- Jedi Fallen Order
$14 Game Pass PC (forgot to unsubscribe, doh!)
- Star Wars Squadron
- Tetris Effect
$23 Judgment PS4 on PS Store
$36 Persona 5 Strikers on PS Store (sale)
$12 Dragon's Crown Pro on PS Store (sale)
$10 Picross S6 eShop
$50 Half-Life Alyx Steam
$10 Thrill of the Fight Oculus Store
$30 The Climb 2 Oculus Store
$40 Lone Echo Oculus Store
With this range of pricing, it's really easy to say no to new games coming out at $70-80 unless I really want to play them right now and have been looking forward to them.
When consumers can see the sort of value you can get for a 10 dollar game, a 15 dollar game, a 20 dollar game, a 30 dollar game, a 45 dollar game, a 55 dollar game, a 70 dollar game, or a 100 dollar game, and differentiate between what it means for them and what they might prefer, then it is far easier to make informed choices based on value and preference.
A company wanting to release a 70 dollar game is fine, but if someone feels it isn't worth 70 dollars there shouldn't be this societal pressure to conform and excuse it because "that's how much all games cost anyway."
Haven't bought a physical game in quite a while now, here's what I've been spending on games in the past few months:
$1 Game Pass PC (new trial subscription):
- Ori 2
- Doom Eternal
- Jedi Fallen Order
$14 Game Pass PC (forgot to unsubscribe, doh!)
- Star Wars Squadron
- Tetris Effect
$23 Judgment PS4 on PS Store
$36 Persona 5 Strikers on PS Store (sale)
$12 Dragon's Crown Pro on PS Store (sale)
$10 Picross S6 eShop
$50 Half-Life Alyx Steam
$10 Thrill of the Fight Oculus Store
$30 The Climb 2 Oculus Store
$40 Lone Echo Oculus Store
With this range of pricing, it's really easy to say no to new games coming out at $70-80 unless I really want to play them right now and have been looking forward to them.
Last edited:
I get that games are entertainment media and non-essential, but it sucks that so many are fine to defend the practice of arbitrary price increases so CEOs can get their fourth yacht.
I dunno, are you sure? Why wouldn't they just take less money?
Why on earth would any publisher make an exclusive or timed exclusive if the amount paid to them differed much from what they would make otherwise?
I think you should stop reading at surface level. This is from Sony's last quarter report:
" Total expenses were ¥2,158.8 billion, up 25.8% year over year. Overall operating income was ¥66.5 billion, up 87.5%."
Also, note that the jump in revenues in some of the tech companies, especially gaming companies is not going to be consistent as there was a huge boost due to the pandemic and people were staying home. Also, this is the beginning of a new gen, always comes with hype and more revenue.
Lastly, successful games doesn't mean their next game will also be equally bought. The price increase is more of an aggregate driven business move to factor in costs, I previously mentioned. Gaming industry is one of most volatile industries that that's why we see layoffs and closures all the time.
Whether one likes it or not, the price increase was a long time coming and others might soon follow. The only other way to generate good revenue for games is to go freemium/GAAS model, which is what you see all around. Single player games cannot sustain that way.
These could have been my words in most parts , only that I've drawn the line of impulse territory already at 50€ when they made 59,99€ the new standard for PC games and even games I seriously want, I won't pay 60 EUR for it and rather wait it out.
It's not like I'm ever not going to have something to play so I'm fine with waiting.
First gaming is a luxury and no one needs to wait day one. PS5 is a new console, the sales will go deeper from year 3. I think for poor people from year 3, this is better to buy a PS5. The Year 1 and year 2 games will be heavily dicounted.
And there is a difference of price between digital and physical, this is better to buy your game physical this is cheaper.
At least in UK, PS5 player buy more physical game than PS4 player.
If someone is poor but he can buy a current gen consoles, this is better to buy an Xbox Series with Gamepass.
And there is a difference of price between digital and physical, this is better to buy your game physical this is cheaper.
At least in UK, PS5 player buy more physical game than PS4 player.
If someone is poor but he can buy a current gen consoles, this is better to buy an Xbox Series with Gamepass.
Not really. There were production costs to account for, when those went down, so did game prices. Pricing standardized from there.
Well, yes. But it in the end it is their product to sell and they will keep increasing prices as long as people keep buying them. Unfortunately.
It's fine, like I said, you come to the conclusions you want to. You surely must agree that anyone who's on a tight budget will have to change how they play in order to continue, if said hobby gets to be that bit more expensive, right? I mean, that's common sense and actual reality..
Length of the game is absolutely important for me when I consider buying it. I'd never pay $70 for a 10-hour game, no matter how good it looks when I can buy games like The Witcher 3 for $10 right now. I'm willing to pay $70 only for big AAA games with at least 50-60 hours of content.
I don't know why games don't get priced according to their lengths. If you go to Amazon, you'll see that books are priced depending on the word count: novellas and short stories generally cost less and novels cost more. I think that's fair and should be applicable to games too.
I don't know why games don't get priced according to their lengths. If you go to Amazon, you'll see that books are priced depending on the word count: novellas and short stories generally cost less and novels cost more. I think that's fair and should be applicable to games too.
Maybe because they can resell the £70 games they are purchasing.
More active boycotts. Outreach and open dialog with publishers. Efforts to inform and educate the public (something clearly needed going by this thread). Other things I'm not thinking of that others might think up.
You know. The kind of things that require the kind of conversations some people in here are weirdly desperate to shut down.
I don't think it's that straightforward. There is quality to consider as well. Would you rather play a high quality 20 hour something game? Or a 60 hour title padded with similar quests as fillers?
I just wanted to pre-order Ratchet and man.. thats just crazy.. 80€ is the price!! remeber preordering old Ratchet on PS4 for 50€ thats 60% increase in price ... sorry but thats no go for me.. already bought Spiderman for 70€ and Daemons Souls for 70€ at launch ... this is just insane here in EU
Absolutely. Doesn't mean we can't judge shitass decisions from multimillion dollar corporations
This whole thread just further proves for me how insane value Game Pass is
I KNOW it won't happen but just imagine having R&C on PS Plus day one
I KNOW it won't happen but just imagine having R&C on PS Plus day one
I know this is going to sound insane, but, then DO NOT buy the game. At the very least, do not buy the game on day one and wait for neutral reviews. Are you trolling?
Of course there's quality to consider, too: that's applicable to books, too. There are short novelettes that are better than 500-page novels, but you generally won't see a short story priced as a novel. With longer games, you can read reviews and watch demos to make sure it isn't padded with meaningless content, but pricing a short game like a long one makes no sense to me, no matter how good it supposedly is.
So revenue is… up? Lmao do you really think 60 dollar price point is unsustainable for games?
User Warned: Platform Warring
70 euro games are SOUL CRASHING in southern europe where I live
Btw hadnt realised how pro sony this forum is.
All nintendo criticism threads about games hardware policies are balanced but here i see mostly people that vouch for sony and tell people to just wait a year etc
Btw hadnt realised how pro sony this forum is.
All nintendo criticism threads about games hardware policies are balanced but here i see mostly people that vouch for sony and tell people to just wait a year etc
The whole "corprate bootlicker" branding you get on this board just for having a different perspective has gotten out of control in general but when it involves a fairly frivolous/non-essential hobby (in the grand scheme of things, letsjustbereal) like video games and not food/shelter it comes off so disingenuous.
It might be a hot take, but IMHO, those who can buy games for full price at launch without question are either above the average income range and don't have any debt, or nothing to do in their life other than video games and don't have any responsibility.
But guess what, people don't always buy things that they really need. So.. people buy games for $70 are not crazy af, but people who say $70 is too much are a lot more rational and objective. Video games are becoming more niche and enthusiastic hobby I guess.
But guess what, people don't always buy things that they really need. So.. people buy games for $70 are not crazy af, but people who say $70 is too much are a lot more rational and objective. Video games are becoming more niche and enthusiastic hobby I guess.
Games should be priced according to the budget, not lenght. You don't need hundreds of people to write a book.
Sony games will probably be $10 or free on PS+ when they are as old as TW3.
Arguing that poor people can't afford it is just weak. There's a giga crapton of good games at wildly different price points on multiple platforms these days, and they also regularly put them on sale or dish out big games for FREE.
"Can no longer afford 10 AAA games at release a year, du-" BIG DEAL
"Can no longer afford 10 AAA games at release a year, du-" BIG DEAL
