• Light/Dark
  • 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.

Are you prepared for the possibility of paying $70 for games next gen?

Reader mode
ggx2ac

ggx2ac

Sales Heaven or Sales Hell?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,504
Update:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13575/sony-releases-128-gb-bdr-xl-media

This article came out a month after this thread. It goes into detail what is needed to run a 128GB BDXL Disc so click the link.

Here's the cost of the actual product:
Sony is about to start selling the industry's first 128 GB write-once BD-R XL optical media. The discs will also be the first quad-layer BDXL media formally aimed at consumers, but bringing benefits to professionals that use BDXL today.

...

Sony will start shipments of its BD-R XL 128 GB media on the 10th of November. Single-disc packages (BNR4VAPJ4) will retail for ¥1,500 ($13), a pack of three (3BNR4VAPS4) will cost ¥3,900 ($34), whereas a pack of five (5BNR4VAPS4) will be priced at ¥6,000 ($53). The discs should be compatible with drives supporting the BDXL spec, though a firmware update may be needed regardless.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Original:

Recently there was a tweet from WSJ journalist Takashi Mochizuki that Sony will be releasing Quad layer Blu-ray discs with 128GB of storage on November 10th. This highlights the need to deal with storage for games with 4K assets currently not able to fit on a dual layer Blu-ray disc.



Considering games went from $50 to $60 in the jump to HD Gaming. It seems possible that another price increase could happen to deal with the jump to 4K gaming as it becomes standard with next gen consoles and increases development costs.

Are you prepared to pay $70 for games if it happens?
 
Last edited:
ReyVGM

ReyVGM

Author - NES Endings Compendium
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
5,438
Not gonna happen. Companies would rather fleece you with DLC and microtransacctions than increase the entry price.
 
Shan

Shan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,963
Already paying 79,99$. Though I guess here it could boost to 89,99$ per games... x_x
 
Josh5890

Josh5890

I'm Your Favorite Poster's Favorite Poster
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
23,229
I don't pay 60 dollars for games now so no i wont pay 70
 
DailyCalmSpirit

DailyCalmSpirit

Banned
May 17, 2018
3,454
Nah, I'm barely ok with paying $60. I've maybe done that twice this year, alone.

Imma need them to find a way to make them cheaper.
 
JeffGubb

JeffGubb

Giant Bomb
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
842
It will never be that simple again. Pricing is a thousand times more sophisticated than it was in 2005. It's about lifetime value and average revenue per user and a million other metrics that you chip away at with limited editions, add-on content, and digital items in an ongoing service.

It'll never just go up to $70 ....

Unless some crazy currency shit happens and everyone understands the dollar is worthless because of some action of the government and, "oh, well. We didn't want to raise prices, but y'all needed to MAGA."
 
Trigonometrize

Trigonometrize

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,143
I'm going to continue paying $40 or less regardless most of the time, so I guess the real cost would be getting to play games maybe a month or so later, maybe? Oh no, woe is me
 
Derrick01

Derrick01

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,289
Only if they're prepared to kiss my ass. Then I'll consider it.

They're already pillaging people's wallets and making record profits. I know they'll eventually try to do something even worse, because capitalism demands it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to play along.
 
JustTom

JustTom

Member
May 28, 2018
1,446
Germany...
Well, where I come from, it usually is 69.99€, and I don't see it being raised to 79.99€ (maybe I think it is a ridiculously high price for a game). However, it doesn't affect me, tbh. I'm beyond the point where I buy games day one. I always have something to play, so I usually wait for prices to drop to 35€ or less :)
 
kennyamr

kennyamr

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,587
New York, NY, USA
(I am talking about the US market specifically)

I don't think we will see the default retail price for video games going up any time soon.
I think that so far the "premium" editions are enough to cover the cost.
My guess is that they don't want to make video games even less accessible than it is now.
A big chunk of the market is young people that still depend on their parents to afford games.
If they want to keep expanding the market, they have to keep it relatively "accessible" and therefore at least at the same price.
 
ODDI

ODDI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,336
Hopefully a $60, 1080p, 50gb pleb version of a game is still a thing next gen.
 
Courage

Courage

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,978
NYC
Fuck no, maybe it's time to think about overhauling how AAA games are made before considering that possibility.
 
Last edited:

stepee

Member
Jan 29, 2018
184
A $60 game when the ps3 released would be about $65 now with inflation, so I think that would be a fair markup. $70, considering that the budgets for some games has gotten a lot higher since then I don't think would be that bad. But that is if the game is sold as is, without needed micro transactions.
 
Hey Please

Hey Please

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
22,824
Not America
You Muricans...

IIRC, the rest of the world already pays much more than $60. Here in Canada, a brand new AAA title is $80 + 15% tax (13% if in Ontario). Given digital prices are identical, the whole talk of import tax is kind of murky.
 
Wolf

Wolf

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,849
Game budgets are spiraling out of control. Smaller games most of the time can't compete with the few yearly behemoths. Game studios are closing all over the place and companies are taking less risks. Game prices haven't changed and it's far, far overdue.

Most game developers aren't really paid that well. So many people call huge games with hours and hours of content not worth the price these days and it's absolutely ridiculous.

I am fine with $70 for a AAA game. I believe that'd allow developers to take more risks and a middle-tier would start to develop to allow devs to experiment more.

Probably a hot take here, but the health of the industry kinda needs it.
 
Rosebud

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
43,597
No because in my country the games are already much more expensive than that.

I'll just keep waiting for sales
 

Deleted member 11413

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
22,961
They are not going to do that. It's not necessary and will adversely impact sales. They would rather nickle and dime you in ways that are less obvious than the base price of a game. Better to have someone buy your game and then possibly monetize them further then for them to pass on the game entirely due to a high price of entry.
 
Ailanthium

Ailanthium

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,275
JEFFREY GRUBB said:
It will never be that simple again. Pricing is a thousand times more sophisticated than it was in 2005. It's about lifetime value and average revenue per user and a million other metrics that you chip away at with limited editions, add-on content, and digital items in an ongoing service.

It'll never just go up to $70 ...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Never say never.

That being said, there's realistically no reason to increase the prices on games when microtransactions and games as a service continue to bring in the big bucks. When a game like Fortnite can rake in cash at the price of 'entirely free', there's simply no reason to increase the base price on most games. When even gaming enthusiasts bemoan a relatively minor price hike it probably won't go over well with the average consumer.

Dranakin said:
They'll still do that even with a higher entry price for the game itself.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They would, but the problem is that most publishers wouldn't want to dramatically increase the price of games in the first place. A higher barrier to entry means fewer people buying cosmetics or upgrades or season passes or whatever else they can come up with to milk customers dry.
 
Strike

Strike

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,361
I rarely pay full price now. I can wait for a price drop or sale (unless it's a Nintendo title).
 
Sheepinator

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,018
stepee said:
A $60 game when the ps3 released would be about $65 now with inflation, so I think that would be a fair markup. $70, considering that the budgets for some games has gotten a lot higher since then I don't think would be that bad. But that is if the game is sold as is, without needed micro transactions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Where are you getting that inflation figure from? According to the official source, that $59.99 in 2006 would be $76.37 now, so more like $80 by the time the next consoles come out.

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
 
RiPPn

RiPPn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,562
Phoenix
I don't pay $60 now. Only reason I bought new releases recently was thanks in part to programs like Best Buy Gamers Club Unlocked and Amazon Prime. With those now gone I will no longer buy games on release and wait for the inevitable price drop that usually happens only weeks after release. If the quick sales dry up I'll just go to renting and not buy any new games.
 

bastardly

Member
Nov 8, 2017
10,582
im more worried about paying 10-20 bucks a month to each major publisher to "subscribe" to content and never owning anything.
 
Sterok

Sterok

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,084
The games that can get away with it (COD/GTA/etc) don't need to. The ones that would need it (little to no recurrent revenue) mostly fall into the category that can't get away with it. Maybe a select few singleplayer giant open-worlds from select studios (Bethesda/CD Project Red) will pull the trigger, but I don't see it happening for the majority of AAA games anytime soon. Not for the base entry price at least.
 
Jobbs

Jobbs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,639
Considering new 8/16 bit games cost $100 and up (adjusted for inflation) in the 90s it doesn't seem like that big a deal.
 
Mortemis

Mortemis

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,416
I rarely buy games not on sale so it wouldn't bother me too much. Sucks that I won't have GCU soon though.

I'd rather pay more so we don't have game ruining mtx like in 2K, but companies will keep hounding on mtx and dlc no matter a price increase so that doesn't matter.
 
bobnowhere

bobnowhere

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,527
Elsewhere for 8 minutes
Dark_Castle said:
Imagine paying AUD100 for a game.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

New releases used to be AUS$110 with very little recourse to make them cheaper like now. That's what I paid for Fallout 3 on release day though I did swap it for Far Cry 2 that came out the week before and was boring as. They'd probably still be that price if JB/BigW and the like weren't more agressive with pricing around release. With the Australia tax Odyssey is about AUD$112 on steam, fuck that, AUS$67 on PS4, finished and sold on for $55.
 

Deleted member 8861

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
10,564
I'd like everyone who supports these things to ponder what it feels like to pay 200-300$ for a single game, because that's what developing countries go through
 
Megatron

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,445
To all the people saying 'sure I already pay more than that anyway in my currency' you DO realize that an increase from $60 to $70 usd would cause your prices to go up too, right? In Canada it could go from $80 to $95-100, for instance.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.