Are you prepared for the possibility of paying $70 for games next gen?
- Thread starter ggx2ac
- Start date
.
Unless it's XCOM 3, R3make, or Bloodborne 2.
I don't know if BOMB is the right word, but if you're not buying GOTY and paying for Seasons Passes, brand new games...
Last edited:
Probably not gonna happen. Lower up front cost with higher in-game purchases is a much better model.
I buy fewer games per year than I ever have right now, but the trade off is I'm happy to pay £60 digitally for the ones I actually want.
So, yes.
So, yes.
I wouldn't buy them. Maybe coming off of the 360 gen I would have but I've been disappointed this gen with big AAA games that I've played and paid $60 for. I don't do games as a career so nothing about food, clothing, and shelter is impacted by me waiting until games drop in price and I don't care about being a part of the zeitgeist. I'll still play games, I'll just wait until they're at a price point I like.
I think if I played more shooters or had gone with a Switch rather than Sony/MS I'd have a better outlook on it, but I haven't been into AAA gaming output for most of this gen. All the devs I jumped into the gen for ended up putting out meh content so my best memories of this gen have been playing console ports of last gen PC games I never got to play. The AAA space can charge whatever they want. I'm not the target audience. We really don't interact like that for me to care one way or another.
I think if I played more shooters or had gone with a Switch rather than Sony/MS I'd have a better outlook on it, but I haven't been into AAA gaming output for most of this gen. All the devs I jumped into the gen for ended up putting out meh content so my best memories of this gen have been playing console ports of last gen PC games I never got to play. The AAA space can charge whatever they want. I'm not the target audience. We really don't interact like that for me to care one way or another.
I kind of doubt publishers even want to raise prices. If they raise the initial cost too much that will lower the amount of people buying into the micro-transactions, which for games like FIFA is where the real money is.
Basically publishers currently get to have their cake and eat it too, so I don't see them wanting to rock the boat too much.
Personally I would just wait it out. Games are already $90 with tax here in Canada, it's too expensive to buy more than one or two a year at that price, let alone higher.
Basically publishers currently get to have their cake and eat it too, so I don't see them wanting to rock the boat too much.
Personally I would just wait it out. Games are already $90 with tax here in Canada, it's too expensive to buy more than one or two a year at that price, let alone higher.
Is that really on the consumer though? There's so much content and platforms out there now competing for your time and money, games are mostly treated as disposable anyways. Release it to the wild, grab as many sales you can get in the launch window then drop the price because your game is already old news after 2 weeks( or retailers start discounting it because they need to clear inventory/shelf space). Then at the end of the generation its in the gamestop buy 4 for $20 bin. The industry encourages the practice of waiting for cheap prices.
Interesting enough, for as much flak as Nintendo takes for how they retain their MSRPs for years, I also 'value' their games more because they retain their value. I'm ok dropping $50 on a Nintendo game because I know on the aftermarket it's going to fetch me a decent penny if I ever sold it( which I typically don't because I generally keep most Nintendo first party titles).
There is no set price in games anymore, and the discussion is moot.
New, major publisher games range in price from $60 to $120+, with all sorts of price points in between. Most games have "Standard," "Silver," and "Gold" bundles, though some might name them differently... "Special Edition," "Platinum Edition," etc. Search any storefront for a game like Call of Duty or even a major release like RDR2, and you'll see 2 or 3 SKUs usually, some with many, many more. Within a couple months of launch, game prices are typically slashed by 20% for some publisher sale, as happens with most of the Ubisoft games and many other 3rd party games, like Tomb Raider.
Increasingly the most profitable games are those that cost much less than $60. Fortnite, PUBG, and scores and scores of others, have all made a killing in the last 5+ years by releasing at a low price point, getting people in, and then monetizing with some other method. If we need to prepare for any future pricing model, it's that one.
I think if anything we'll see a lot of major publisher game prices go down, or more discount programs (like EA Access, etc) launch. Publishers are having developers go all in on microtransactions, which are often more profitable than retail/storefront sales of the game. If you increase the barrier of entry to $70, then that likely decreases the number of microtransaction opportunities. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the major CoD, Madden, Battlefield, NBA, Fifa, WWE, etc., games move over to some sort of "Free to own" model in the future, where you pay for a monthly access program and they try to make their bread on microtransactions alone. I don't think that'll happen immediately, but over time with some franchises.
New, major publisher games range in price from $60 to $120+, with all sorts of price points in between. Most games have "Standard," "Silver," and "Gold" bundles, though some might name them differently... "Special Edition," "Platinum Edition," etc. Search any storefront for a game like Call of Duty or even a major release like RDR2, and you'll see 2 or 3 SKUs usually, some with many, many more. Within a couple months of launch, game prices are typically slashed by 20% for some publisher sale, as happens with most of the Ubisoft games and many other 3rd party games, like Tomb Raider.
Increasingly the most profitable games are those that cost much less than $60. Fortnite, PUBG, and scores and scores of others, have all made a killing in the last 5+ years by releasing at a low price point, getting people in, and then monetizing with some other method. If we need to prepare for any future pricing model, it's that one.
I think if anything we'll see a lot of major publisher game prices go down, or more discount programs (like EA Access, etc) launch. Publishers are having developers go all in on microtransactions, which are often more profitable than retail/storefront sales of the game. If you increase the barrier of entry to $70, then that likely decreases the number of microtransaction opportunities. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the major CoD, Madden, Battlefield, NBA, Fifa, WWE, etc., games move over to some sort of "Free to own" model in the future, where you pay for a monthly access program and they try to make their bread on microtransactions alone. I don't think that'll happen immediately, but over time with some franchises.
Last edited:
I will pay it for Nintendo games and Bethesda Switch ports and that's it.
Kinda like the $60 price point now.
Kinda like the $60 price point now.
With the whole GaaS thing now I don't think we'll be seeing a price bump for standard editions. If you wanna sell as much mtx and DLC as possible you need a big install base, upping the price of your game won't exactly help with that. Instead pubs will probably focus on Special Editions with some bonus content and possibly a few days early access.
Considering I maybe play 2 new games a year now I don't care.
As long as I have that one solid GaaS
I save money by not buying every new game that comes out.
As long as I have that one solid GaaS
I save money by not buying every new game that comes out.
I remember the times when trash like Shaq-Fu or WWF RAW on SNES were sold for 130 bucks (in 2018 money), so yeah i'd be fine with paying 70 bucks for a game. We get more content than we ever got and the prices are still way cheaper than in the 90s.
Just seems unlikely. Companies are more likely to play games with their revenue that are "roundabout" like expanding the market, or all the stuff with mtx. I can't speak to all industries, but I know that to some extent companies are afraid of killing goodwill with consumers by doing outright price hikes. The publishers have been adjusting their model this whole time to create revenue growth. Instead of making all games $70, they make it the special edition that includes some small digital goodies. Then they make the deluxe super duper edition for $100 that comes with a statue and a book. Then they sell you a bunch of cosmetics, DLC, etc. so you can either have the "basic experience" open to everybody at the same price (that's fair, right?), or you can have the experience tailored to your ability/willingness to pay.
If they think they can justify the value added maybe they'll do a price hike, like saying that the discs are crazy big and can hold so much more q u a l I t y! But it seems like they'll just as often use that as a pseudo price drop to compete with Microsoft. They don't want to instigate a price war, that could be damaging and hard to reverse, but if they take a hit to their margins in slightly more expensive discs, the cost of which they don't pass on, they can say "wow, look at this. With PlayStation you get SUPER DISCS at the same price as Microsoft!"
Nope. I already don't buy many day 1 games, increasing the price would essentially make me get less.
With a weak currency, either the consumers pay more for each purchase or the publishers earn less from each purchase. If they were still charging $59.99 in Canada it would be the equivalent of dropping game prices in the US from $59.99 to $45.80. They shouldn't have to subsidize the citizens in the country who are far more responsible for the political leadership, the currency and overall wage growth.
Last edited:
Not claiming you need them, but there has to be something that gives. We just got done with a week's week's lonh discussion about over worked employees and ballooning budgets/goals/expectations for these games yet gamers want prices to remain the same.
Most microtransactions are barely noticed and do not harm many of the games that include them, yet those games still get chastised or boycott. I merely brought up microtransactions specifically as an example of the hypocritical attitude and unwillingness to be open to new ideas. No matter what they do they will be wrong.
They're already making massive profits compared to past years; if it was in any way relative to what they needed, we would have seen game costs go down in games that have micro transactions and gambling mechanics.
But they don't want to make what they need, they want to make what they can get away with. Nobody wants to be the $70 game, and hell there's no reason for anyone to be.
But they don't want to make what they need, they want to make what they can get away with. Nobody wants to be the $70 game, and hell there's no reason for anyone to be.
Not really. Nintendo makes good shit on a fraction of what other AAA devs do. AA devs make better games on a fraction of what AAA devs do.
It really is just about not having a stupid large budget and hiring on 600 people. Just don't do that. Devs that do that are inherently risking their employees.
And ya, if everyone stopped advancing tech and they could get away with selling PS3 assets in games like Nintendo then everyone could enjoy smaller teams again. That and Nintendo has huge brands to rely on for hitting sales goals, a luxury many developers don't have.
And I'll be the first to agree AA games are often better than AAA but they aren't what sell lots of money, because of many of the issues we are discussing.
I have my priorities straight. I'll adjust as necessary by a combination of increasing my entertainment budget, buying fewer games, and waiting for more price drops.
We want our home theater room set up in the near future and have other plans, so if I have to cut back on games, it is what it is.
We want our home theater room set up in the near future and have other plans, so if I have to cut back on games, it is what it is.
I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but as some others have pointed out, we regularly paid $70-$85 for SNES games back in the day. Given that I'm an adult now and have my own discretionary income, I'll pay it if the games are worth it.
I'll say though, I was absolutely blown away when Sony had the $40 price point on a lot of their PSOne exclusives back in the day. Weird that compact disc costs were likely a factor in the price reductions, and its only crept back up since.
I'll say though, I was absolutely blown away when Sony had the $40 price point on a lot of their PSOne exclusives back in the day. Weird that compact disc costs were likely a factor in the price reductions, and its only crept back up since.
I'll just stop buying games at launch. Also, I'll buy more indie/multiplayer focused games. Or read more. Games are already $80 here in Canada. I'm buying RDR2 at that price but that's the only game I'm buying this year and I'll be playing that game for at least the next five years, as I have done w GTA V, so I see a great value in that. But I already have a back log of titles I've bought over the years at steep discounts that I can play. No way am I paying $90 or $100 for one game at launch, what is it the late 90s again? At 16 years old I saved up and paid for all my N64 gaming shit, I've done the $100 game thing once, not doing it again!
I don't buy games for full price anymore. It's been a while since I have. I always wait till theres a sale. I doubt they will do that and just shove more DLC in our faces.
Xbox One S and Xbox One X already have drives that support 4 layer bluarays.
4k bluray movies are already on 100GB 4 layer discs.
Manufacturing one 4 layer disc is not much more expensive than manufacturing one 2 layer disc and is actually probably cheaper than manufacturing two 2 layer discs like we're getting in Red Dead Redemption 2 (and some other games).
Because of these things, I don't believe this is a justifiable reason for a 17% increase in game price.
That said, they may go to $70 for other reasons. The base price of games has fallen way behind where inflation would put it.
4k bluray movies are already on 100GB 4 layer discs.
Manufacturing one 4 layer disc is not much more expensive than manufacturing one 2 layer disc and is actually probably cheaper than manufacturing two 2 layer discs like we're getting in Red Dead Redemption 2 (and some other games).
Because of these things, I don't believe this is a justifiable reason for a 17% increase in game price.
That said, they may go to $70 for other reasons. The base price of games has fallen way behind where inflation would put it.
Nope just won't buy the vast majority of them at full price, waiting for sales is pretty easy and there are so many indie games. Hopefully devs just rethink their priorities.... know some are going to have to push the new hardware and for those, maybe I'll understand but still don't see myself supporting more then like one 70 dollar a game a year
The only real concern for me would be if Nintendo decided to up the price of retail games since they are awful at offering discounts, hasn't been a single discount yet for DKTF which was being sold for 20 retail on Wii U and is a pretty barebones port compared to MK8D. Still haven't been able to play it because of that
The only real concern for me would be if Nintendo decided to up the price of retail games since they are awful at offering discounts, hasn't been a single discount yet for DKTF which was being sold for 20 retail on Wii U and is a pretty barebones port compared to MK8D. Still haven't been able to play it because of that
I'll go full PC gaming and only buy games years down the line for $10.
I also don't need to buy new games - all my classic ones are still playable.
I also don't need to buy new games - all my classic ones are still playable.
On the one hand, I tend to buy the "deluxe" editions of games so I'm already used to paying $70 or even sometimes $80 for AAA games, so I guess I'm prepared. On the other hand, I'm not dumb. I know realistically if the base game price goes up, the deluxe price will also go up, and the microtransactions aren't going anywhere, so the net result will just be that I'm out an extra $10. I'll probably just buy fewer games or jump on the "wait for a sale" train to compensate.
Yeah I've got no problem with the price increasing, i'm surprised it hasn't already. I remember paying £70 for Street Fighter 2 on the SNES. I used to buy a load of import games during the PS1/PS2 era and I was paying probably £60 - £100 a game back then. I remember paying £110 for FFVII and I think £100 for MGS2.
Also I remember importing a Dreamcast and it would only play in black and white on my TV so I then had to go and buy a new TV, gaming today has never been cheaper for me.
Also I remember importing a Dreamcast and it would only play in black and white on my TV so I then had to go and buy a new TV, gaming today has never been cheaper for me.
For the games I enjoy? Sure, I already pay ~92 USD equivalents for games now. I'd be fine with 100, too. I just only buy games I think I'll really like, and never ones with microtransactions.
I think used games are fundamentally immoral, if it's possible to get a new copy, so I'd never buy those.
I think used games are fundamentally immoral, if it's possible to get a new copy, so I'd never buy those.