I firmly believe that if games were say $80 (just an arbitrary price), developers would take more risks and express themselves more freely. Ultimately leading to better games. The medium would greatly improve, potentially passing PS2 / SNES levels and entering a new golden age. There would be less of a financial threat as less units would need to be sold for a game to be a success. A lot of issues that plague modern games such as day one dlc, microtransactions, multi year season passes, base game lacking content, and lack of originality stem from games being more expensive to create than ever before. Unlike previous generations there hasn't been a price increase to absorb those costs. NES / SNES / N64 games were priced based on availability, import costs, and manufacturing costs, PSX games started off at $30 and went to $40 with some going as high as $50, PS2 gen games were officially $50, 360 gen games got a $10 bump + online passes + DLC. As a result, the f2p / p2w multiplayer model was born alongside everything listed above. Relatively speaking, video games are cheap compared to audio books and movies. Blu-ray movies are $35-$40 new and audio books vary depending on length, but fantasy novels can be over $100. Not to mention, the cost of going to the movies has gone up with the times. I think it's time for games to do the same.
New games are too cheap and it's plaguing the medium
- Thread starter Aki
- Start date
Would it, though?
Cause that just seems like you're gonna cut into your overall profits because 80 sounds too close to 100 and is a lot less appealing of a price. So games wouldn't be as appealing of a purchase new.
And then mid range, budget titles wouldn't really be mid range anymore. And so that area would, after its recent resurgence, get stifled once more and a lot of truly great, innovative, quirky games wouldn't get made anymore.
So yeah, artificially boosting the price of new games 20 bucks sounds kinda horrible, actually.
Cause that just seems like you're gonna cut into your overall profits because 80 sounds too close to 100 and is a lot less appealing of a price. So games wouldn't be as appealing of a purchase new.
And then mid range, budget titles wouldn't really be mid range anymore. And so that area would, after its recent resurgence, get stifled once more and a lot of truly great, innovative, quirky games wouldn't get made anymore.
So yeah, artificially boosting the price of new games 20 bucks sounds kinda horrible, actually.
Canadian here. 95 dollars for a new game taxes in. Although it's because Maple Leaf dollars ain't that great.
You mention microtransactions, day 1 DLC, etc. I don't think they'd go away. Publishers make baby steps to see how far they can push their money making schemes. Pre-orders are popular, and despite how much shit people on reddit flip out over microtransactions, it appears the masses buy them, so they won't go away any time soon in my opinion. Publishers just make little adjustments at a time and get praised when they go back a few steps. Remember how much shit Capcom got for DLC and costume DLC? Well that's the norm now and when companies say "our microtransactions are cosmetic only" they get thanked for being so generous despite a couple of years ago that would have got them a spot at the stake.
Maybe you're right, but what with the big companies being what they are, I doubt it. All the big boy publishers like EA, Activision and Ubisoft will stick to what is working, which is annual sandbox/military shooters with season passes and microtransactions.
I do think games should be more flexible in price. I was happy to see the Crash Bandicoot remasters not be full price, nor the upcoming Spyro games. But where do you draw the line with that? I don't think everything needs to compete with Call of Duty or Battlefield or Ass Creed. I would like to see more games like Vampyr, more ''AA" middle ground stuff. I know games get more expensive as people demand better graphics and bigger worlds, but I also think publishers are doing some things wrong themselves. I'm no industry insider but when a game sells 6 million copies and is considered a failure (looking at you Capcom and SE) than I think something's wrong there, and not just the price tag.
You mention microtransactions, day 1 DLC, etc. I don't think they'd go away. Publishers make baby steps to see how far they can push their money making schemes. Pre-orders are popular, and despite how much shit people on reddit flip out over microtransactions, it appears the masses buy them, so they won't go away any time soon in my opinion. Publishers just make little adjustments at a time and get praised when they go back a few steps. Remember how much shit Capcom got for DLC and costume DLC? Well that's the norm now and when companies say "our microtransactions are cosmetic only" they get thanked for being so generous despite a couple of years ago that would have got them a spot at the stake.
Maybe you're right, but what with the big companies being what they are, I doubt it. All the big boy publishers like EA, Activision and Ubisoft will stick to what is working, which is annual sandbox/military shooters with season passes and microtransactions.
I do think games should be more flexible in price. I was happy to see the Crash Bandicoot remasters not be full price, nor the upcoming Spyro games. But where do you draw the line with that? I don't think everything needs to compete with Call of Duty or Battlefield or Ass Creed. I would like to see more games like Vampyr, more ''AA" middle ground stuff. I know games get more expensive as people demand better graphics and bigger worlds, but I also think publishers are doing some things wrong themselves. I'm no industry insider but when a game sells 6 million copies and is considered a failure (looking at you Capcom and SE) than I think something's wrong there, and not just the price tag.
For a long time now I have said and felt like cheap games make all of videogaming games cheaper. Because you start comparing (to a fault) x game at 20 vs. x game at 60. 40 dollars is a big difference but if you always buy the cheap game I’m afraid you view of gamin might sque to the “games just aren’t that good and just don’t hold my attentionâ€. And on the same had if you only buy the 60 dollar games you might view gamin as “yeah it was great but not 60 dollars great.â€
I also have a big problem with the 3 week after launch drastic price drop of most all 3rd party games. What this says to me as a buyer is “we got the early adopters money, now let’s price it for what our product is actually worthâ€. And that bothers me but I can’t shake it.
I also have a big problem with the 3 week after launch drastic price drop of most all 3rd party games. What this says to me as a buyer is “we got the early adopters money, now let’s price it for what our product is actually worthâ€. And that bothers me but I can’t shake it.
When I had my N64, games were $60. I now have a Switch and PS4. Games are still $60. I'm quite happy that games haven't jumped in price the way they could have.
Video games can either be a niche thing or a mainstream thing. Games priced at $100 moves the market into more of a niche section, and that doesn't do any of us any favors. In my humble opinion.
Video games can either be a niche thing or a mainstream thing. Games priced at $100 moves the market into more of a niche section, and that doesn't do any of us any favors. In my humble opinion.
When EA has the ability to pay its top exec over $40million in 2017, including a $20million bonus, you know there's no way the gaming industry is hurting for cash right now. It would take me over 2000 years to earn as much as that guy earned in one year and yet I'm the one who's expected to support his earnings by paying even more for every game I buy?! Get out of here.
If anything, I believe that all games should be cheaper. Maybe $40 for the biggest "triple A" releases, going all the way down to free for everything else.
If anything, I believe that all games should be cheaper. Maybe $40 for the biggest "triple A" releases, going all the way down to free for everything else.
I don't think flavor of the week couch potato games like Uncharted 4 are worth $60. I know they put in online multiplayer to beef up the game, but you could just buy a proper online multiplayer game like Overwatch or Splatoon and play that for hundreds of quality hours instead of wasting your time in a mediocre multiplayer to justify its price point.
That said, I'd easily pay over $80 for deep or particularly high quality lengthy games like Breath of the Wild and Monster Hunter.
Generally, I think a variety of price points is much better for the industry rather than a uniform $60 tag.
That said, I'd easily pay over $80 for deep or particularly high quality lengthy games like Breath of the Wild and Monster Hunter.
Generally, I think a variety of price points is much better for the industry rather than a uniform $60 tag.
Only problem with that is who decides the price and based on what? If you think single player linear games are flavour of the week that's fine, but personally I've beaten RE4 more than a dozen times so I've gotten way more than my money's worth on that. I've beaten Doom '16 three times, etc. Personally most of the time I'd rather replay linear games than open world/sandbox. Breath of the Wild was great but the thought of starting over and dumping another 50+ hours doesn't appeal to me most days.
And with multiplayer, wouldn't it be a shame if a multiplayer only game costed 80 dollars and bombed? Or 6 months down the road it was near impossible to find a match online? Variable prices are great on paper and it is a thing, but all big published stuff is full price regardless, only rare instances of remakes and "AA" stuff are a few bucks cheaper.
Indies (mostly) got it figured out.
And with multiplayer, wouldn't it be a shame if a multiplayer only game costed 80 dollars and bombed? Or 6 months down the road it was near impossible to find a match online? Variable prices are great on paper and it is a thing, but all big published stuff is full price regardless, only rare instances of remakes and "AA" stuff are a few bucks cheaper.
Indies (mostly) got it figured out.
I think as a collective market we can (and have) decided what the right price is for games, it just happens with a delay of two or three weeks after release. Resident Evil 7, for example, turned out to be a very solid game so it retained its price for a while. Breath of the Wild, too, was acclaimed enough that even if Nintendo were in the habit of dropping prices, they wouldn't have dropped that game's price. Meanwhile, Wolfenstein 2 comes out but it's not critically acclaimed and has some performance issues, so its price drops after a couple of weeks.
There is a problem with games that are a bit more niche, like Evil Within 2. I haven't played it, but I could see some people liking it better than Resident Evil 7 (especially people that actually finish their games rather than just play the first two hours and write a review based on that). But it's Evil Within 2 that had a lower price after a couple of weeks, even though it's remained stable since then other than during the occasional sale.
In the case of multiplayer games, I will once again stand by my opinion that the Overwatch model is great: $40 for the full game ($60 on consoles for some bizarre reason), with cosmetic microtransactions generating the bulk of the game's revenue and enabling the development of free content throughout the game's life cycle. Some games are better sold as a service than as a product.
Generally, though, people shouldn't make the mistake I make, which is to pre-order games. The best way to avoid getting burned by a game's price is to wait and hear other people's impressions before buying it. Even when there's a pre-order discount (like on GreenManGaming), pre-ordering a game is a gamble.
There is a problem with games that are a bit more niche, like Evil Within 2. I haven't played it, but I could see some people liking it better than Resident Evil 7 (especially people that actually finish their games rather than just play the first two hours and write a review based on that). But it's Evil Within 2 that had a lower price after a couple of weeks, even though it's remained stable since then other than during the occasional sale.
In the case of multiplayer games, I will once again stand by my opinion that the Overwatch model is great: $40 for the full game ($60 on consoles for some bizarre reason), with cosmetic microtransactions generating the bulk of the game's revenue and enabling the development of free content throughout the game's life cycle. Some games are better sold as a service than as a product.
Generally, though, people shouldn't make the mistake I make, which is to pre-order games. The best way to avoid getting burned by a game's price is to wait and hear other people's impressions before buying it. Even when there's a pre-order discount (like on GreenManGaming), pre-ordering a game is a gamble.
I have to disagree somewhat with what was said here. In my humble opinion as a older gamer in my 40's I think games are getting pretty expensive. for example games for my Switch Lite are $60 dollars on average in the USA. PC games expecilly the really new ones were pretty pricey too but nothing like the games of Nintendo and the other consoles.
Interesting topic.
Interestingly, alot of AAA games for the past decade are expensive, have big price tags, are super hyped up, and then you discover that those games themselves, even with lots of dlc are not all that great. If game companies want to raise the prices of their games, they will need to make better games, in order to justify a higher price.
However, there is unfortunately, a certain large portion of the gaming community, who will buy games at higher prices, and who wouldn't mind a price increase, even if the game's have good graphics, but the game itself is close to total crap and not so good.
But in my case, I don't support a price increase, and I'm not spending my money on any crappy game, with a big price tag.
Interestingly, alot of AAA games for the past decade are expensive, have big price tags, are super hyped up, and then you discover that those games themselves, even with lots of dlc are not all that great. If game companies want to raise the prices of their games, they will need to make better games, in order to justify a higher price.
However, there is unfortunately, a certain large portion of the gaming community, who will buy games at higher prices, and who wouldn't mind a price increase, even if the game's have good graphics, but the game itself is close to total crap and not so good.
But in my case, I don't support a price increase, and I'm not spending my money on any crappy game, with a big price tag.
Last edited:
Apparently the Take-Two CEO recently said that "gamers are ready" for a $70 price tag. Well I sure as shit am not. Especially not for the absolute garbage games that his company peddles. They already make billions and billions of $$$ by turning their "sports games" into loot box gambling games with a hint of sport tacked on. Most of the best gaming experiences I've had in recent years have been at a cost of around £10 - £20 each, with a couple of £40 - £50 titles thrown in.