Support NeoGAF

[winjer]

Toys R Us flyer from 1996. Factor in inflation by doubling the prices you see here.

That comparison is completed nonsense.
For starters, a big chunk of the price of those games was the flash, PCB and additional chips.
Something that today, companies don't have to pay for.

Then there are the costs of printing manuals and art work. Something that modern games don't have, unless it's a special edition.
Also, with so many games being digital, there is no cost with cases.

Another thing to consider is that most games today are sold as digital, especially on PC. This means there is only the cost of running the servers.
So there is no cost of transport, storage and manual labor.
There is also no cost for importers and physical stores.

All this means, that despite the price of games seems similar and with inflation means we are paying less, the fact remains that companies get a much bigger portion of what we pay, as there are much fewer additional costs.

And then there is the issue, that so many games today are not sold as complete packages. Often, we only get a part of the full game, because there is DLC, microtransactions, pre-order bonus, etc.
So when these costs are added up, the price rises up quite significantly.

 

[ZehDon]

How are you making this about Sony when this is about Embracer increasing prices? Sony wasnt even the first to start charging 70.00$ for their games, it was EA. Also, what pay for patches are you talking about? Playstations 60fps updates for the PS5 is free. You mean charging 10.00 for remakes that add content if you have the PS4 version?

 

[Hugare]

"But the reality is no one has tried it"

Maybe they are stupid. Be the first one to try it, Embracer.

What could go wrong?

 

[Bodom78]

Yes please, makes those bargain bin pickups more worthwhile

 

[Pimpbaa]

And I’ll continue to only buy games on sale. I’m already paying 90 bucks plus tax here in Canada (with tax it’s over a 100). Nope on the current launch prices and nope to further price increases.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That comparison is completed nonsense.
For starters, a big chunk of the price of those games was the flash, PCB and additional chips.
Something that today, companies don't have to pay for.

Then there are the costs of printing manuals and art work. Something that modern games don't have, unless it's a special edition.
Also, with so many games being digital, there is no cost with cases.

Another thing to consider is that most games today are sold as digital, especially on PC. This means there is only the cost of running the servers.
So there is no cost of transport, storage and manual labor.
There is also no cost for importers and physical stores.

All this means, that despite the price of games seems similar and with inflation means we are paying less, the fact remains that companies get a much bigger portion of what we pay, as there are much fewer additional costs.

And then there is the issue, that so many games today are not sold as complete packages. Often, we only get a part of the full game, because there is DLC, microtransactions, pre-order bonus, etc.
So when these costs are added up, the price rises up quite significantly.

Also, modern day gaming is huge. The sales dollars in the gaming industry pie is exponentially bigger and cross platform for more sales potential. Back then, you had crazy platforms and PC and nothing was compatible with anything. Now, most decent budget games are sold across all key platforms. Even a lot of indie games are cross too. And with so many digital sales, game companies dont even have to worry about gamers cheaping out waiting for used games where they get no money from it.

Back then in the 16-bit era, if a game sold 1M units that was considered great sales and worthy of Greatest Hits. The next era, I believe 1M sellers on PS1 was good enough to get that label too.

Now, 1M sales is nothing. The pie is so big, any half decent budgeted game with some marketing behind it probably gets 1M sales minimum just as launch sales. Heck, even indie games like Balatro has already sold 1M copies and it's a game that looks like something that could be done in the Windows 3.1 era.

 

[Arsic]

Do it. The faster you go under the better. This will help speed run you there.

 

[IAmRei]

M

The fact that a good must be more expensive if its good/polished/long is outrageous.
Songs have the same price everywhere, movies have the same price anywhere.
If something is worth, it will generate profit for its creator, if its not it wont

Movies in my place are only $3 while on other places near me, bigger city, are $7. But i got Your point, their games might not justify the price they set above 70

 

[Barakov]

Eh...I'm usually against raising prices but for Embracer....sure. I can't remember anything they've put I've actually been interested in.

 

[Mooreberg]

What games? Who is even developing the next Deus Ex?

 

[March Climber]

Embracer you are not the one

 

[Larxia]

Laughs in key site.

The problem is that keys price increase accordingly with the regular price though.
A few years ago, I remember I could get most AAA for 30-35€. Now it's more like 45-50€.

 

[chlorate]

FFX and SSBM were $60 in an era when gas was $1.50 a gallon, houses were $90,000, and the S&P 500 was in triple digits. The idea that $80 is expensive for a game today is nonsense.

 

[AncientOrigin]

The reason people like him are mulling it because more and more companies are being held hostage by Blackrock to implement ESG/DEI into their games which means the teams must get bigger with more employees who don't actually do anything tangible for the game except make it worse AND increase the budget by another 50 million dollars AND the game sells worse than it would have so it's a double whammy of unsustainable political warfare but the cultural marxists have made people believe they must do it or they're racist as people have lost all sense of what is true or what truly matters. This also drives down the price per share of the company which is what they want as it becomes cheaper for Blackrock to buy them out and further consolidate their position.

Exactly Rothschild scum and Blackrock are also behind the trans movement these evil Satan worshippers make huge push on companies like Sony or all other companies that’s why you see all these Trans and Gay stuff en mass in Sony games. Also around the world these push for pedophilya and teaching kids in kindergarten what gender they could be is all a plan of these devil worshipers these kids killers blood drinkers

 

[Ashamam]

Frankly games that are 100-150 hours don't need to be more expensive, they just need to be episodic. Carve out DLC or move to a GAAS model of some sort. People will pay a 'sub' for games that provide ongoing content. The fact its mostly been in the multiplayer space doesn't make it impossible for single player.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

That comparison is completed nonsense.

Not really, the cost of the game is the cost of the game.

 

[Hudo]

What games? Who is even developing the next Deus Ex?

afaik, no one...

which hurts me on a personal level.

 

[PixelatedBeast]

FTFY.

 

[ozz ex machina]

I am pretty sure for example Take 2 can sell GTA6 for 100$ and it will sell tons still. Not sure if that many other games can do that though.

It's basically the only game that could get away with it. Arguably also one of the only games that could justify it considering the expense of making it, the no doubt quality and polish of the product and the amount of hours/value you would get from it.

 

[cormack12]

 

[Goalus]

I'm glad I'm physical and never pay near MSRP for games.

I'm glad I'm digital and never pay near MSRP for games.

On topic: He's right.

 

[digdug2]

I guess I'll have to boycott their games. Oh well. Voting with your wallet isn't always easy when there are things that are enticing.

 

[Astray]

What is happening?
This sounds like suicide alarm, no no and no!!!

People complained about games not expanding in terms of scope (Hellblade 2).

People complained about reduced price games that are digital-only (Alan Wake 2).

Dev cycles are super long (so no cost savings are happening with new tech).

Raising game prices is sadly, inevitable.

Subscription services were supposed to give games at lower prices but most consumers refused them on the basis that "they devalue games"

Now I can expect game prices to rise even futher.

But they did devalue games lol. No one wants to pay $60-70 because they are waiting for it to be on subscriptions now.

 

[WoJ]

Jokes on them. By waiting for sales I don't pay $70 for games now.

 

[Paperboy]

Why even make a statement like that when your the head at Embracer, a company not really known for its many 100+ hours AAA experiences. Saying no one's tried it isn't really true. Ubisoft does it all the time. Sure, you get some extra digital stuff if you pay more than $70, but it's not equivalent to the price increase. And Ubisoft actually offers 100+ hours AAA experiences.

 

[StereoVsn]

FFX and SSBM were $60 in an era when gas was $1.50 a gallon, houses were $90,000, and the S&P 500 was in triple digits. The idea that $80 is expensive for a game today is nonsense.

You are illustrating why purchasing power of a lot of people was actually higher back then vs now.

Yes, top 10-15% of US and Europe are generally better off (if they managed to buy a house), but the rest not so much. Plus you already have higher game prices in the “special editions”, “collector’s editions” and so on. People are already paying $100/€100 for this crap.

Large corpos, the ones likely to raise the price are generally quite profitable. A lot of that cost is mismanagement. There is no reason for freaking Spider-Man 2 to cost $300 million.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Large corpos, the ones likely to raise the price are generally quite profitable. A lot of that cost is mismanagement. There is no reason for freaking Spider-Man 2 to cost $300 million.

Bingo.

It's mind-boggling the amount of people who parrot corporate bullshit as facts despite the massive (and growing) amount of evidence against it.

 

[StereoVsn]

Bingo.

It's mind-boggling the amount of people who parrot corporate bullshit as facts despite the massive (and growing) amount of evidence against it.

Yep, and throwing themselves to corpo defense is just weird.

 

[Killer8]

I wouldn't have much of a problem with rising prices as that is just the nature of inflation and videogames aren't immune to that. We're still paying 2004 prices for a lot of games 20 years later. The problem with raising the price is that it's not necessarily being done out of necessity ie. it's not going directly back into the next game's budget. It's often being done to appease shareholders in pursuit of even bigger profit margins.

If paying $70 for a Tango Gameworks game could've saved their jobs and kept them around then i'd be fully onboard with it, but the reality is that corporations are both raising prices and cutting jobs anyway to squeeze out more profit. I've come to realize that people critical of the $70-80 RRP aren't necessarily critical of the price itself, more like they aren't seeing that increase translated into anything meaningful.

 

[Starbuck2907]

If you want a full game, as in the base game with all dlc/season pass stuff, you are already paying $100+ unless you wait for big discounts.

If they raise the price, I will just wait even longer for bigger discounts. I only pay full price for a few games that I feel are worth it.

 

[CherryFalls]

Word to live by then, words to live by now:

 

[th4tguy]

$90 GTA6 incoming

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Gamers have been conditioned. It's very hard for them to break out of their abuse / training.

They think spending $70 dollars on a mediocre AAA title is acceptable but they will flip **** if they're asked to spend $90 dollars on a brilliant AAA title. Completely illogical.

Sometimes I view the modern day human in the same way Kirk did when Starfleet happened upon those primitive planets.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Toys R Us flyer from 1996. Factor in inflation by doubling the prices you see here.

People use this example all the time BUT a studio would put out maybe 1 or 2 games a gen. The average gamer themselves would only own a handful of games.

 

[dragonyeuw]

Personally I haven't paid more than $50 for any single game in like 15 years ( to my memory during the height of the 7th gen). But good luck with that.