• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Once again, I'm here to remind you that every argument in favor of $70 games is wrong.

NahaNago

Member
If I really want to play a game day one then I'll pay the 70 for it, otherwise I can wait for the price to drop or simply just not buy the game. We as the folks buying the game can come up with tons of reasons why we don't want to spend 70 for a game and it is up to the gaming companies to convince us to spend 70 and that is all there is to it.
 
Last edited:

Leveltype

Member
I’ll pay $70 for a 3D DQ8+ esque remake of Chrono Trigger. Must be perfect and drawing from original lead team as much as possible.
 

dDoc

Member
Pubs have found more ways to make more money, like season passes, MTX, DLC (in the old days certain DLC items were awarded for game completion etc) etc.

Also worth mentioning that back in the 90s the player base was way way smaller than it is today after VG smashed into the main stream.

So even with inflation etc the industry is still booming. So charging Eur 80 for a new PS release is not ok in my book.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Employees are not the only expense. What about the retailer's profit margin? What about distribution costs of physical games and hardware due to inflation/higher gas prices/ increased truckers wages? We could go on all day, there is no 1:1 system of exactly when and how prices ought to change

You can make that exact same claim for the end consumer, not just Sony. What about skyrocketing house prices, the cost of living crisis, fuel costs, stagnant pay?

Re; distribution Sony themselves are confirming digital sales account for 70-80% of all game sales now, so those costs are far below what they were 5 years ago for example.

I appreciate you and Topher Topher coming at this with level headed rational, but God of War 2018 retailed at £49.99 digitally at launch in the UK. We’ve seen a £20 price hike this generation. Not $10.
 

BlackTron

Member
You can make that exact same claim for the end consumer, not just Sony. What about skyrocketing house prices, the cost of living crisis, fuel costs, stagnant pay?

Re; distribution Sony themselves are confirming digital sales account for 70-80% of all game sales now, so those costs are far below what they were 5 years ago for example.

I appreciate you and Topher Topher coming at this with level headed rational, but God of War 2018 retailed at £49.99 digitally at launch in the UK. We’ve seen a £20 price hike this generation. Not $10.

I wasn't aware of what's going on with GBP prices, I was just comparing apples to apples USD. That's pretty painful, it means back in 2017 you were paying the equivalent of $65USD. So the picture today is far worse.

I guess if you're paying in pounds, you're getting pounded. Sorry guys.
 

brian0057

Member
Just so we're clear, I'm not saying that games can't or shouldn't cost $70.
What I'm saying is that any justification that isn't either "because we want more money" or "because we can" is unremitting bullsh*t.
Just be upfront about it (or don't say anything). At least it would be honest.
 
Last edited:

BlackTron

Member
Just so we're clear, I'm not saying that games can't or shouldn't cost $70.
What I'm saying is that any justification that isn't either "because we want more money" or "because we can" is unremitting bullsh*t.
Just be upfront about it (or don't say anything). At least it would be honest.

It's nice that you've conveniently ignored all my posts in this thread.
 

nkarafo

Member
- Argues passionately against $70 games
- Has a Neo Geo avatar

Bro.... 😂
Bro... I don't care if games get more expensive today, i'm only explaining the real reason why games were more expensive in the past. And Neo-Geo proves me right since ROMs, as i said, were the biggest factor for the price. In fact, thanks for reminding me this, i would use that as another argument.

Also, i never had a Neo-Geo myself or bought any AES games.
 
It's nice that you've conveniently ignored all my posts in this thread.

I ain't got time to read over 300 replies. I have a life outside of Gaf.
All I read was your inflation post.

- Creates thread with a lot of words that essentially amount to "here's my hot take"
- People come up with valid counterarguments
- "Bro I ain't got time to read replies to the thread I created"

😂
 
Bro... I don't care if games get more expensive today, i'm only explaining the real reason why games were more expensive in the past. And Neo-Geo proves me right since ROMs, as i said, were the biggest factor for the price. In fact, thanks for reminding me this, i would use that as another argument.

Also, i never had a Neo-Geo myself or bought any AES games.
Neo Geo carts cost $100/$150/$200+ to make?
 

brian0057

Member
That was the most important post and directly contradicts your suggestion that there is NO possible reason other than those stated by you.
Movies have become as, if not more, expensive to create than games. I don't remember ever paying more than $15 for a ticket, be it 20 years ago or today.
And movies still make millions (or billions). And even if you use physical media, those haven't gotten any more expensive.
And this is becoming even more true with the rise of streaming services.

The inflation argument, as the others, is horsesh*t.
It's also addressed in the video I posted.
 
Last edited:

BlackTron

Member
Movies have become as, if not more, expensive to create than games. I don't remember every paying more than $15 for a ticket, be it 20 years ago or today.
And movies still make millions (or billions). And even if you use physical media, those haven't gotten any more expensive.
And this is becoming even more true with the rise of streaming services.

The inflation argument, as the others, is horsesh*t.

It takes far more mental gymnastics to drag in other industries to make a point than it takes to just accept the simple fact that the value of a dollar has changed substantially.

What you are saying is "money is worth less, but because they haven't started charging me more at the movies, Sony deserves less compensation for their games".

If you think games ought to be cheaper, fine bring your arguments. But Sony is receving the same USD purchasing power per game now as they did in 2017. Actually, a little bit less. That's just a simple fact. If you think they shouldn't get as much value for their game now as they did back then, for whatever reasons you have (like movies?) then fine. But you are asking Sony for a cheaper game, not bitching about a price hike.

EDIT: Just for the record. I don't expect to buy many, if any, $70 games. The value proposition is not there for me. I hardly even go for $60. The other day I saw Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart on sale at Target for $39.99 and it was the first time I really wished I had a PS5, I would have grabbed it at that price, no way I was ever gonna pay $70 for that game no matter what. I'm a patient guy, I haven't bought Eldin Ring yet, I'll wait awhile. Shit I got CP2077 for $5 lol.

But just because I don't want to pay it doesn't mean I'm going to inject my personal opinions and biases into the real world as it turns around me.
 
Last edited:

brian0057

Member
If you think games ought to be cheaper, fine bring your arguments.
That's the whole point of the thread.
Now whose the one who hasn't read the posts?
It's literally in both the video and in the original writing of my post.

A game that manages to sell 6 million units (nothing specific, just humor me) and is labeled as "underperforming" is insane to me.
Why can't you just... not spend that much money? Is it really that hard to not have 4k textures or raytracing?
People mock Nintendo for their cheap looking games but they aren't the ones closing studios left and right because the game they sank a small country's GDP into flopped.
Breath of the Wild moved more copies than the Bible and it only needed to sell around 900.000 to break even. Why is it so difficult to do that?
 
Last edited:

Keihart

Member
It takes far more mental gymnastics to drag in other industries to make a point than it takes to just accept the simple fact that the value of a dollar has changed substantially.

What you are saying is "money is worth less, but because they haven't started charging me more at the movies, Sony deserves less compensation for their games".

If you think games ought to be cheaper, fine bring your arguments. But Sony is receving the same USD purchasing power per game now as they did in 2017. Actually, a little bit less. That's just a simple fact. If you think they shouldn't get as much value for their game now as they did back then, for whatever reasons you have (like movies?) then fine. But you are asking Sony for a cheaper game, not bitching about a price hike.

EDIT: Just for the record. I don't expect to buy many, if any, $70 games. The value proposition is not there for me. I hardly even go for $60. The other day I saw Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart on sale at Target for $39.99 and it was the first time I really wished I had a PS5, I would have grabbed it at that price, no way I was ever gonna pay $70 for that game no matter what. I'm a patient guy, I haven't bought Eldin Ring yet, I'll wait awhile. Shit I got CP2077 for $5 lol.

But just because I don't want to pay it doesn't mean I'm going to inject my personal opinions and biases into the real world as it turns around me.
Please do tell how inflation is calculated, because if you think inflation justifies the price increase of games then you definetly need to at least google how it works.
No, the inflation index does not mean that everything you buy should be more expensive, that's not how it works.
 
Last edited:

Shubh_C63

Member
70$ price point obviously will succeed. People buying "deluxe" edition for 100$ and up for minimal additions in-game are insane.

AA is a better sustainable model.
 

Topher

Gold Member
You can make that exact same claim for the end consumer, not just Sony. What about skyrocketing house prices, the cost of living crisis, fuel costs, stagnant pay?

Re; distribution Sony themselves are confirming digital sales account for 70-80% of all game sales now, so those costs are far below what they were 5 years ago for example.

I appreciate you and Topher Topher coming at this with level headed rational, but God of War 2018 retailed at £49.99 digitally at launch in the UK. We’ve seen a £20 price hike this generation. Not $10.

I don't follow prices in the UK that closely but every major PlayStation release was $59.99 last gen in the US. Was £49.99 common for new release PS4 games? If so, I can see why folks in UK would be bit more upset about this.
 
Last edited:

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
That's the whole point of the thread.
Now whose the one who hasn't read the posts?
It's literally in both the video and in the original writing of my post.

A game that manages to sell 6 million units (nothing specific, just humor me) and is labeled as "underperforming" is insane to me.
Why can't you just... not spend that much money? Is it really that hard to not have 4k textures or raytracing?
People mock Nintendo for their cheap looking games but they aren't the ones closing studios left and right because the game they sank a small country's GDP into flopped.
Breath of the Wild moved more copies than the Bible and it only needed to sell around 900.000 to break even. Why is it so difficult to do that?
Many many gamers don't want games like botw. They want high fidelity. You can't just say make games cheaper when people want big-budget expensive games. It's like saying why don't you just go see the latest Indie film instead of a Marvel movie? People want the shiny. It costs money to give them the shiny.
 
If I as creator want to charge more than you, the end user, are willing to pay, that's my right. Tough titties.

You aren't entitled to my work, there's no conceivable scenario where you absolutely need it in order to prevent suffering or deprivation in your life, and so there's no moral question about access being withheld.

You can't even argue exploitation based on material or manufacturing cost when its a creative work, where value is somewhat intangible and based on provenance and reputation. i.e. its not just A thing, it's a thing BY that creator.

Bottom line: You aren't entitled. You have no inalienable right, your option is to pay or don't pay. Choice is yours.
The creators aren’t setting the price.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
I don't follow prices in the UK that closely but every major PlayStation release was $59.99 last gen in the US. Was £49.99 common for new release PS4 games? If so, I can see why folks in UK would be bit more upset about this.
Yeah £49.99 was the recommended retail price for PS4 games. It is what it is. Disc copies of games are already being sold for well below the £69.99 price point by retailers but I prefer digital 🤷‍♂️
 

DaGwaphics

Member
It's alarming to me how few people seem to get this. Inflation is simply tracking what a dollar is worth. Value of a dollar fluctuates all the time to begin with, but companies don't like to change their prices constantly because it's bad for marketing, bad for retail organization and appears petty. In the same way a restaurant can't print new menus every day just because of a cost fluctuation. I'm sure there were times that Japanese companies wanted to add a few dollars to their games because they feel the weak dollar directly when they transfer their money to yen, but didn't.

The value of a dollar changes regardless of whether the items it's being used to buy change in price. If inflation increases, and the prices of those goods don't increase at pace, then you're simply paying less money than before for the same item, and the company is taking a hit. It won't be such a "theoretical" idea when that company tries to exchange that money for its own currency and finds that it gets less of it because the value of the dollar was destroyed. Or when its own employees want more money to compensate for their own increased costs due to inflation.

When we talk about inflation, it's all other things being equal. Sure, prices can go down or up for a multitude of reasons. It could be more efficient production, or supply and demand, or anything else. Those things don't change the value of a dollar though. They're independent of inflation's effects. Yes, many companies try to absorb the hit, but there's a limit, if inflation keeps rising they will eventually bump it.

Let's say that due to more efficient management and processes, Sony managed to shave off $5 of 2017 money. That would equate to a game being about $65 today. Sony actually continued selling games at the same $60 despite losing money on inflation for years, and waited for the gen change to do anything about it because it was just smarter timing to hit everybody with it.

Nintendo's evergreen $60 titles are essentially "Player's Choice" cheaper versions now due to inflation. They would be smart to simply let them sit as they are and whistle nonchalantly.

That doesn't change the fact that consumers will not accept price increases equal to the average inflation rates for most non-essential products. But, will be forced to accept higher increases than that for most essential items. Most people aren't stupid enough to just figure well it was $x in 95, so, I'll pay 85-90% more for that now, no problem. That's why the efficiency gains in production happen in the first place, because consumers aren't blindly marching forward and the factories are looking to maintain profits. The value of the dollar doesn't change in a uniform way, as demonstrated with the 20" bikes vs. a loaf of Wonder Bread ($1.19 for 27 slices in 95, $2.99 for 22 slices in 2020). The store that is setting their prices for all products based on an inflation calculator will quickly find itself out of business.
 

Krathoon

Member
I remember ridiculous prices for PC games in the the late 90s. I also remember Best Buys being really busy.
 

Krathoon

Member
The problem is that people's wages are not really adjusted for inflation. So, you kind of get screwed with these higher prices. That is why I shop on eBay. I got Xenoblade 3 for $46.
 

BlackTron

Member
That doesn't change the fact that consumers will not accept price increases equal to the average inflation rates for most non-essential products. But, will be forced to accept higher increases than that for most essential items. Most people aren't stupid enough to just figure well it was $x in 95, so, I'll pay 85-90% more for that now, no problem. That's why the efficiency gains in production happen in the first place, because consumers aren't blindly marching forward and the factories are looking to maintain profits. The value of the dollar doesn't change in a uniform way, as demonstrated with the 20" bikes vs. a loaf of Wonder Bread ($1.19 for 27 slices in 95, $2.99 for 22 slices in 2020). The store that is setting their prices for all products based on an inflation calculator will quickly find itself out of business.

Thanks for bringing this up. Yes, there are other factors at play than simply 1:1 what a dollar is worth. There are a lot of dynamics here. Most notably that in general people will get sticker shock and not accept the price hike so easily. So producers need to be more clever when setting prices than merely comparing the dollar today vs 1990.

That being said, companies try to be more efficient anyway, regardless of the rate of inflation. Just to squeeze out more efficiency and therefore more money. The lower your costs, the better you can undercut your competition.

The reason consumer goods like groceries are used to track inflation is because the reason everyone gets out of bed and goes to work at Wal-Mart is so they can use their wages to buy stuff like bread, gas and pay rent. So if one bike is sold, then the proceeds of that bike can't be used to buy as much bread as it used to. Because the cost of the bike didn't rise at the same rate inflation did, but that doesn't mean inflation didn't happen. It just means the cost of the bike didn't rise as much in order to stay competitive.

If I was Nintendo's CFO I would not want to increase prices with inflation because they're already selling lower budget games and many of their heavy hitters are old titles that should be ready for a Player's Choice version by now. I would just leave it at $60 and continue to be happy that people are willing to show up in droves to buy Mario Kart 8 at that price and just collect as much as I can with whatever the XE rate/inflation is at. Sure maybe we want Sony to be that nice, but Sony doesn't have Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze at $60 with people actually buying it.

If I was Sony's CFO, I would probably want to bump the price up because their games cost more money to make, and they aren't enjoying the same economy of scale as Nintendo because they can't make enough PS5 systems. It's more important to them to make their margin on each game they sell in this scenario. They are under greater pressure, selling more expensive to produce hardware, and software that takes more resources to make, to a smaller base. It's not quite as easy for them to absorb the hits. In my opinion, for legitimate reasons. If we are talking USD, it appears they just adjusted the GBP price to match the USD which is garbage.
 
Last edited:

STARSBarry

Gold Member
I don't follow prices in the UK that closely but every major PlayStation release was $59.99 last gen in the US. Was £49.99 common for new release PS4 games? If so, I can see why folks in UK would be bit more upset about this.

It was and if you think about the pound being higher value than the dollar it makes sense £50 is 60.58 dollars, however £70 from £50 is essentially a 24.20 dollar increase, even with taxes... we also have less disposable income in the UK on average.

I have essentially stopped buying Collectors editions for things like God of War etc and just get the things I really want now to budget, honestly with how much room all the boxes took, probably a good thing.
 
Last edited:

BlackTron

Member
That's the whole point of the thread.
Now whose the one who hasn't read the posts?
It's literally in both the video and in the original writing of my post.

A game that manages to sell 6 million units (nothing specific, just humor me) and is labeled as "underperforming" is insane to me.
Why can't you just... not spend that much money? Is it really that hard to not have 4k textures or raytracing?
People mock Nintendo for their cheap looking games but they aren't the ones closing studios left and right because the game they sank a small country's GDP into flopped.
Breath of the Wild moved more copies than the Bible and it only needed to sell around 900.000 to break even. Why is it so difficult to do that?

Sony first party is generally defined by quality and high production values whereas Nintendo first party is a lot of old games and gimmicks.

BOTW was the scam of the century selling a giant map with old assets and no content in it.

Maybe Sony can copy Nintendo's tricks and BS to keep their costs lower, but I would wager most Sony fans wouldn't show up for it. I upgraded to PS4 Pro when GoT came out because it was an experience I'd never get on Switch that legitimized the hardware. I hate to say this but a think Nintendo has the sucker market cornered with people willing to pay $60+ for old/low budget games. Largely by whoring out their IP.

You say, why not just lower the production value, but if I get a PS5 it will be to get better games, not worse ones. I already have Nintendo for that.
 

poppabk

Member
That's the whole point of the thread.
Now whose the one who hasn't read the posts?
It's literally in both the video and in the original writing of my post.

A game that manages to sell 6 million units (nothing specific, just humor me) and is labeled as "underperforming" is insane to me.
Why can't you just... not spend that much money? Is it really that hard to not have 4k textures or raytracing?
People mock Nintendo for their cheap looking games but they aren't the ones closing studios left and right because the game they sank a small country's GDP into flopped.
Breath of the Wild moved more copies than the Bible and it only needed to sell around 900.000 to break even. Why is it so difficult to do that?
There are tons of games that release at sub $70 price points.
 

Kabelly

Member
I've yet to buy one of these $70 (aka $100 CDN) games. I even got Elden Ring for a reasonable price before launch.

My backlog is too big to worry about day and date now.
 

Krathoon

Member
I've yet to buy one of these $70 (aka $100 CDN) games. I even got Elden Ring for a reasonable price before launch.

My backlog is too big to worry about day and date now.
Yeah. I always mosey over to eBay. Usually, there is someone selling it cheaper. There is a markup.
 

Laptop1991

Member
I won't pay 70 quid, i'll wait for a price drop and if the game is worth it, they will keep trying to charge more though, that's a given.
 

Clear

Member
The creators aren’t setting the price.

Who pays the piper calls the tune. Publishing supplies most of the investment, especially on product earmarked to be sold at platform-standard RRP.

Games are made by people, people who need to be paid in many cases for years of their labour before any return on investment can be recouped.


Most large projects only exist because of corporate backing. Its that simple.
 

BlackTron

Member
I totally did not know RDR2 has horse ball shrinkage. I wonder who was in charge of that.

I didn't know this either. But it comes off to me as a joke. It didn't necessarily cost much money to add this lol. A dev studio, especially one like this, doesn't have costs that precisely match the game they make. You have employees as part of a bigger machine, and some of them may complete their portion of the work while waiting on other parts of the machine. Those employees might then do stupid shit like add ball shrinkage because their employer can't tell them to stop working just because they want to cut costs.

Take Two isn't the type of studio to hire people just to tell them to go home as soon as their part of the work is done. It's going to be a bunch of techie people and nerds hammering away at shit. There's a degree of prestige with the studio and the people are secure in their jobs. It could well have been that if you didn't have ball shrinkage in RDR2, someone would have been getting paid to sit around waiting for direction on what to do.

That isn't to say that there's not poor management in games. But I doubt ball shrinkage was "prioritized" in some way that could be diminished to result in lower prices lol. It just comes off as a dumb joke that someone programmed in.

For that matter BOTW is essentially MADE of 1000 of these small touches, while the actual game is absent. Now there's bad prioritization, good on them for selling over 20 million though.
 
Who pays the piper calls the tune. Publishing supplies most of the investment, especially on product earmarked to be sold at platform-standard RRP.

Games are made by people, people who need to be paid in many cases for years of their labour before any return on investment can be recouped.


Most large projects only exist because of corporate backing. Its that simple.
Okay but your point has shifted from creator privilege to corporate interest.
 

Clear

Member
Okay but your point has shifted from creator privilege to corporate interest.

Its all the same thing if you think about it. The overwhelming majority of people involved at all levels of development and production are professionals - they do it because its a living.

Videogames are a product of capitalism.
 

scydrex

Member
Again with this? I don't pay full price for a game anymore $60 or $70. Prefer to wait a bit for updates and lower price. MS and Sony spend a lot on AAA games how much IDK. Of course the budget don't mean anything. High budget don't mean it will be a good game or a bad game. Nintendo games don't even cost half the budget of a MS or Sony AAA or any third party game and still they charge $60 and sell millions. Does that mean is it a bad game? No but still to me personally they are not worth $60 because of the budget.
 
Last edited:

brian0057

Member
So is value.

You can cite all the reasons outside the individual's discretion and it's completely irrelevant if they deem it to hold enough value to justify the cost. Your entire argument resides under the umbrella of subjectivity.
Well, yeah. I never said it wasn't.
And my criticism isn't towards the consumer (they can spend all the money they want on those games). It's towards the companies, developers, and "journalists" trying to justify the price hike as anything more than "it's more money" or "just because". There's no altruism here. No "oh, poor devs" pablum nor it will make games better or reduce MTX. It's all theater.

If you think the $70 Sony is asking for The Last of Us remake is worth it? Well, t's your money. Go with God.
 
Last edited:

PanzerAzel

Member
Well, yeah. I never said it wasn't.
And my criticism isn't towards the consumer (they can spend all the money they want on those games). It's towards the companies, developers, and "journalists" trying to justify the price hike as anything more than "it's more money" or "just because". There's not altruism here. No "oh, poor devs" pablum nor it will make games better or reduce MTX. It's all theater.

If you think the $70 Sony is asking for The Last of Us remake is worth it? Well, t's your money. Go with God.
Fair enough.

For me with TLoU, it would've been worth $70 prior to the leaks, but after seeing the so-called "enhanced combat", the value proposition fails.
 


OP never experienced SNES games at $80.00
At least $30 of which came from the ROM size.
 
Given that the upcoming release of The Last of Us: Part I remake has reignited the discussion on whether or not next gen titles should cost $70, I'm here to remind you why any reason beyond "because we can" is complete horsesh*t. For the record, I'm not saying that games can't cost $70 but that any justification beyond wanting more money is a lie.
You're correct but how is this some thoughtful take? You charge what the market will bear. 🤷‍♂️ If customers are willing to pay $70, you should charge $70. If they're willing to pay $200, that's what you should charge. God forbid a company in a market economy tries to maximize its profits. Wasn't GAF meant to be right-leaning lately? 😂

Capitalism is the best resource allocation system there is :)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom