• 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.

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
When Super Street Fighter 2 launched on SNES back in Germany, it was 154 Deutsche Mark. Euro nearly cut this in half, so we already were used to pay over 70 dollars a game. And this was just a few more fighters for some.

What I want to say is that this concept isn’t new. But we’ve also never had this amount of discounts for games like we do nowadays. Youtube is full of “sales” videos. If you want to have the game on launch day - ok. But if you can wait a bit, expect a discount up to 80% in the near future. Or the game on Gold / Plus.

The industry has changed, yes. But your 70 bucks purchase supports us cheap asses who can just wait. Thank you!
Yup. I’m not a day one buyer except for rare occasions. And even then I do home sharing with a friend so we split it anyway which is already 50% off.

Gaming is such a front loaded industry of sales at full price, it shows most gamers can’t even wait a month or two for $30 off.

I can understand it for shooters and sports where you don’t want to be left behind being a noob or miss out on online league play, but most games make no difference between playing day one or day 50.

You’d think with games being costly at $70 ($90 in Canada), the typical consumer would wait for a deal, but nope.

Can’t help but feel the urge to preorder digital copies and pay full pop. Gotta hand it to video game marketing for doing a great job getting people to bite on digital copies that don’t run out.
 

Reallink

Member
16 and 64 bit cartridges were the equivalent of modern games shipping on a 64GB SSD with a Rasberry Pi soldered on. The physical good itself costed $20-$40 to manufacture wholesale, first party licensing fees were much higher, and retailer cuts were higher, that's why they were $80 - $100. Very successful games at the time sold 1 million units while the handful of unimaginably successful ones sold 6 or 7 million units. AAA development budgets at the corporate structured devs were in the neighborhood of $5 - $10 million dollars with a third party publisher being lucky to see $30 from every $80 retail cartridge sale. The absolute biggest games of the entire generation would maybe return a $200 - $300 million dollar profit.

Today 80% of games are manufactured and distributed for literal pennies (digital downloads), 1 million units is an abject failure, 6-7 million is a middling success, and the unimaginably successful ones sell 50+ or even 100+ million units. Typical AAA development budgets are in the neighborhood of $50 - $100 million with big publishers widely accepted to receive at least 80% of a $70 digital sale through sweetheart deals while first party devs pocket 99.9% of their $70. This is without even touching their supplementary revenue streams like DLC, lootboxes, subscriptions, battlepasses, etc... Today's biggest games will return $1 billion dollars in profit within 24 hours while even the middling successes will match or surpass the juggernauts of the 16 and 32/64bit eras. The fact that so many people attempt to draw that parallel to justify $70 makes me question how there aren't WAY more people falling off buildings or setting themselves on fire.
 
Last edited:

Marvel14

Member
Most important point imho. So many abysmal management decisions at these companies in recent years. CP2077 comes to mind.
Lacks evidence though. There is no analysis proving that "poor.manafement decisions contribute $xx to the price of games". For all we know it affects company profits rather than pricing.
 
I owned an SNES and N64 and paid $70 for games over 20-25 years ago. Chrono Trigger and Turok 2 come to mind.

Everything is a value proposition. I'm of the mindset that publishers should price their games accordingly. Why can't we expect to see new retail games between $20-70? Based on its value and worth in the market.
 
Being a choice, I will choose not to pay 70 € for the remastering of an already remastered title.
Everyone is free to get their money ripped off as they want.
Nothing to argue if it was a new game, people don't work for free.
 

Three

Member
To all the people thinking back on when they paid $90 for Mario and making the comparison to today's market, those cartridges were around $25 to even produce. You then have to add shipping and storage of a comparably bulky product. Not only are physical discs pennies to produce in today's market, but shipping and storage are considerably less just due to the dimensions and weight of today's physical media.

Add the fact that half of today's (most cases considerably more) software sales are digital, and publishers are selling considerably more units than ever, the validity of the comparison really falls apart. These publishers are making more money today at $60 then they ever were in the past.
It did not cost anywhere near $25 to produce a cartridge unless you are taking into account inflation and $25 is in todays money. If so then with inflation today publishers are making less on games at $70 then $60 games less than 5 years ago and development cost, shipping and storage prices are higher today.
 
Last edited:

MarkMe2525

Member
It did not cost anywhere near $25 to produce a cartridge unless you are taking into account inflation and $25 is in todays money. If so then with inflation today publishers are making less on games at $70 then $60 games less than 5 years ago and development cost, shipping and storage prices are higher today.
You are incorrect. I was a tween at the time and I remember the video game magazines discussing this. I found an article here from 1996. I was understating the costs as it actually says over $30.
 
Last edited:

Reallink

Member
It did not cost anywhere near $25 to produce a cartridge unless you are taking into account inflation and $25 is in todays money. If so then with inflation today publishers are making less on games at $70 then $60 games less than 5 years ago and development cost, shipping and storage prices are higher today.

High capacity cartridges were every bit of $25 in 1990's dollars (not inflation adjusted) while those with co-processors (e.g Super FX, Virtua Procesor) were well north of it. Retailer margins and first party licensing fees were also higher back then, again in unadjusted dollars. Dramatic reductions in console licensing fees is how Sony gained most of their software support with PS1, and could easily be credited for Playstation even still existing today. Publishers back then, particularly third parties, earned a fraction of the profits they do today. How exactly do you think the mega publishers/developers went from valuations of a few hundred million to nearly 100 billion?
 
Last edited:
For $70 you should get a cool physical version of the game standard, with the digital version being slightly cheaper - $50/$60 depending on the tier of game.
 

treemk

Member
Prices will go up on everything regardless of what you think about it. The same forces that caused a 5 cent Coke in 1970 to be $1+ now are still here. Full priced games have always been optional though, it just depends if being there day 1 or your money is more important to you.
 
I feel $70 games really isn’t as much of an issue if someone buys their games physical. They can wait for a sale or get it used if they feel the game isn’t worth the full price. Now if you are digital only, then I feel the $70 games issue is much more detrimental.
 

MastaKiiLA

Member
Games are expensive to make. Expecting to pay the same price for a product for 30+ years is unrealistic. Maybe find a new hobby, because $70 for a game is not the biggest ask in the world. Especially when you can just wait a few months and get it at a significant discount. I like video games, and want to keep playing them, so I will pay the higher price to keep the business model viable. I don't want everything going the way of streaming.
 

gatti-man

Member
Hard for me to take this serious when I’ve been paying 60-100 for games in the 80s/90s. Money is worth less than ever. Wage inflation is 20-30% the past 18 months alone. Costs for everything has gone up. Pricing should reflect that. Should be grateful it’s not $80😂
 
Hard for me to take this serious when I’ve been paying 60-100 for games in the 80s/90s. Money is worth less than ever. Wage inflation is 20-30% the past 18 months alone. Costs for everything has gone up. Pricing should reflect that. Should be grateful it’s not $80😂
right...NES games were $70
 

Lunarorbit

Member
I'm sure someone has said games have actually gone down in price since the 80s. When ff3 was $80 at release and games were $50-$60 at launch in 1996.

Edit:haha the last two responses get it
 
Last edited:

gatti-man

Member
I paid $70 for Final Fantasy II in 1991 dollars. It was well worth it. I wouldn't pay $70 for anything today, though. I have way too many games in my backlog that I'll never play as it is.
Yeah paying $70 is as optional as ever. Sales and used are strong options. But as far as value or that $70 is some unjustifiable price I think it’s perfectly fine especially when looking at what gamers have paid historically.
 
And I'm sure the same people that bitch about this are fine with paying $900+ for a smartphone when those used to go for about $500 or $600 just 10 years ago. In the end, it's all just console war bull crap that will end once Microsoft and, probably, Nintendo starts charging $70 for games, as well, next gen.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
And I'm sure the same people that bitch about this are fine with paying $900+ for a smartphone when those used to go for about $500 or $600 just 10 years ago. In the end, it's all just console war bull crap that will end once Microsoft and, probably, Nintendo starts charging $70 for games, as well, next gen.
My smartphone is 150 bucks, my 4k TV is 400 bucks, every single one of the consoles i bought are under 400 dollars, and my computer is 900 dollars (yes. Gaming pcs under 1000 dollars exist)
I actually care about my money which is why I fucking hate 70 dollar games. If Xbox or Nintendo were doing it I would have called them out on their bullshit too and even bought a Playstation.
 

Cyberpunkd

Gold Member
For the TL;DW crowd:
  • "Budgets have gotten insane, so the price increase reflects that."
When RDRII has horses whose ball shrink when it's cold, you know money could be shaved off somewhere.
This is a management problem. Manage better. And if you have to cut stuff to make the game within budget then so be it.
Consumers don't have to pay for your shitty management skills
Nothing else needs to be said. I remember article of some contract developer for an FPS. He was based in Eastern Europe, was asked to develop some weapon models for a AAA game.
He mentioned he will do it in 2-3 weeks, the company was shocked since they expected 3 months.

There is incredible bloat in videogames industry, since developers rarely make good managers or even project managers. Monitor your KPIs and OKRs and you will not have to delay for a year and go over budget.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
OF COURSE someone had to bump this thread after the ubisoft 70 dollar announcement. The argument for 70 buck games keeps collapsing day after day
 
All digital games should be $10-$20 cheaper than full retail....no manufacturing costs, no shipping, no 3rd party store....etc....the reason why carts were &70+ in the 80's and 90's was because the chips and manufacturing cost so much.

Not with digital!
 

SSfox

Member
No matter what game, $70 is too much. And people OK with that can be OK with $80, $90, $100...

People need to get less attached from those companies.
I think some games, like GOW 2018 or RDR2 easily deserve 70$
 
We call all argue about the cost going up but why is digital pricing going up as well? Wasn't it supposed to be cheaper that way, no shipping cost, no disc, no printing, and no used copies. Why isn't digital 10 or 20 bucks cheaper?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
We call all argue about the cost going up but why is digital pricing going up as well? Wasn't it supposed to be cheaper that way, no shipping cost, no disc, no printing, and no used copies. Why isn't digital 10 or 20 bucks cheaper?
To keep the retain partners happy.

Or else the shelf space will shrink and shrink as it did over the years with PC gaming and Steam sales. Retail partners started ordering less and less physical copies. Physical game sales for consoles are still prevalent to push the consoles into the homes with as much channels as they can ... for now.

Undercut your retail partners, then they will not carry your console that is needed to play your product. It's all about keeping business practices/distribution channels smooth and operational.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom