Why the $70 next gen title price increase is horsesh*t.

brian0057

Member
This video right here summarizes why every argument in favor of the price hike is wrong.


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.
  • "Movie tickets have gone up in price due to inflation. Why not videogames?"
Movie ticket prices vary by region, by time, and even by film. But overall, the price is not standardize, unlike gaming. Also, using DVD's doesn't work since those prices haven't gone up in over 15 years.
  • "It will get rid of loot boxes and micro-transactions. So it's either that or paying -$70."
No, it's gonna be both. Why would publishers get rid of such lucrative practice. They'll sell you the game at $70 while also shoving in MTX and lootboxes.
  • "Games will be better."
This is highly subjective and depends heavily on individual developers. And considering the state of the last two generations, I'll just keep my money instead.
  • "It's inevitable. People will pay it."
This is actually the least BS reason. No, I won't. I'll just wait for titles to drop in price or during a Steam sale. Good luck getting that new standard to stick.
 

farmerboy

Member
I'm happy to pay for games that I'm looking forward to, and that have been recieved/reviewed well.

Edit: 100% agree on the budget argument though. Can't just spend 100 mil on a game and think thats ok
 
Last edited:

brian0057

Member
I'm happy to pay for games that I'm looking forward to, and that have been recieved/reviewed well.

Edit: 100% agree on the budget argument though. Can't just spend 100 mil on a game and think thats ok
Me too. I'll just wait for the game to drop in price before I drop the cash.
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
70USD who the fuck cares, but 80EUR is pretty far from that (not sure how much of VAT, you have thrre in particular states)

I found this, it's pretty sizable jump. In USD it's ~89USD vs ~75USD. It's not 94USD which would be 80EUR, however with 25k CZK as average pay, not great.
(Apologies for the PS4 picture, it's same price on PS5)


 
Last edited:

Matt_Fox

Member
Depends on the game. Miles Morales only being 8 hours represent terrible value in comparison to COD; with single player campaign, zombies, multi-player and warzone.

The cost to hours played ratio makes a mockery of Morales.
 
Don’t buy games at launch unless you think it’s worth.

Those companies have no obligation to make it affordable to you at launch, I wish they had but they don’t. Just don’t buy the games at launch and feed this system. You can very well wait to pay a price you think it’s okay.

You wanna tell to those publisher this is a problem? Don’t fucking buy it. You have no obligation to buy full price while they have no obligation to sell it cheap.
 

Keihart

Member
I think production costs don't justify it but not because games need less production, on the contrary, games need better production in the sense that there are many games wasting as much as it cost to make them in advertisement because not even the publisher has faith in the product and the end product doesn't reflect this huge production values. For example, you get this buggy messes from Ubisoft and Bethesda and whatnot where this games are said to have cost hundreds of millions some times or something like Halo Infinite but then on the other hand you have games like the Sony first party efforts which are way lower on budget shyly aproaching the hundred mark and have production values way over these other games.

Good games are gonna sell to their niche regardless but publisher who don't understand who plays what keep pushing for games that are supposed to be fun for everyone aiming at the lowest common denominator.
If you don't sell enough to justify the investment but wanna keep the niche player base i say go for it, increase the price, but most of the publishers are not gonna be happy with the increase and gonna keep chasing this huge audiences and keep pumping the same buggy scuffed production values products.
 

martino

Member
Don’t buy games at launch unless you think it’s worth.

Those companies have no obligation to make it affordable to you at launch, I wish they had but they don’t. Just don’t buy the games at launch and feed this system. You can very well wait to pay a price you think it’s okay.

You wanna tell to those publisher this is a problem? Don’t fucking buy it. You have no obligation to buy full price while they have no obligation to sell it cheap.
we are now at a price where it's what i will do.
 

Skifi28

Member
70USD who the fuck cares, but 80EUR is pretty far from that (not sure how much of VAT, you have thrre in particular states)

Pretty much this. EU was already getting shafted at 70 euros vs 70 dollars, but now it has become ridiculous.
 

Portugeezer

Member
I don't think that people moan if RDR3 or GTA6 is $70. Those are probably worth $100.

So please, keep the testicle shrinkage details.

That said, at £70, I will definitely buy fewer games at launch. So the publishers may decide to reduce prices in future if many people do this.
 

WakeTheWolf

Member
This video right here summarizes why every argument in favor of the price hike is wrong.


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.
  • "Movie tickets have gone up in price due to inflation. Why not videogames?"
Movie ticket prices vary by region, by time, and even by film. But overall, the price is not standardize, unlike gaming. Also, using DVD's doesn't work since those prices haven't gone up in over 15 years.
  • "It will get rid of loot boxes and micro-transactions. So it's either that or paying -$70."
No, it's gonna be both. Why would publishers get rid of such lucrative practice. They'll sell you the game at $70 while also shoving in MTX and lootboxes.
  • "Games will be better."
This is highly subjective and depends heavily on individual developers. And considering the state of the last two generations, I'll just keep my money instead.
  • "It's inevitable. People will pay it."
This is actually the least BS reason. No, I won't. I'll just wait for titles to drop in price or during a Steam sale. Good luck getting that new standard to stick.

The problem with it in general is consumers coming out and saying they are happy to pay it. Essentially just the sheep of the industry who never hold their shady practices to account
 

brian0057

Member
I don't think that people moan if RDR3 or GTA6 is $70. Those are probably worth $100.

So please, keep the testicle shrinkage details.

That said, at £70, I will definitely buy fewer games at launch. So the publishers may decide to reduce prices in future if many people do this.
The problem isn´t that games shouldn't cost $70. It's that they want all next gen games to cost $70 for BS reasons.
If GTA 6 or RDR3 do cost that, fine. That's on Take-Two to take that gamble. But the industry doesn't get to decide how much I pay for a game, I'll decide how much I want to pay for a game.
 

Kev Kev

Gold Member
Games were already too expensive imo. I haven’t bought a game full price in probably 5+ years. The industry actually trying to raise that price is fucking hilarious.

Vote with your wallets and don’t buy this shit people. Quality of games isn’t going to go up bc if this, they are just trying to create more profit; seeing what they can get away with
 

Hostile_18

Banned
Yep outside of Demon Souls I will not be paying the equivalent of $90 for a game. The price rise in America to $70 is perhaps overdue but how that is reflected across the rest of the world is outrageous.

It almost seems out of touch with reality. Like people in America HQ deciding to charge the rest of the world more but not really knowing the value of different currencies so just "taking a guess".

For American GAF imagine having to pay $90 a game, standard edition. That's the reality the majority of other counties are facing (at least with First Party Titles).
 
Last edited:

DrDamn

Member
I think the EU/UK situation needs re-iterating again in the context of last generation.

US prices for last generation were a $60 standard all the way through weren't they?

UK prices started at £45/£50 - even as recently as 2017 HZD, GT:S and Nier were £50. 2018 onwards games crept up to the current £55/£60 standard. So we already had a £10 hike over the generation whilst the US remained on $60. Now going into the new generation we get another £10 hike alongside a $10 hike for the US. That widens the gap still as even with the worse exchange rate than the start of last gen £1 is still worth more than $1 + UK sales tax.
 

Ceadeus

Member
They should have, at least, wait for non cross gen games to hit the market.

At 79$CAN I already was picking the one I know I would play a lot. Now at 89$, I'll choose even more carefully. It's becoming a very expensive hobby for sure.
 

DonJorginho

Member
Depends on the game. Miles Morales only being 8 hours represent terrible value in comparison to COD; with single player campaign, zombies, multi-player and warzone.

The cost to hours played ratio makes a mockery of Morales.
But Miles is not £70/$70? It is £50/$50 across the board to accommodate for that dip in length.

And you are only bringing up the main story, it is around 20 hours to do everything, that is still a short showing and if it was your general price of £60-70 it would be disgraceful, but it is well worth the current price for a top quality first party Sony title.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the whole $70 price increase is crap and it won’t necessarily translate into a better gaming experience. Not to mention mandatory and overpriced DLC, microtransactions and season passes. I can’t believe that there are a plethora of people defending and wanting to pay higher prices for games.

I don’t want to get into the whole physical vs digital debate, but if you don’t want to support higher prices, buy physical because it will most likely be easier to find games on sale and the price drops will probably be more generous and consistent. With digital, you will inevitably be more at the mercy of the digital store’s prices.
 
Last edited:

Matt_Fox

Member
But Miles is not £70/$70? It is £50/$50 across the board to accommodate for that dip in length.

And you are only bringing up the main story, it is around 20 hours to do everything, that is still a short showing and if it was your general price of £60-70 it would be disgraceful, but it is well worth the current price for a top quality first party Sony title.

Give or take £5 Morales is priced the same as Call Of Duty, and according to reviewers it's around an 8 hour campaign. According to Activision the average Call Of Duty user spends 170 hours playing the game (some obviously play far more).

Morales is a DLC that reuses assets from Spider Man. As a comparison the Witcher 3: Blood And Wine DLC released at $20 for a 20 hour campaign.

By any objective metric Morales is poor value.
 
Last edited:

INC

Member
My worry is, price goes up, but the quality doesn't, the amount t of unfinished games this, that we were basically paying for beta versions that were patched and patched was unreal

If the game is complete out the box the sure, now it seems my highest praise is oh wow its not buggy, there weren't many, ghost of Tsushima comes to mind, of being out the box and running like a complete game, that would be worth £70-
But something like bfv where they basically conned the special edition owners, unacceptable

You can't charge premium prices, for subpar products, or the beats headphone situation as I like to call it.
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
Also game consoles are much more widespread nowdays, so they sell much more than they used to, drastically increasing the profits of games. So there is no excuse to increase the prices other than greed.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
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.

Not a real counterargument. As funny of an example as it is, that's not management, that's creative and you're asking to compromise their vision for the sake of shaving ten bucks off the final product.

Tiny details like that are what make blockbuster games like RDR2 or TLOU2 (and I don't even really like TLOU2) special. They didn't have to code in things like whether or not to have your pants tucked into your boots, or people reaction differently to you being covered in mud, or snow that melts on clothes and mud that dries, or Arthur flourishing his gun if you double-tap L1, or any of the other 300 tiny awesome details, but they did. I would rather pay the whopping ten bucks extra and be constantly impressed by these little details rather than have Ubisoft Open World Game #13497 which feels like the exact same game as last time.

As a comparison the Witcher 3: Blood And Wine DLC released at $20 for a 20 hour campaign.

I'm not refuting the poor value, but I've seen this comparison a lot and it's worthless. You need to own The Witcher 3 to get access to that extra content. MM is standalone, you could have never touched the first game and be paying $50 for access to Insomniac's New York for the first time.

A much better example would be Lost Legacy, which was a standalone of similar length, but which was $10 cheaper and was a totally new adventure on different maps.
 

MastaKiiLA

Member
Games development is not cheap. Devs are going out of business, and getting snapped up by larger companies. That's because the economics are not favorable. One solution is increasing the price of games. Another is lowering development costs. Which one is more practical?

Graphics improve. Do we expect that to result in development costs going up or down? They'll go up, obviously. We could cut back on content, but is the gamer winning anything there? Pay the same price for less of a game. It's the same complaint.

Price increases are in the 16% range, but visual improvements are greater, and require more time to generate and fine-tune. With added technologies like RT, getting these features to look right and run efficiently takes time as well. Time is literally money for development. Cyberpunk's development costs are going to be astronomical once it's all said and done. Yet gamers demand that level of detail and immersion.

It would be great is the GP Netflix model was the way things could be, and we could expect blockbuster titles at bargain basement prices. Hell, even staying the same price as now would be great, but would it be practical? Square is losing money hand-over-fist with a big-name game like Avengers. Developing even a game on the biggest entertainment brand doesn't guarantee success. So you have to expect companies to hedge their bets somehow. The GP model will only hasten the consolidation of the industry. Do we really want Sony and MS to own all the non-Nintendo studios in this business? Is this the awesome future we all envision? I sure fucking don't.

So support the artists. The artists, in this case, are the developers who make the games. If another $10 is going to help some good studios stay afloat and independent this generation, then I'm fine with it. I'm not Daddy Warbucks. I'm not donating to a studio's Patreon or Kickstarter. I buy games I like, and I believe will be worth the money. I'm willing to pay $70 per game, if it helps to deliver a great product. That might mean shelling out $70 every 2 years to 2k Sports, but I get 2 years of enjoyment from their product. How many other things give me years of enjoyment for $70? I don't commit even get 1/10 of the time and enjoyment out of a movie, that I will from a good game, yet I pay more than 1/5 the price of the next-gen gaming asking price. I don't complain about the value, because it is what it is. I want to watch movies, and I want those blockbusters to get better visually. When the price becomes prohibitive, I'll stop paying for movies. When the price becomes prohibitive for games, I'll stop gaming. Until then, the games I've been getting are worth $70.

If some of you really feel that the $70 pricepoint is not worth it, then don't buy the games. Whining about it, while still paying the price is stupid, and makes you look disingenuous. On a forum where more than a few people are paying $500 for systems that they won't even buy new games on, and multi-thousand dollar HDTVs that most forms of media can't even support, bitching about an extra $10 is embarrassing. A bunch of fucking attention-whores who want everything to stay the same as the first day they held a controller, except for all the things that are really fucking expensive like microprocessors and high-quality visuals.
 
Last edited:

regawdless

Banned
Sure, development got more expensive. But the market for games has also grown and a lot more games are being sold. Also way more digital sales, so more money goes to the devs / platform holders. AND DLC which is just a money printing machine.

In my opinion, a lot of today's games are unnecessarily bloated with content. Games should be more streamlined and better designed.
 
I think the EU/UK situation needs re-iterating again in the context of last generation.

US prices for last generation were a $60 standard all the way through weren't they?

UK prices started at £45/£50 - even as recently as 2017 HZD, GT:S and Nier were £50. 2018 onwards games crept up to the current £55/£60 standard. So we already had a £10 hike over the generation whilst the US remained on $60. Now going into the new generation we get another £10 hike alongside a $10 hike for the US. That widens the gap still as even with the worse exchange rate than the start of last gen £1 is still worth more than $1 + UK sales tax.

You can get both AC Valhalla and Watch Dogs Legion for less than £50.
You can get Godfall for £63 and Demon Souls for £65.
Sure - would I like them all to be cheaper? Of course I would. But to assume that all next gen games are going to be costing you £70 across the board here is just silly. Even if £70 becomes the standard RRP for every next gen game - as with previous gens, you'll be able to find most games with at least £5 off their RRP if not more.
 

DonJorginho

Member
Give or take £5 Morales is priced the same as Call Of Duty, and according to reviewers it's around an 8 hour campaign. According to Activision the average Call Of Duty user spends 170 hours playing the game (some obviously play far more).

Morales is a DLC that reuses assets from Spider Man. As a comparison the Witcher 3: Blood And Wine DLC released at $20 for a 20 hour campaign.

By any objective metric Morales is poor value.
More like give or take £10.

And Call Of Duty is a franchise that reuses core mechanics year upon year and you can theoretically spend hundreds of hours sure but that depends on how well the multiplayer and Zombies experiences hold up over time which is never guaranteed, just look at Infinite Warfare.

TW3 is unrivalled in it's DLC but compared to any other game Miles Morales is a great value for what you get.

A concise and top tier 8-10 hour main story, a gorgeous open world to explore, suits and upgrades to obtain and mix and match with, a ton of sidequests to experience and a top tier gameplay system to enjoy which has been built upon to feel fresh.

For £50, which you can get for much cheaper in certain stores or using cheap digital codes, Miles Morales is a good value for the quality of game you are getting.

Cold War is a good value for hours you could spend, but the quality of the game itself is wildly up to debate given that Treyarch's last few games have been pretty average.

Just say you hate Sony and move on mate.
 

Vae_Victis

Banned
Those extra $10 are an Impatience Tax, just like Pre-order bonuses and Collector's Editions are, more often than not, a FOMO Tax.

If publishers can get away with fleecing impatient or dumb people even more, more power to them; if their games go unsold until they drastically slash the price and have lost launch momentum, launch prices will go down in the long run.

The only reason prices are going up is because at least some people are willing to pay more. I personally don't care much about listing prices, for the simple reason that you make your own price by waiting for a drop or a sale; but if you don't want this to happen, then convince more people to wait before they buy, because insulting and pestering publishers will accomplish jack shit. Money talks.
 
Last edited:
The same people defending the price hike are the same people who can't deal with the cost of gaming on pc. Coincidence?🤔 People keep saying 70 dollar games are coming to pc but that's not something reality will tell you.
 

Matt_Fox

Member
I'm not refuting the poor value, but I've seen this comparison a lot and it's worthless. You need to own The Witcher 3 to get access to that extra content. MM is standalone, you could have never touched the first game and be paying $50 for access to Insomniac's New York for the first time.

In reality don't you think that the majority of people who buy Morales at £50 are people who do indeed already own the main game?

Also its true that Blood and Wine came out a year after the Witcher, so you could buy the full game for $30 by then anyway - which would give you the full game plus the DLC (around 80 hours of gameplay) for the same price as Morales.

Morales is poor value, there's simply no justification.
 

Kssio_Aug

Member
Yeah, I consider it a whole bunch of horse shit as well to be honest.

The most expensive games to make are already making use of different practices to make money, and they're probably profiting like never before. Nowadays videogames became a popular trend, and it's not anymore that nerd thing that some would even deny such a hobby.

Games are making tons of money with lootboxes, in-game purchases, tournaments, marketing, diverse products, and so on. And I don't believe for a second that any of these are gonna brake because they now cost 10 dollars more for the initial purchase.
 
Last edited:

SlicedBread3

Gold Member
But the industry doesn't get to decide how much I pay for a game, I'll decide how much I want to pay for a game.

Is the industry holding a gun to your head and making you buy the games? They can't decide how much you specifically are willing to spend on a game but they have a right to sell it for as much as they wish. If it sticks, good for them, if it doesn't then they'll have to rethink it.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
In reality don't you think that the majority of people who buy Morales at £50 are people who do indeed already own the main game?

Also its true that Blood and Wine came out a year after the Witcher, so you could buy the full game for $30 by then anyway - which would give you the full game plus the DLC (around 80 hours of gameplay) for the same price as Morales.

Morales is poor value, there's simply no justification.

I doubt we'll have any real idea of who owns what, honestly. They might give us the "new players" numbers or whatever. Plenty of people might jump in on the Ultimate Edition which combines the two games for a lower overall price. And the point at which the DLC was released doesn't change anything, nor does the length or quality, the point is you still HAVE to own The Witcher 3. Miles Morales is not DLC no matter which way people want to try and spin it.

Again, not defending the value, just saying that Blood + Wine is a bad comparison. I bought the disc edition PS5 so none of this stuff affects me, I'll just beat it and eBay it. People should vote with their wallets if this stuff is such an issue for them, yet they're buying digital-only consoles in droves. It's like lying in the road and asking for the cars driving over them to be lighter.
 

DonJorginho

Member
I've owned every Sony console and am looking forward to my PS5 preorder. I'm not a sucker though, £50 for 8 hour DLC? Please.
Again, it takes 20 hours to do everything and you can get it for £42.85 using a Digital Code from ShopTo or even better, complete it quickly and sell it before it drops in price.

You're making it sound like the biggest con in Gaming.
 
Last edited:

Matt_Fox

Member
DonJorghinho, go for it mate! Don't let grumpy gits like me put you off spending your hard earned on whatever game you fancy.
 
its "bad" because you have to pay more but the games got way more expensive to make. And i dont count nintendo games that are developed by indie scoped teams and sold as full 60$ games to them. if you pay 60$ for a mario, zelda or yoshi game then you lost your right to complain about 80$ AAA games which are 10x - 100x as expensive to make. The price increase was long overdue.
 

Kssio_Aug

Member
Back in the day we used to get our games on cartridges. In those days you could finish a game within an hour for a cool $60-$80, some even hit $90. Good times.
But they also used to sell WAY LESS units and didn't have any kind of DLC or in-game purchase. It was one and done.
 

brian0057

Member
Is the industry holding a gun to your head and making you buy the games? They can't decide how much you specifically are willing to spend on a game but they have a right to sell it for as much as they wish. If it sticks, good for them, if it doesn't then they'll have to rethink it.
This but for MTX and loot boxes also.
 

TheAssist

Member
People are actually arguing that despite everything getting more expensive, this should not go for games?
Like...in what world are you living in? Unless there is a disruption in the economy everything will always get more expensive at some point (usually when the industry has matured and has reached stagnation in terms of its audience size).

The arguments made in the OP are BS. Because movie ticket prices are different in different regions game prices cant go up? What?

Also this seems to be a very american way of thinking since the rest of the world is paying much more for games have gone through price hikes in the past.
Shit DLC, MTX and Loot Boxes are a result of stagnant prices (to an extend) and now that they are here, they are here to stay.
I'd rather pay more if that ensured devs can make a living and game ideas dont get scrapped during pre production because "it can not be monetized".


The market has to decide whether people are willing to pay for it, but outright saying that games should never get more expensive is another level of entitlement. Crazy talk.
 

DonJorginho

Member
DonJorghinho, go for it mate! Don't let grumpy gits like me put you off spending your hard earned on whatever game you fancy.
I do see your points mate and if it wasn't £50 I would agree, I just personally think for the price it is a good deal.

You aren't a grumpy git at all mate and you make sense with how it probably was originally planned as DLC, I just can't wait to swing around in NYC again, along with Demon's Souls, Cold War and Valhalla next week will be a fun one!
 
Top Bottom