Support NeoGAF

[Katt”BuckNasty”Johnston]

The market will adjust accordingly. I mean, only like a dozen people max were going pay for Destruction Allstars at 70 USD. Lol.

Side question. Why are people acting like SP:MM is a problem at 50 USD because it’s 8-10 hours long. Was Gears 2 DLC because it was only 8-10 hours long?? (One of the dopest games of all time and the best Gears )

 

[EverydayBeast]

Nobody is defending the $70 price point to me it's about being next gen and new, launching a new console is a big deal and the hardest part is the launch, this is publishers making sure their heads are where they need to be in making money.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

The market will adjust accordingly. I mean, only like a dozen people max were going pay for Destruction Allstars at 70 USD. Lol.

Side question. Why are people acting like SP:MM is a problem at 50 USD because it’s 8-10 hours long. Was Gears 2 DLC because it was only 8-10 hours long?? (One of the dopest games of all time and the best Gears )

Destruction All-Stars is going to be free on PS+ anyways.

 

[SegaShack]

OP, honest question for you. Why does it matter? If something isnt worth the price to you, just wait til it is.

Games have always been in the ballpark of 50-70, even in the 90s, which is a lot more after inflation.

Even back then, I rarely ever bought anything at full price. If a game is not worth the price for you just wait a few months.

If Ubisoft wants 1000 dollars for the suckers that need a game on release day, let them do it.

 

[Krappadizzle]

When companies have found more and more ways to nickel and dime it's consumer base, some people will still support price increases on top of all the bullshit mtx. Some people will never learn.

Nobody is defending the $70 price point to me it's about being next gen and new, launching a new console is a big deal and the hardest part is the launch, this is publishers making sure their heads are where they need to be in making money.

These companies are literally posting billions in profit. BILLIONS.

 

[diffusionx]

Prices always go up, and companies exist to make money not entertain us for free.

That's not to justify the price increase, but it was obviously going to happen at some point, and I am kind of surprised it didn't happen earlier. The price has nothing to do with the cost to make it, or the ability to get rid of loot crates or whatever (right like that's happening). The price is set to, as always, what people are willing to pay. Companies believe that they can charge $70 for new games on a new console, so they are going to forge ahead.

 

[magaman]

Crazy thought: Vote with your wallet.

OP is the type of guy who goes to the Mercedes dealership and cries that their cars are more expensive than economy cars. You have a choice. You can buy the economy car, or you can buy the expensive one. Your choice. Mindblowing.

Even crazier, the $70 price tag will drop a few months after a game is released. Have some self-control and wait, if it's that big a deal. If your life revolves around playing the next videogame, then your priorities are a bit shite.

Lesson: Don't buy a game at $70 if you don't think it's worth it.

 

[duhmetree]

If GTA6 is $100, would you buy it?

 

[Fbh]

The market will adjust accordingly. I mean, only like a dozen people max were going pay for Destruction Allstars at 70 USD. Lol.

Side question. Why are people acting like SP:MM is a problem at 50 USD because it’s 8-10 hours long. Was Gears 2 DLC because it was only 8-10 hours long?? (One of the dopest games of all time and the best Gears )

Gears 2 also had a robust and popular multiplayer mode. The campaign also felt like a completely new thing and didn't recycle most of the assets and locations from Gears 1.

But I agree the market will adjust accordingly and devs should be able to charge whatever they want for their games. To me a sub 10 hours long game with no multiplayer mode and little to no replay value isn't worth $50 (specially when for $10-20 more I can buy stuff like Demon Souls Remake and Cyberpunk, etc), but I have absolutely no problem waiting until it's $20. The older I get the less I care about getting everything on day 1

 

[Allnamestakenlol]

I misread the title as "isn't horseshit" and thought to myself, "That's a bunch of horseshit!"

To be fair, I'm not financially hampered so much as to quibble over $10, but with that said, I generally game on PC and wait until I can either find a deal or the game goes on sale. Also, it depends on the game - some give you so much content that I'd happily pay more. It's just the idea of a flat increase that bugs me.

 

[brian0057]

OP, honest question for you. Why does it matter? If something isnt worth the price to you, just wait til it is.

Games have always been in the ballpark of 50-70, even in the 90s, which is a lot more after inflation.

Even back then, I rarely ever bought anything at full price. If a game is not worth the price for you just wait a few months.

If Ubisoft wants 1000 dollars for the suckers that need a game on release day, let them do it.

I'm not saying that games can't cost $70. What I'm saying is that every argument in favor of it, apart from "just because...", is BS.

If Ubisoft or Rockstar wanna charge that kind of money for their games, good for them. I won't pay it, though.

But let's not pretend there's some altruistic reason for the hike. Eveything that happened in the previos two generations will still happen in the next one. The difference is that you'll have to pay more. That's it.

 

[SegaShack]

I'm not saying that games can't cost $70. What I'm saying is that every argument in favor of it, apart from "just because...", is BS.

If Ubisoft or Rockstar wanna charge that kind of money for their games, good for them. I won't pay it, though.

But let's not pretend there's some altruistic reason for the hike. Eveything that happened in the previos two generations will still happen in the next one. The difference is that you'll have to pay more. That's it.

Why are the arguments BS? Games DO cost more to make than they used to, even when you factor in DLC etc. It makes sense that having a team of 12 people spending a year making a SNES game isn't the same cost as 2 thousand people making a Call of Duty game.

 

[Ultra Violento]

RIP here in brazil where it's gonna cost $350.

 

[SolidSlug]

Well, at this point, it takes a team of 500 people 3 years to make a AAA game, so of course, the cost of failure is very high.

 

[kevm3]

This will make waiting to buy games a lot easier. I think this price increase will benefit big publishers who can put out blockbusters. People are more likely to accept $70 for a game like Call of Duty, Spiderman etc., than for a Double A title. Then again if those titles keep their games at $60 bucks, it could help them out as well since they will have a price advantage compared to the Triple A games.

 

[Krappadizzle]

Why are the arguments BS? Games DO cost more to make than they used to, even when you factor in DLC etc. It makes sense that having a team of 12 people spending a year making a SNES game isn't the same cost as 2 thousand people making a Call of Duty game.

You are actually making your counter weaker by talking about Call of Duty. The game that made $536 Million dollars on microtransactions in just 1 quarter. Even if that game cost $150 Million to make, which is HIGHLY unlikely, it still makes crazy profit. Those profits aren't being reinvested to give you better/bigger games, they are going straight to CEO bonuses. You are paying more, because they think you'll pay that. Not because they HAVE to raise prices to keep up with inflation. IF you bought that lie, you are exactly the perfect customer for them. They may cost more to make, but they've make more than EVER in the history of videogames too.