Yes. When games moved to discs during the PS1 era, they were $40.00. Then they jumped to $50.00 during the PS2 gen. Now they're $60.00.

People will defend it by saying that costs have gone up, but that's not the consumers problem. If they can't make money on a AAA game at $40.00, it's time to reevaluate things imo.

It's a good price. I just don't like the fact we keep getting half games for that price tag.

But you have to consider inflation also. EVERYTHING goes up but average wages also go up. What people earned in 95 is a lot less than what they earn now. People aren't better off now even though they earn more it's just costs rise with the time and wgaes to to balance it.

If $60 for a game was to much, nobody would buy them and the gaming market would shrink. Personally I'm happy to see the gaming market grow. In fact you probably pay the equivalent less than you did with a PS1 game. $40 in 95 is probably worth a lot more than $60 in 2014. And you also have to factor that games are now multimillion dollar projects. $60 actually isnt that bad.

I just see that shadow explained it way better than me.

EA would laugh really badly at your question.

There are definitely games being put on the market priced above what they should be relative to production costs.

But in all fairness, this pricing model is largely based upon the legacy of movie ticket prices, where an indie film that cost $1m USD to produce has the same $10 ticket price as the $250m USD summer blockbuster.

When it comes to the home video game market, originally (going back to the 80s), the cost to produce the game itself, a cartridge with ROMs and a circuit board, represented a not insignificant amount cost per unit. These days, optical media in a plastic box, shipped to retail represents less than 10% of the retail price of a game, regardless of how much data or how large the game is.

But, that old pricing model still largely exists by default. However, there are plenty of developers who adjust the MSRP of their product based upon the amount of resources that went into it. Smaller studio games without a huge turnaround time often clock in under the standard $60 MSRP. We see re-releases of existing games with added content for $40 or less. We see games that were originally distributed exclusively through DD in retail packaging below $40, etc. etc.

If any of the above are priced at the same $60 as say something like Infamous Second Son, it's really up to the consumer to decide whether they're going to pay $60 for a game that took maybe a quarter of the man hours to produce for the same $60. When publishers do this, sales are often muted and distributers have to resort to discounting early. So at that point, the the consumer can pick up the same game (often from the same pressing) for considerably less.

If you can't wait, then you're saying any game is worth exactly what the publisher sets the original MSRP at.

Depends of the game, for example Titanfall online MP only game no story whatsoever is just ridiculous paying 60 bucks!

I can only refer to Euro-prices.
60€ is too much regardless of the game itself.
Full-Price should be 39,99€, Minigame-collections und cheaper games 29,99€,

The only game i pay more is MarioKart8 (i fear it really will be 59,99€ -.-) - i buy it as soon as it is at 49,99€.
In general I think games are too expensive at release.
The good thing is - many of them are having massive price drop within 6month after release.

games cost millions of dollars to make these days,and all there asking for is a mere $60. I don't think it's to much at all. Just don't buy every game that comes out,are wait for a price drop.

$60 is a good price for games that you want to play or franchises that you like. If you want something badly, probably is worth it.