So, this question has been around my head for a long time. When a game is released, we all have different opinions about if the price is right or not, if it's too expensive or too cheap. So, do we put a price based on the budget? That seems very problematic, since maybe AAA games like The Old Republc, with a 210$M budget, would cost double the prize of, for example, Max Payne 3, with a 108$M budget (the source is Wikipedia, not the most reliable source, but that's what I could find). And there are developers who do way more interesting things with less budget. So, hours of content? Nah, there would be a significant difference between Fallout 3 and The Order:1886, for example. Both of them costs the same. Quality? That's kind of subjective. Enjoyment? Development time? (The Last Guardian would cost more than a console, that's for sure).

The standard for the gaming industry is 60 bucks for AAA games, about 40 for remasters, and the prices vary a lot with retro gaming on each digital platform. Is it right? Expensive? Cheap? I know it's way more complex than that, way more complex, but I'd like to know what's your opinion about this. 

WoW and Super Mario 3D World don't cost the same when you have to pay for a subscription to WoW.

True, bad example, I'll edit that ;)

I believe the biggest factor in prices has to be the amount of content. Say for example you have Super Mario 3D World and Undertale. Both are great games, but its clear that 3D World offers more content than Undertale, hence the bigger price tag.

However, as you said factors like replayability come in as well. In that case I still think that a game with more content but less replayability should cost more than a game with little content but a lot of replayability, simply due to the fact that there is more stuff in a game with more content. I can't imagine a story-driven game with perhaps not that much replayability being priced lower than Pong with more replayability but MUCH less content.

Yeah, that would be an important factor. But take for example the content that offers a game like Xenoblade Chronicles X, and The Order:1886. And still the first one is cheaper. If we actually compare the content of both of them, the difference in prize would be quite ridiculous xDDDDDD. Some games would cost like a penny. I know, there are a lof of factor involving this, and I think it's very complicated to take all into account, so we have this standarized 60 for AAA games, a 40/50 for lesser games, and indies less than 20 normally. Look at The Witness, for example. A lot of people said it was quite ridiculous that this game costs 40 bucks. And it has like 70+ hours of content. So being indie kind of affects this, because some people can't understand that this game costs that much.

I think it's budget. There is a reason why people are willing to pay 40 quid for games like God of War 3 (ps3) and not for indie games, even if they last longer or are more fun. AAA games cannot be done by a small team and need to sell extremely well for a sequel to be made.

The genre is also relevant. I mean, there is this mentality that 2d games should cost less than 3d games, but I think that goes back to budget.

The Order is a bad example in terms of showing that people are not willing to pay full price for a 4-5 hour game. There are plenty of games that last around that long and don't get much criticism. As soon as there is a hate wagon for a game, it's pretty much over. The hate for it spreads like a decease.

I think that had more to do with its genre than it being indie.

Yeah, you could put any game you want. I know there are more games with that duration that costs the same, it's just what it crossed my mind in the moment in terms of duration ;)

I'd calculate how much it cost in development and everybody's wages who was involved, I'd then calculate the marketing costs. After I've figured them figures out I'd then consider the profit I want to make and take in to account the company will be making another game soon after the release of this game, and I could take advantage of this and help fund that game slightly too. After I'd figured all this out I'd have to estimate how much units it is going to sell at the very least, that's when id put the price on the game.

It really is a difficult thing to put on stone.There are certainly some factors that help decide what price it should have:content of a game, budget, and market reach.And I beleve that most publishers base on that to give the price on their games.If a game has 50+ million dollar budget, it will of course have the full price.But if a game that is part of a genre that historically is niche, or has a small market reach, developers need to manage the budget in a way that they can make a more affordable price, so that it does try to gain new fans, and so increases the odds of bigger success, but also that dont abuse too much of the existing fanbase to not displease them or burn them, since they are the lifeblood of the game sales.
Even in alternate paying methods, such as subscrition, I think a balance should be reached.For me, if you have a subscrition model, the best solution is that the company should charge either nothing or very little to buy the game itself, and make the bulk of the money through the subs.In that way it mitigates the probable backlash of using subscription model in these age in that almost none use, but also make it more atractive to people who just want to try it out, and that can in the end become regular players.

As I said, it really is dependable on the game itself, to see which model is better, and which price point should have in the end.Having a fair price depends on too many variables to put a rule that works for every single game