I stopped buying new games years ago and I would urge others to consider doing the same. The average consumer doesn't have the slightest clue of how much leverage they have over manufacturers because everyone has to have the new thing, right now. If people used a little more will they could force big companies to basically GIVE away products or at bare minimal less than half of what the Jones' are willing to pay. I'm not completely stingy with my money because I do occasionally shell out for games I support (Team Ninja) but that's about it.

And these average consumer even with current buying habits we see many games not getting the payback until several months after launch, with publisher and devs saying that the sales didn't met expectations.

Also if we look at sales curve it is about 50% on first month and the rest between 12 to 24 months after launch, it isn't that much front loaded compared to several other industries.

It's not so much not grasping the fact that it was referring to USD, more about finding it funny to ask that question with USD price as reference where game prices are the lowest and most stable. Yes, a lot of people are willing to pay more than USD 60 already!

Yes if the whole damn game comes on the medium lol

Your profile says your from UK. I'm not sure where you're buying your games from because I rarely pay over 45 (57 USD) for my games (off amazon) sometimes they might be 50 buy never more than that. You need to look better because you're getting ripped off mate.

Even though the price hasn't changed much in years, we sometimes pay more than the standard for the games we like. Most games I play after price cuts, others I pay full price and a for a few I pay collector's edition price. There are even others that I pay for DLC.

So, the same game that I buy for $40, you might have bought for $100. So the devs lost $20 from me but got $40 more from you.

On top of all that, we all have to pay for online access and some pay other subscriptions too. So although I don't pay full price all the time, I pay for online access and PS Now, things that I didn't have to pay 15 years ago.

I don't think anything good will come from a new higher standard price. Many will be cross and will end up buying after the price cut anyway. Cinemas for example had their prices up because they sell theatre experiences. There's no way for the consumer to get round it. Although gaming is an experience too, it's still wrapped as a product. Devs would have to agree between each other to put the prices up, otherwise the ones who try might have to face consumer anger.

That might explain why subscriptions are popping up everywhere.

Having said that, I'm not sure development costs are that high, when many devs use frameworks and tools that bake a lot of what they do. Also, they reuse a lot of features and resources from games developed during the same generation. It's obvious that games like CoD and FIFA are not that complex to develop once they build the first of the gen. I wouldn't be surprised if sport games are all about adding new characters. Currently, from PS3 on, the difference between the old and new gens are not that big in terms of raw software development (I mean the same dev tools will run on both PS4 and PS5). It's not like the huge difference between making a game for PS2 and PS3. Back then, there was also the problem of porting which today is far less complicated if not plain easy to do.

I can see the huge cost of a GTAVI, but this is an exception and they'll obviously make a lot of money as usual. Most games are not like that. Nintendo games like Mario and Mario Kart as well as the recent example of Death Stranding show that developing current gen games are not that complex. It seems to me that Death Stranding was just the work of a quite medium-sized team working on a very resourceful framework. A game like Mario Kart must be piece of cake and I doubt they have to employ an army to pull that off.

Anyway, my answer is no. Keep it $60.

Games in 1990 cost $50. With inflation that's $98.69 by today's standards. Plus I'd imagine most games are more expensive, proportionally, than games from 1990.

Answer? We are all spoiled with stupid low prices.

I dont mind the price of games today, and depending on the Value of the game itself, ill pay more. However ifs its digital only than id expect the price to be always slightly cheaper than the physical version.

Actually, next gen, based on the type of BD disc used, if the entire game at launch, with ZERO day one downloads, is in the box, on 1, 2, 3, BD's, whatever, I'd pay a little more for not having to download anything other than smaller patches for a while.

Q:"Would you be willing to pay more than the "$60" pricetag for a game today?"
Personally no. I usually wait until a price drop which can happen quite fast.. unless the game is called 'Octopath Traveler' ;). Jokes aside there are so many great games out there to play I am in no rush to go out and buy a game on day one.
Still, if you can get near $1 an hour gameplay out of the game then I'd say it's a good investment if it's your favourite game for example.

Q:"So the question I'm asking you guys today is, whatever the ceiling for the price of a base game (not counting special editions with extras) is in your country, would you be comfortable paying say $20 - $40 more for a game, if it feels justified?"
If you're buying the FF7 remake, then expect to pay more! ;). I'd personally pay up to about £35 for a new/base game (that's about $45 US at this time). However there are so many games I'm playing out there to catch up on that I end up paying a LOT less a little later from sites like Kinguin, cd keys, Steam sale and so on.
I expect this is the same for many who are simply looking for great value.