Forums - Gaming Discussion - Thoughts on 69.99$ games for Next Gen Consoles?

Thoughts on 70$ games next gen?

I'm happy with it, more money=better value 6 5.83%
 
I'm ok with it 26 25.24%
 
Don't like it, but will tolerate it 29 28.16%
 
Completely against it, won't tolerate it 42 40.78%
 
Total:103

Too many pages wasted on inflation arguments whilst ignoring how many free games there are today.

GTA could profit even if it was given away for free like Fortnite is.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
Pyro as Bill said:
Ka-pi96 said:

You implied it though. If the price is $10 after 1 year then when exactly was it $60? Day 1, obviously

Besides, my whole point was that the $60/$10 option was better value regardless of time preference.

I purposely didn't but it's hard to come up with a scenario that excludes time preference in the entertainment industry given that cinema/movie theatres only exists because of it. Some people will pay $50 to watch a film at the cinema but won't play it again until it's free.

If you'd just passed your driving test, and there was car already on the market for 5 years that you really, really wanted but you knew it was gonna drop in price by 80% if you were willing to wait 3 weeks to 12 months, how long would you wait?

You can't avoid talking about time preferences when talking about how the price of a game changes over 5 years though. Those things are intrinsically linked. If you want to avoid that then you can only talk about 1 price and shouldn't take the price 1 year or 5 years later into account at all.

Yeah, I'm not the right person for that comparison. I've no interest in cars whatsoever so passing a driving test or buying a car are both things that mean literally nothing to me. In terms of games however, if I really really wanted it then I'd get it straight away (or as soon as I could afford it if it were prohibitively expensive). I'd only wait for price drops for things that I want, but not that much (ie. about 99% of games released these days).



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Ka-pi96 said:
Pyro as Bill said:

I purposely didn't but it's hard to come up with a scenario that excludes time preference in the entertainment industry given that cinema/movie theatres only exists because of it. Some people will pay $50 to watch a film at the cinema but won't play it again until it's free.

If you'd just passed your driving test, and there was car already on the market for 5 years that you really, really wanted but you knew it was gonna drop in price by 80% if you were willing to wait 3 weeks to 12 months, how long would you wait?

You can't avoid talking about time preferences when talking about how the price of a game changes over 5 years though. Those things are intrinsically linked. If you want to avoid that then you can only talk about 1 price and shouldn't take the price 1 year or 5 years later into account at all.

Yeah, I'm not the right person for that comparison. I've no interest in cars whatsoever so passing a driving test or buying a car are both things that mean literally nothing to me. In terms of games however, if I really really wanted it then I'd get it straight away (or as soon as I could afford it if it were prohibitively expensive). I'd only wait for price drops for things that I want, but not that much (ie. about 99% of games released these days).

Entertainment is near impossible to measure so it's stupid to try.

One person can make a song/story/game that can last thousands of years and entertain billions of people, give it away for free and not make a penny or alternately make riches beyond measure.

Funny old game.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill said:
Ka-pi96 said:

You can't avoid talking about time preferences when talking about how the price of a game changes over 5 years though. Those things are intrinsically linked. If you want to avoid that then you can only talk about 1 price and shouldn't take the price 1 year or 5 years later into account at all.

Yeah, I'm not the right person for that comparison. I've no interest in cars whatsoever so passing a driving test or buying a car are both things that mean literally nothing to me. In terms of games however, if I really really wanted it then I'd get it straight away (or as soon as I could afford it if it were prohibitively expensive). I'd only wait for price drops for things that I want, but not that much (ie. about 99% of games released these days).

Entertainment is near impossible to measure so it's stupid to try.

One person can make a song/story/game that can last thousands of years and entertain billions of people, give it away for free and not make a penny or alternately make riches beyond measure.

Funny old game.

That's true of most things, not just entertainment. What's your point?



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Ka-pi96 said:
Pyro as Bill said:

Entertainment is near impossible to measure so it's stupid to try.

One person can make a song/story/game that can last thousands of years and entertain billions of people, give it away for free and not make a penny or alternately make riches beyond measure.

Funny old game.

That's true of most things, not just entertainment. What's your point?

No it isn't. It's rare for someone to be able to create a billion dollars of value as a one-man band.

I suppose my point is that a great game could charge $0 or $1000 and easily profit more from the free version so judging games by their entry price is a complete waste of time.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Actually what I was originally saying is that PS5 is repeating the same mistakes as the PS3 including an increased cost in games.  But you may be right.  Maybe it's not Sony's fault.  When the PS5 ends up selling like the PS3, then they can always blame their third party partners.

The Xbox360 came a year before the PS3 and games were already priced before the PS3 was released so how was the increased cost in games the PS3's fault?

"When the PS5 ends up selling like the PS3"?

Nothing you say makes any sense and your last sentence seems like you're already dead set on believing that the PS5 somehow is following in the same footsteps as the PS3 with absolutely no shred of proof.



Shadow1980 said:
SvennoJ said:

I'm curious, do you think base prices rising will stimulate free to pay, game pass, gaas, and streaming?

This is what happened to the movie market:

And this is what happened to Trackmania...


Rising prices only drive people away as is evident in this thread alone. The market hasn't been growing much anymore for console games (even slightly shrinking nowadays), while the number of competing releases still seem to go up.

Revenues shrinking is also partly due to many sales, EA access, Game pass, etc driving revenue down.

Together with the economic recession, full new game sales might be on the verge to follow DVD sales from '08 down. At least for now the further move to digital puts more money into publisher's pockets making it less of a necessity to raise prices while still putting in the development budgets gamers expect nowadays.

I think we're entering a downward spiral. Increase new game price -> more people wait for sales or getting it through a subscription -> Overall revenue keeps going down -> Increase game prices.

On the other hand, Tlou2 set records at the full price. .

First off, the home video market is not directly comparable to the console game market because of how movies are distributed and consumed. Clearly, most people tend to think of movies as "disposable" (for lack of a better word), something to be enjoyed temporarily but not kept around, much like a TV show. They may buy a movie here or there that they really like, but most people probably aren't going to re-watch most films often enough to warrant spending $20 on one (I've probably seen close to 150 films in theaters in the past 10 years, yet of those I only got less than a third on Blu-ray, with most of those being Star Wars and MCU). Even in the heydays of VHS and DVD, most films sold only a fraction as well on home video as they did in theaters (usually, it was smash hit action-adventure films and animated family films that did exceptionally well). Also, back in the day renting was a lot costlier and more of a hassle than it is now, and waiting to catch a movie on TV meant having to work around the network's schedule and finding out when the movie comes on, so both of those factors likely added an incentive to just buy the movie. Streaming and even Redbox are far more convenient options.

But people that buy a game brand new for $60 on day one are probably the ones who are really looking forward to that game and want to keep playing it in the long term. People still replay old games all the time. Multiplayer titles are replayed constantly. Odds are, when people spend money on a game, it's for a game they want to keep to replay. Video games are an active form of entertainment, not a passive one, and people who buy them are going to invest more of their time into them.

Moving along.

If rising sticker prices drove people away, then nobody would buy anything anymore. The economy would have ground to a halt many decades ago. A Big Mac was 45 cents back in 1967. Now it is $4. In the 1960s a brand new car would set you back maybe $2500-3000. Now they typically cost over $20,000. Based on national averages, the gasoline you put in those cars cost 30 cents per gallon in 1960, but currently it's over $2/gallon. Few people would have spent $4 on a hamburger or $2 for a gallon of gas or $20,000 on a new car sixty years ago. It would have been too expensive. The average household income back then was less than $6000/year. But what was a prohibitively high sticker price back then is absolutely normal now, and will likely be considered dirt cheap by mid century. Nominal prices increase, but so do nominal incomes. Everything more or less scales over time.

But people are cognizant of inflation in shorter time frames as well. Sure, sometimes people may carp and moan about seeing a price tag go up, but they get over it so long as the increase is relatively modest. Everybody is aware that a dollar just doesn't go as far these days, and so it will continue forever. To go back to video games, in the 1990s the software was indeed more expensive. Someone working minimum wage in 1992 would have had to work about 16-½ hours to earn enough to buy a copy of Street Fighter II for the SNES, but now a minimum wage worker only has to work about 8.3 hours (actually, it'd be more hours than that in both cases because of taxes, but for ease of calculation I'm assuming no taxes). And adjusted for inflation, the MW in 1992 was actually about 50 cent more per hour than the current MW. And let's look at hardware. Today, $400 is considered a reasonable launch price for a new console. It certainly didn't hurt the PS4 any. Not so much in 1995 when the Saturn launched at that price. Sega essentially priced itself out of contention (though that wasn't the only problem it faced). And just as $400 isn't prohibitively expensive for a console anymore, $70 for a new game is not too costly by today's standards. Again, a $60 game in 2010 would be about $70 in today's money when you adjust for inflation.

As for the impact of price increases on sales, in 2005, the $60 price point for disc-based games was reintroduced and made the standard upon the release of the 360. That was a 20% increase in sticker price over the $50 price that been the standard for PS2, Xbox, and GameCube games. Some people back then complained about the increase, saying that $50 was already too much and that $60 was just outrageous, but clearly those opinions were in the minority (and the complainers probably just got over it). That $10 price hik had no negative impact on the size of the gaming market. Combined PS3+360 sales in the U.S. were higher than combined PS2+OXbox sales, and many records were broken in regards to software sales both in the U.S. and worldwide. Combined PS4+XBO sales have outpaced combined PS3+360 sales in the U.S. in aligned terms and we have once again seen many absolutely staggering hit titles. Back in the 80s & 90s, 10 million copies sold for an individual game was a rarity, especially if you don't count titles that benefited from being a pack-in title. Now we get at least a couple of games each year selling 10 million copies worldwide, even on just a single platform (since multiplatform titles used to not be the norm). The PS4 so far has 7 games to have sold over 10M, while the Switch has 9. Meanwhile, the NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1, and N64 only had 9 games in total between the five of them to sell over 10M copies.

Going back further, we saw a price hike in the transition from Gen 3 to Gen 4. NES games typically retailed for $35-50. Meanwhile, SNES and Genesis games retailed for $50-70. It didn't hurt the market any.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that software sales will take a hit by being increased from $60 to $70. If anything, the increase in software sales over time better supports the idea that the inflation-adjusted decline in software prices has encouraged greater spending. Just like the increase to $60 in 2005-06, an increase to $70 for next-gen will just be a temporary reversal of a long-term decline and will likely have no measurable impact on the market. Assuming inflation continues at a roughly constant rate, by 2025 $70 will be worth close to what $60 was in 2013.

I don't agree with your argument that the games industry is very different from the movie industry, but maybe that's just because of my personal experience. My physical movie library is an order of magnitude larger than my physical games collection.

But people that buy a game brand new for $60 on day one are probably the ones who are really looking forward to that game and want to keep playing it in the long term. People still replay old games all the time.

Same goes for those that buy a dvd or blu-ray day one. Old movies are much easier to re-watch than getting back into a game again. For me it's mostly the opposite. Although I often still buy games day 1, the games I actually replay or play long term are very few. The main reason I keep them is because maybe my kids will enjoy them later (and they are)


Anyway what happened to physical movie sales is that digital and streaming took over. I can see the same happening in the games industry. Game pass is not streaming but actually better than streaming, and very much comparable to the ease of streaming for movies. There is also so much 'free' stuff as alternatives with ps+, games with gold and others. Cheap bundles happen more and more often and it seems Steam sales are on all year now.

What I'm getting at, why pay $70 for a game with so many alternatives nowadays. To get people to part with that kind of cash on day one will need a huge marketing budget to get people hyped up enough about the game to be willing to spend that day 1. The 10$ price hike is directly going to the marketing budget...


Maybe this thread isn't representative at all of people that buy games day one for full price, yet I get the feeling that many people in here (the more enthusiast gamers) are fine waiting for sales or game pass.


It's a crappy time to be a gamer in Canada.
2013 day one release CAD 62.15 (incl tax)
2021 day one release CAD 107.35 (incl tax) (from CAD 90.39 currently)

That's a whole lot of difference to get used to.



I mean, the RRP here in the UK is like £59.99 as it is anyway, but retailers are so competitive we rarely ever see games above £49.99 anyway, and quite a lot of games still launch at £39.99-£44.99... and even then, prices can drop dramatically within a couple of months to below £29.99, and I've got such a big backlog that by the time I get around to playing new games, the prices will have dropped to half price or less, lol. It's rare that I buy games day one for full price, but even if they do go up by a tenner... meh, don't really mind that much.



Pyro as Bill said:
Ka-pi96 said:

That's true of most things, not just entertainment. What's your point?

No it isn't. It's rare for someone to be able to create a billion dollars of value as a one-man band.

I suppose my point is that a great game could charge $0 or $1000 and easily profit more from the free version so judging games by their entry price is a complete waste of time.

You said somebody can make a game/song etc that can be massively successful and make loads of money (or not).

I said that's true of most things, not just entertainment.

You erroneously tried to argue against that. But it is true. As examples of both cases, the person that invented bread. A massive industry these days yet whoever it was that first came up with the idea probably barely made a thing from it. And on the other end, James Dyson, he made billions due to his invention that he came up with by himself. There you go, proof that non-entertainment things can be massively popular and also financially successful or not.

"It's rare for someone to be able to create a billion dollars of value as a one-man band." What does this have to do with anything? I never said it wasn't rare. I just said it isn't exclusive to the entertainment industry.

"judging games by their entry price is a complete waste of time" so why were you asking people to compare two different entry prices and asking which they think is better value?



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Ka-pi96 said:
Pyro as Bill said:

No it isn't. It's rare for someone to be able to create a billion dollars of value as a one-man band.

I suppose my point is that a great game could charge $0 or $1000 and easily profit more from the free version so judging games by their entry price is a complete waste of time.

You said somebody can make a game/song etc that can be massively successful and make loads of money (or not).

I said that's true of most things, not just entertainment.

You erroneously tried to argue against that. But it is true. As examples of both cases, the person that invented bread. A massive industry these days yet whoever it was that first came up with the idea probably barely made a thing from it. And on the other end, James Dyson, he made billions due to his invention that he came up with by himself. There you go, proof that non-entertainment things can be massively popular and also financially successful or not.

"It's rare for someone to be able to create a billion dollars of value as a one-man band." What does this have to do with anything? I never said it wasn't rare. I just said it isn't exclusive to the entertainment industry.

"judging games by their entry price is a complete waste of time" so why were you asking people to compare two different entry prices and asking which they think is better value?

The entertainment industry is the rags to riches industry because of how low the bar to entry is. No science degree required. No billions in R+D needed.

Invented bread? You mean mixed flour with water?

Because value isn't the same as price/cost. Some people couldn't care less about trade in value because they buy to keep. Others might prefer to rent the same games for ten times less while still playing them for the same number of hours as the keepers do. If you know where people place the value, you can customise a business model for that consumer where both parties can benefit.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!