By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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 5.77%
 
I'm ok with it 26 25.00%
 
Don't like it, but will tolerate it 30 28.85%
 
Completely against it, won't tolerate it 42 40.38%
 
Total:104
The_Liquid_Laser said:
V-r0cK said:

How is 3rd party game price increase a part of Sony's mistake?

Do you think this is only Take 2 doing the price increase or do you think it is industry wide?  The most influential company industry wide is Sony.  If this price becomes the standard on their system then they are definitely responsible.  It's their system.  They are responsible for what happens on their system.

As for the bolded, so you're saying that Sony is responsible for pricing of all Xbox and Nintendo games too? haha this has got to be a joke.  Do you think Apple dictates the pricing of all android phones too?

Each publisher is responsible for their own pricing of games (ie. like how some remaster are cheaper than new games at launched full price etc.) and like how Nintendo can keep their games full priced for years.  Sony hasn't even released the pricing of their games yet you're pointing at them for this increase. For all we know Sony can keep their game prices at $59 and will make 2K look bad as a money grubbing company for jacking up their price. 

If anything 2K being the first to release the price of $69 for next gen games have opened up doors for other publishers to allow their games to also be released at $69 as well.

But whatever you're thinking, this isn't Sony's fault.  Sony only has pricing control over it's own system and it's own games.



Around the Network
javi741 said:
vonny said:

PS2 games were $50 in 2000 which is $73 with inflation, Video game development is significantly more expensive now than 20 years ago. The flat line increase for video games is a large part of why crunch culture exist in the industry.  

Games this gen are also selling far better now then they were in the year 2000. Many franchises at the time like GTA were extremely young and didn't have an established brand or foothold in the market yet as it takes years for games to become extremely popular. The gaming industry has also grown exponentially since the PS2 era and will only keep growing.

GTA sales this gen obviously are killing the sales of the older GTA games right now, the COD franchise is more popular than ever, even Nintendo games are selling the best in their respective franchises on the Switch. Many other franchises like Uncharted, Witcher 3, NBA 2K and more are selling better than ever this gen, so that kinda makes up for the higher development cost of games over time, also there's DLC, Microt-transactions, digital distribution that cuts out the middle man, making more money for these developers.

"Games this gen are also selling far better now then they were in the year 2000."

Nowadays games are also far more expensive to develop than games in the 2000s. PS2 games only had a budget of a few millions. You'd need at least a million or two in extra sales to break even on 7th and 8th gen games. For EVERY SINGLE game.

"COD franchise is more popular than ever"

Where did you get that from? The best selling CoD games were from the PS3/360 era.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/321374/global-all-time-unit-sales-call-of-duty-games/
NPD source: https://www.shacknews.com/article/115860/call-of-duty-games-were-10-of-the-top-15-best-selling-titles-of-the-decade

"Many other franchises like Uncharted, Witcher 3, NBA 2K and more are selling better than ever this gen"

I can list several franchises that are in decline: Just Dance, Gran Turismo, Battlefield etc. What's your point again?

"The gaming industry has also grown exponentially since the PS2 era and will only keep growing."

The gaming industry as a whole - yes, but the console market has NOT grown exponentially.

50% of the revenue comes from smartphone-, tablet- and casual browser games. How does that help the devs and publishers of console and PC games again?

"also there's DLC, Microt-transactions, digital distribution that cuts out the middle man, making more money for these developers."

Which was exactly the reason why the $10 raise didn't come earlier.

Last edited by Barozi - on 04 July 2020

I'm not happy about spending more money but it makes sense, money is worth less than it was in 2005 when $60 games became a standard. It was only a matter of time, and to be honest it has most likely been at least partly a factor in publishers increasing the amounts of DLC and other micro-purchases in games because they're not pulling in as much profit from a single game purchase like they used to.

Last edited by Raven - on 04 July 2020

This video is about 3 years old, but is still very relevant.  I sure as hell will not be paying $70 for games.  I'll be waiting for sales until they hit a reasonable price point.



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2011 - The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D - Master Quest
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 2012 - Borderlands 2
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

I think the increase to $69.99 MSRP was overdue. I rarely buy games at launch or at full price thought. You have to take 15 years of inflation into account. I expect many publishers will follow suit and yes the DLC and Microstransactions will continue.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

Around the Network

I would like to see games be reviewed much harsher and Micro payments/DLC reduced then.



Too much bloat in games and too much reliance on expensive celebrities as an ego trip. I don’t really care about Norman Reedus or Keanu Reeves. And we were told incomplete games with MTX out the aaa were keeping game prices down. 

With the exception of rare RPGs with good collectors editions, will not be buying games at $70.



Game prices for the most part have been silently increased this gen already, even during the 7th gen. With nickle and diming customers with microtransactions such as skins that used to be unlockable or cut content that is sold as add-on "DLC". There are a few exceptions of course, such as the Witcher 3 for example, but the most egregious example is the likes of EA with FIFA / Battlefront or WB with Shadow of War. The inflation argument doesn't really tell the true picture, as games never used to have this type of monetisation during their respective generations. Once a customer had purchased a particular game, that was all the money a developer was getting. Apples to oranges really.



Honestly, it's been a long time coming. Inflation is a simple fact of economic life, and games are not going to stay at $60 forever. A price increase was inevitable. $70 isn't anything new, either. That was a price tag that existed in the 16-bit era, when a dollar was worth almost twice what it's worth now. Adjusted for inflation, those $70 games are well over $100 in today's money. Granted, the high cost of cartridges was almost certainly a contributing factor, but even when focusing strictly on disc-based games, the price of new games have been declining.

$60 was already a common price point for early PS1 games, though later in the generation the average price point dropped to $40-50. $50 was the norm in Gen 6. And then $60 for disc-based games was reintroduced with the 360 & PS3. And there is sat for the past 15 years while inflation has decreased the purchasing power of a dollar by 23%. If game prices were to increase to $70 by year's end, that would put them roughly on par with the average price of PS3 & 360 games circa 2010.

With that being said, I don't mind the idea of a price hike in and of itself. At least here in the U.S., games are already cheaper now than they've ever been, especially since prices for most PlayStation and Xbox releases tend to drop more and faster than they used to. However, I would prefer that an increase in the base price of a game will come with less aggressive monetization efforts from publishers. If premium digital add-on content is how we've been subsidizing the declining base price of games (which is certainly plausible), then if games cost $70 microtransactions need to be severely reduced if not eliminated from such games (honestly, they never should have found their way outside F2P games in the first place), and any DLC should be reasonable in price and have a substantial amount of content. No nickel-and-diming the customers anymore.



Visit http://shadowofthevoid.wordpress.com

In accordance to the VGC forum rules, §8.5, I hereby exercise my right to demand to be left alone regarding the subject of the effects of the pandemic on video game sales (i.e., "COVID bump").

I didn't read every post on this thread, so this might have been mentioned. One reason N64 games and some SNES games were so expensive was the fact the carts alone cost a lot of money. N64 carts cost $30 per cart to manufacture while CDs cost around a dollar. I'm not sure how much it costs per blu ray or just to have it downloaded but I'm guessing its not too much. If the 69.99 price eliminates some of these loot boxes and lowers costs of dlc's I'm fine with it, but we all know that isn't going to happen. At 69.99 there is no way I will buy a game on a whim at those prices. I rarely buy games at $59.99 outside of Nintendo games that don't go on sale often. I pay full price for games like God of War and Naughty Dog games, but wait for price drops on games like Resident Evil 2 remake and Tales of games until they drop to 39.99 or less.