This is a subject I felt needed to be explained in more detail.

>Game Prices rising due to development costs<

It’s true, game development prices have raised, however so has sales, services and store fronts etc. Do games Justify its higher price tag while also giving less?

The examples below might not be identical comparisons however the concept remains the same. I grabbed a random early 2000s game from my shelf and another one that is fairly recent from 2019. 

A game made in 2001 that cost $60

INCLUDES

Fancy Game Box

Thick Game Booklet

In game Charts and Papers

Game Case with Disk

Finished game that includes Single player and Multiplayer modes. 

(No subscription needed for online)

A game made in 2019 that costs $60

INCLUDES

Game Case with Disk

An advertisement slip (EA Access)

Unfinished game with forced online, DLC and paid MTs

(Subscription needed for Online)

CONCLUSION

Game development has gotten higher, that's a fact, however also games have been trimmed, reduced in content, low effort in box creativeness, less physical goodies and many alternatives to leech money off gamers who have paid full price for games with less content than games made many years before them. Let’s also take into account that many games sell Season Passes, have paid DLC, has MTs, Loot Boxes and gambling mechanics plus can also be brought digitally which returns a greater profit margin than the physical releases.

Does the industry deserve to charge us customers more considering games like Madden 2021 offers barely any change in content than its previous Madden 2020 game while in the meantime the franchise has broken the $4-billion-dollar mark. If game prices rise, then expect the industry to take full advantage of the consumers while not only making more money on software which is already considered profitable at its normal price, but to also continue to leech the gamer's with its bad business models of Loot Boxes, MTs, Season Passes, Gambling Mechanics and unfinished content.

I recommended watching Jim Sterling's video on the subject below, as he will explain more in depth on why games shouldn't be raised in price let alone staying at $60.

As Jim said it best, companies don't want to make money, they want to make all the money in the world.

I don’t think they have to rise due to dev costs. But I do think they have to rise due to inflation. We been paying $60 for over 20 years.

Fair points, also prior to the CD/DVD/Blu Ray medium game carts cost quite a bit more to make. Playstation 1 cd's cost around a dollar to produce, where N64 carts cost around $30 and SNES before it around $15. Looking at the cost to make games, I find it interesting that adjusted for inflation ET on the Atari costs 58 million adjusted and Final Fantasy VII was around 127 million adjusted for inflation. At least according to Wikepedia Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 was the most expensive game to make at 298 million adjusted...umm what the hell did they waste all the production money on hookers and blow?

Games have been $60 since 2005. Not over 20 years. Devs costs go uop because they keep making 800 man teams that are on crunch. How about less crunch. Smaller teams.  Games are going up in price because of greed. Nothing less. Nothing more. You are still getting microtransactions. Still getting loads of overly priced DLC that should be in the game. Still getting Gold and Ultimate editions and guides how to buy a game. Anyone who honestly thinks it's a needed changed had been fooled. Some devs who have worked in AAA will tell you things would still ve fine at $50. (I know one and he knows many) This is the most greedy industry entertainment-wise. It's zapping my passion for it.

Fully agree. Back in the ps1 n64 days a game breaking 1m was a huge success. Now they sell 20x that amount to be a huge hit. Thats something they neglect to tell you while they cry for help that cost whent up 2x but sales went up 10x so they are still making more than ever. But they still want more.

Games sell more copies nowadays as the industry grows, that means more revenue to pay more work. Also the 60$ basically are a base price, with gold-editions, season passes, microtransactions, dlc and whatnot making money in addition. So while I say games could be more expensive, I only say that if they would do away with all the extra stuff for wringing money out of customers. So yeah, I agree, as long as the game companies making money off an enourmous amount of additional stuff. Look here: https://europeangaming.eu/portal/latest-news/2020/02/04/63407/ea-earns-nearly-1-billion-from-microtransactions-last-quarter/

So yes, 'live services' (aka Microtransactions) make already way more than half of the revenue, so asking for 60$ or for the new gen even 70$ is just bullshit. Let's be real. The business model for a company like EA isn't the price on the box anymore, that is just additional profit. It is the entry fee for the lootbox lottery. And this is just incredibly scummy. EA and others should be real with customers, and say their business model is microtransactions.

It would be something different for a company that has difficulties staying afloat and just sells their game without additional shenanigans. But this isn't the case with EA and Activisions and Ubisoft and whatever else.

Jim Sterling is right on the money. He has a more recent video about the new price of 70$:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujc5WO-E5cA

We need more price variance. A game like Cyberpunk should be more than $60 whereas a service game buries in MTX should not be $60. Not all AAA games should be $60 some should be more and some should be less.

Remember, Activision pays CEO Billy Kotick that much, they could take the price hike to $70 out of his pay and he would still be way richer than any of us. Yet the same company pays the people actually creating our games that badly, they can't even afford the prices in the company cafeteria. You want increase the base price of games? Fuck off!

It would be something totally different for a small company struggling to stay afloat delivering a niche but great gaming experience while staying out of the greedy shit like Microtransactions. I way more willing to pay them more.

Activision also pays a quarterly dividend to its stock holders.  It's not a big dividend, just .41 per dividend or .52% per year.  At a 62.8 billion dollar market cap that would be about 318.2 million dollars paid per year to dividend holders of Activision. 

Yeah, you're talking about a difference of 11 dollars, though.  I really don't think that's justified, considering the development costs should be going down exponentially.  Especially with AI being able to take off days and weeks from the development, and coupled with the fact that games sold online don't hold any physical space, and don't need to be shipped.  $60 dollars is honestly too much and has only been that way for both digital and physical to keep Gamestop, Wal-Mart, Target, and other stores that actually sell the consoles happy.

So, we should be paying less, and instead, we're paying more?  It's not justified, and I'll be skipping out on PS5, as I was already not very happy with PS4.  I'll update my graphics card, and not pay an additional fee for PS+ on top.