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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Games price, value and perception

Blame Inflation, a 60$ Game in 2007 would've cost 76.40$ Nowadays

Around the Network
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Gaming has a viable future lead by Nintendo.  It does not have a viable future lead by Western AAA studios.  And for now, the average Switch game is cheaper than the average PS5 game.

i dont think a 60$ Port of a 7 year old Game would Help in that regard (Pikmin 3 Deluxe)

I spent well over 2000€ on Rocket League. Value is entirely subjective. I pay for things that have value to me, there is no general threshold. There are 80€ games that I would pay 500€ for and there are 80€ games that I would decline if offered for free.

If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Signalstar said:
It is only an increase in the launch/base price. It is the premium paid for early adoption. The price always goes down overtime, at least for physical third party retailers.

Digital games will keep this RRP.

@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"

Eh still think it aint too much for good games, if you yourself buy shitty games for 80 euros then yeah you support bad practices.70 euros is currently a bit too steep for FIFA and Madden, who of you has payed that price for years now?

Around the Network
The_Liquid_Laser said:

My view on this is that Western AAA publishers are the enemy.  I do not like the short-sighted direction they've been taking gaming to and it is still headed in that direction.  What is that directoion?  High cost.

High cost is not a bug.  It's a feature.  At least for AAA Western publishers, cost is a feature.  They want smaller publishers to go out of business.  That reduces their competition.  Activision and EA can survive just fine in the high cost environment.  Small and medium size developers cannot.  And then costs get so high that they have to increase game prices.

We are at a point where most third party games are either 1) made by big publishers or 2) made by indie developers.  Back during Generations 5 and 6 there were a lot more mid-sized developers.  Today, the middle seems mostly gone.

The simple solution to this problem is Nintendo.  Nintendo has been the main spoiler to the high cost strategy since Generation 7.  Nintendo has been providing viable platforms for mid size developers.  I also think it is a better platform for indie studios.  If I were part of an indie or mid-size development team, I would make all of my games Nintendo platform exclusive.  Get out of the high cost, graphics race that can't possibly be won by smaller devs anyway.  And on the consumer side, well I am a consumer.  And I highly recommend fully supporting Nintendo platforms.  Nintendo is definitely not perfect, but I think they are actually trying to advance gaming.  While AAA Western studios are the enemy and they also hate Nintendo.

Gaming has a viable future lead by Nintendo.  It does not have a viable future lead by Western AAA studios.  And for now, the average Switch game is cheaper than the average PS5 game.

Indeed just for now cause the average PS5 game will be cheaper than the average switch game soon.

This is just another sign that hardware is no longer the limiting factor in producing games. For a while now, cost of production has been the main limiting factor...

Decided to bump the topic with this latest video from Jim Sterling.

He mentions marketing in the video, and that is true, the budget spent on marketing overshadows any increase in development expenses game titles have experienced during these years.

@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"

Like many of you have said, it varies game by game. The issue is when you have games like COD and FIFA release at £65-70 who then sell season passes and other microtransactions, the base cost becomes shitty.

If anyone does the price justice, it's usually Sony or some Japanese Devs.

God of war - complete game
Ghost of Tsushima - complete game and free additional mode
Gran Turismo Sport - only reaching game this gen with free regular upgrades and a ton of extra content
Nioh - huge base game with really good DLC at a reasonable cost
Spidey - full game with really cheap DLC and what would be mtx costumes all given for free
Monster hunter world - huge base game, shit tons of content
Persona games - pushed with content
Yakuza - packed with content
Witcher - packed with content

The price issues come with:

Watch Dogs

A lot of the Western developers have this copy and paste model littered with boring repeating side quests in overly big world which is big just for the sake of it. Charging annually for the smallest of changes and throwing in additional costs in a cumbersome game their put together.

Done games are worth the $70, but other games just takes the piss. My recent experience with this was Godfall. I enjoyed the game. I completed it in under 12 hours. Story was bare bones, combat was fun, but nothing to do outside of this. End game was no where near as good as monster hunter, but more like destiny. Luckily I bought my copy for £56, but never would I pay more than this for such a game. There is no roadmap for future content and the base game simply is lacking.

I bought demon souls remake for £60. For £4 more I am having the time of my life. I'm 40hrs in and I'm not done with it. Every aspect of this game screams quality. This game has earnt it's price. You can see is a labor of love from what you are, feel and hear.

Just wait for the games to get cheaper.
I'm waiting for Call of Duty to get cheaper before making a purchase on the Series X because I don't agree with the $120 AUD price point.

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--