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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Games price, value and perception

$70 let alone $60 for a game is too much. Costs are going up, but that is a publisher decision that shouldn't pass what they wanted to spend on development to the consumer. Gaming is bigger than ever, so prices staying the same is balanced out by this. Also considering digital sales are on a huge rise means more revenue for the publishers since there is no cost of manufacturing, retailer cut, shipping, etc. On top of that microtransactions and DLC in games are costing more in a way.
So why are people defending Sony, Activision, and other companies when there is literally no reason for a price increase on base games? Especially Demon's Souls a game that is a 1:1 remake of a PS3 game. Ratchet and Clank Reboot, Shadow of Colossus, Crash N Sane Trilogy, and Spyro Reignited Trilogy all came out at $40.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
TomaTito said:

We have a perfect recent example with Sakuna.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/243872/sakuna-of-rice-and-ruin-sold-a-combined-500k/

How is that a perfect example against games that do 5M day one?

Don't see it? Let's see if this url helps you.

https://insights.dice.com/2016/01/08/minecraft-and-the-power-of-word-of-mouth/

Or even this VGC post by @B6a6es

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9251338



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"

Sogreblute said:

$70 let alone $60 for a game is too much. Costs are going up, but that is a publisher decision that shouldn't pass what they wanted to spend on development to the consumer. Gaming is bigger than ever, so prices staying the same is balanced out by this. Also considering digital sales are on a huge rise means more revenue for the publishers since there is no cost of manufacturing, retailer cut, shipping, etc. On top of that microtransactions and DLC in games are costing more in a way.
So why are people defending Sony, Activision, and other companies when there is literally no reason for a price increase on base games? Especially Demon's Souls a game that is a 1:1 remake of a PS3 game. Ratchet and Clank Reboot, Shadow of Colossus, Crash N Sane Trilogy, and Spyro Reignited Trilogy all came out at $40.

Free market. The publishers think their product is worth more because they put more resources, if market agree and pays for it the 70 will stay, if first week/month sales start to be a lot lower than when it was 60 it may drop. But considering human behavior in general I don't think they will lose to many sales to stop charging 70. It was the same with MTX and some predatory DLCs.

TomaTito said:
DonFerrari said:

How is that a perfect example against games that do 5M day one?

Don't see it? Let's see if this url helps you.

https://insights.dice.com/2016/01/08/minecraft-and-the-power-of-word-of-mouth/

Or even this VGC post by @B6a6es

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9251338

Spot cases doesn't prove anything. Again the biggest brands with high quality products still do heavy marketing.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

I'll just gonna leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7kaK2-725w



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

It's a ridiculous increase. It's gone from £45 to £70 in the UK. Insane.

They tried to bump the price up from £40 to £50 for the PS4 gen and that was annoying then. It didn't last too long and prices dropped back down to £45.

But going up a tenner is one thing, adding an extra £25 to the price? Disgusting!

The excuses too are absolutely pathetic. Ya know, I'd actually respect any of these gaming execs that were honest and just came out and said "we want more money", but nope they're trying to spin some ridiculous sob story and they look pathetic doing it.

Well in the UK it's also partially due to the British Pound losing quite a bit of value. And the looming no-deal doesn't help matters either.

Still, I agree that going to 70£ is way too high an increase. I was personally expecting 60£, and that's with the price hike for this gen included. That would have been a 10$/€ and 15£ increase in price for this gen and much more understandable. But 70£? GTFO!

Edit: I forgot to mention my position about the price hike. So here it is:

If they would remove all those predatory microtransactions, lootboxes, expansive dlc (as in, having dozens and dozens of DLC for one game) time-limited in-game stuff (like most season passes) and other skinner boxes, then I could agree on the price increase. But with all their other monetisation venues in place, the prices should actually come down, not go up.

Long story short, they can go royally fuck themselves sideways from behind with their prices. Even more reason only to buy games at a sale now...

That excuse would hold more weight if prices 12 or so years ago reflected that the currency was stronger.

Back then it was about $2 = £1 so £40 ($80) was around a 33% increase on the US price. If they wanted to increase the price when/if the currency got weaker then they shouldn't have been screwing people in the UK over in the first place.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Well in the UK it's also partially due to the British Pound losing quite a bit of value. And the looming no-deal doesn't help matters either.

Still, I agree that going to 70£ is way too high an increase. I was personally expecting 60£, and that's with the price hike for this gen included. That would have been a 10$/€ and 15£ increase in price for this gen and much more understandable. But 70£? GTFO!

Edit: I forgot to mention my position about the price hike. So here it is:

If they would remove all those predatory microtransactions, lootboxes, expansive dlc (as in, having dozens and dozens of DLC for one game) time-limited in-game stuff (like most season passes) and other skinner boxes, then I could agree on the price increase. But with all their other monetisation venues in place, the prices should actually come down, not go up.

Long story short, they can go royally fuck themselves sideways from behind with their prices. Even more reason only to buy games at a sale now...

That excuse would hold more weight if prices 12 or so years ago reflected that the currency was stronger.

Back then it was about $2 = £1 so £40 ($80) was around a 33% increase on the US price. If they wanted to increase the price when/if the currency got weaker then they shouldn't have been screwing people in the UK over in the first place.

hence why I expected the price increase to only be 15£ when Europe and US have a 10$/€ increase.

But like I said, the very concept is ridiculous considering that they gain much more money through other means. With what they are earning, the prices should go down, not up.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

That excuse would hold more weight if prices 12 or so years ago reflected that the currency was stronger.

Back then it was about $2 = £1 so £40 ($80) was around a 33% increase on the US price. If they wanted to increase the price when/if the currency got weaker then they shouldn't have been screwing people in the UK over in the first place.

hence why I expected the price increase to only be 15£ when Europe and US have a 10$/€ increase.

But like I said, the very concept is ridiculous considering that they gain much more money through other means. With what they are earning, the prices should go down, not up.

Considering how much they make with DLC and MTX and how fast games drop in price yes they probably could make even more by lowering the price. But again if they think they won't lose sales by increasing price and market validates that then prices will stay on the new standard.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."