https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvPkAYT6B1Q

Check out this recap 60$ price range of AAA, F2P, EMU, NTDO and XBGP.
What is your opinion on video game pricing?

Oh wait it's $70 now.

First of all, games were never so cheap as today. Back on SNES days games were REALLY expensive, just try to compare those prices with, let's say, a Mcdonalds meal from that time, or adjust it by inflation and you will see how less expensive it is today. Games today should be closer to 80 USD.
Second, the fact it has never been this cheap does not mean it is cheap for most people. 60 dollars is still a lot of money for a lot of people. Also back in the day we used to lend games from friends, trade, rent. So things were different.
Personally I think 60-70 dollars for a brand new released game is ok especially considering how expensive it is to make a game nowadays.

$70 is a joke and one of the main reasons I have zero interest in a PS5 for the foreseeable future. Why the fuck would I pay $70 for Returnal when Hades is $25. Or $70 for Ratchet when countless quality platformers are half that price or less.

And yeah it’s true that generations ago, games were more expensive. When I bought my N64 my first game was Turok 2 and it cost like $74.99 plus tax. But it also used more expensive media, carts. And yeah, today that same game might cost $60, but it would also charge for content that would have been included back then, and it would sell to way more people than it did back then, which offsets inflation and higher dev costs.

Most games nowadays should be $50 tops considering how light they are on content or how much extra shit they charge you for.

But this is all subjective. I also wouldn’t pay $60 for a single player game that I will play once and discard.

I don't want to defend the corporations here, especially considering that 60$ already is a huge amount of money for a lot of people to spend on a video game. But at the same time, it's hard not to agree with the fact that the games indeed are getting cheaper while staying at the same price tag. Because of inflation of course. Back when the "HD tax" was introduced and games started to cost 60$, if we convert it to today's money, it would have been around 83$. So yeah, we can say that even with 70$ price tag the games are indeed cheaper than they were in 2005.
On the other hand, 2005 games have been the full package and you wouldn't end up with a game that has a ton of DLC and in game purchases attached. So, in these circumstances, 70$ as a base price seems a bit too much.
Personally if we could get rid of predatory monetisation schemes in video games at the expense of a 80-90$ price tag, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, it ain't happening.

I don't have issues with pricing for Playstation. Wait a few months and the games are on sale. Even returnal has been on sale already. Playstation games don't hold value, just wait for a sale.

- DLCs that range from 5 to 30 dollars

- Preorder bonuses/deluxe digital content

- Season Passes (sometimes multiple ones for the same game) that range from 15 to 40 dollars

- Microtransactions

- Digital games being more expensive (on their base price) than physical games

- Paid online

- Monthly suscriptions to rent random games

Companies make more money than they could ever imagine in the 90s or 00s. They squeeze us at every fucking chance they have. From the moment they announce a game, to years after it has been released. And yet... somehow there are lots of people defending triple A videogames prices. Somehow people think companies should make even more money.

Yup, they should just round the number to 99 dollars for a new game. Poor little Sony, Ubisoft and Activision , they are starving to death from not getting enough bucks... 

I used to have a copy as a kid. :(

I now have a...special...copy on my modded Saturn.

AAA pricing is unsustainable. Making all games 70$ plus DLC/Season Pass plus microtransactions (pus paid online and other services, plus the risk of abandonment if the title is not immediately succesfull) makes the customers very weary of the industry. They are getting closer and closer to the customer maximum ceiling, and once they reach it, they'll be just asking more and more money to the same userbase.

You know sometimes it's difficult for me to agree with "today's games have less content".

It depends on the game. Single player adventure games have been 12-15 hours adventures for a very long time. RPG's still have mostly the same length (around 40 hours). FPS games still clocks around 6-10 hours. Assassins creed games actually got bigger. Racing games have been the same or with more content. Take a look on how much content you would have in a sonic game for genesis, a Mario game for SNES, Zelda, Halo, Final Fantasy (excluding XV), Persona, Uncharted, Far Cry, Fifa (the offline portion).

It seems to me it's one of those things where we think we have less content, but actually it's the same or more, especially when compared to SNES or PS1 eras. Of course we have the cash grab/microtransactions monsters but it seems to me they are mostly for online games.

I guess that applies for the whole industry. I really dont get why people pay full price for a game, unless you NEED to play on release date. I cant remember the last time I paid full price for a game. 

You also get to play the game without most of the bugs that plague release dates.