People are currently paying 70 dollars for a single flippin game and more often than not said game is a digital version and are even willing to go up to 80-90 for the deluxe/season pass version. Of course they can get away with charging 100 bucks for the most anticipated game ever. Some very loud people will complain on Twitter, but most will just be happy to play GTA VI.

I was gonna say that if the industry goes that way I will abandon ship... But I kinda already have. I don't remember the last time I paid more than 45 euros for a videogame. I think it was Kingdom Hearts III in 2019. Huge fan of the series, very anticipated game went for the deluxe edition at 70. Heck, I even think very carefully about spending 45 euros on a game. But nowadays, they could release motherfucking Bloodborne 2 and I wouldn't pay full price for it. No matter how much I want a game, it's not worth the minimum of 70 dollars, let alone 100. I can do a lot of things with that money. Also, I don't enjoy being played by a fool on a regular basis.

They could make it F2P and still make billions. They have a Shark Card that costs $100. 

They could make it F2P and still make billions. They have a Shark Card that costs $100. 

Even if you hate it (especially if you buy primarily AAA games) it’s not such a crazy idea for a few reasons:
1. The market will likely pay it. Sure some people will wait for discounts, but that was going to happen anyway.
2. Gaming production prices have gone up considerably, as has the volume of developers in video game development, while a select few games are selling better than before, most aren’t.
3. Converting 1986 USD to 2025 USD, The Legend of Zelda released for 143 USD.

Part of the issue is games have dropped in price when they haven’t been able to afford to do so if they want to maintain the profitability of past times. On the flip side, this mostly effects the AAA industry (such as EA, Activision, and Ubisoft) and other high fidelity games, but I’m more of an indie fan anyway so it doesn’t effect me too much. Although, I do love large scale productions like Breath of the Wild and Witcher 3.

"Ball said "there is hope" that Take-Two will price GTA 6 at "$80 or even $100," which could prove to be a turning point for the video game industry. This could break a "key price barrier" and allow other developers to raise prices as well, he said. Before this, a Baldur's Gate 3 developer said GTA 6 could prompt a shift to more expensive games if Take-Two decides to price it above $70."

And yet Larian, who released their game in 2023, released it for $60/£60, this is £10 under the then retailing $70/£70 standard by big publishers?

GTA6 has the luxury of doing this because if they choose to charge that much, they'll make billions and won't affect because of the sea of people wanting in. However, do you think Capcom will put a $80 price on the next Street Fighter? Fat chance. Both Tekken 8 and Dragon Age Veilgaurd launched at £70 in the UK, 2 of my favourite franchises and I didn't buy one until it was it was at least 40% off and got the other by wheeling dealing with discounts.

The key to breaking that barrier isn't a the single biggest game in the world putting up prices, it's the ability for consumers to comfortable accept spending the money on a luxury item is worth it.

If they released it at £50, I, as someone who's never really liked GTAs might even get it and they'd probably sell more copies than they could dream.

I hate GTA so I didn't get it even for free

However

I'm OK with companies charging different prices for different budget games. In first place the idea of a standardized price never made ANY sense for me. Like... who goes to the shopping mall and expect all shoes, clothes, food, etc to be charged the same price?

I'd like single player games with less than 20 hours of gameplay to be charged 40 USD, 70 USD is too expensive. Open world games with long term support of free expansions I think are ok for 100 USD

People getting crazy over this idea is missing the fact a package of a game+DLC already costs 100 USD, for probably less gameplay than they will get from GTA. That's not including games where you need to pay monthly subscriptions for online, like Final Fantasy XIV or World of War craft

If the price of 100 USD games turn out to be prohibitive, we could look for lower budget games, selling in the 30-50 price range

I don't think this is ever happening though. There are too much free to play games, and they skew the need of charging less to reach mass market. People who really pay for games seems to be now a minority, so they need to charge more from us...

GTA Online won't be a thing until PC release. The first version of the game is clearly targeting single player gamers

The whole "production costs have gone up" thing is such half-assed argument.

Publishers push for specific directions that the industry ends up taking and they are the ones in control of the budgets that have ballooned to extreme heights. Turning around and justifying a price increase on an issue that they have mostly pushed for is quite a publisher thing to do.

They are acting like these issues came from the heavens and landed in their laps and they now have to find a way to deal with them. As for the issues that are out of their hands, like inflation, they very conveniently forget that wages have not kept up with inflation and this is is not a B2B industry, the purchasing power of the consumer is half the equation.

And of course, a potential 100$ will not be followed by toned down microtransactions, which is often what they say they have to resort to to combat rising production costs when prices do not rise accordingly. Or Deluxe editions. Or gating cosmetic content that used to be available in game at the periods that they reference. All of that in the name of the "wellbeing of the industry" too, an industry that remembers its survival instincts only when they need to push for more revenue and not when they fire thousands of workers who actually make the games while barely touching CEO compensation packages.

That said, I do think there is a conversation to be made about flexible pricing for videogames. The problem is that this is not a conversation publishers are having. If they can raise the price with less-than-significant backlash, they will, that's about it. And they are probably looking at GTA5 as a trojan horse.

Rant aside, I don't see this change taking place yet as, like other posters mentioned, GTA and select few other games that could work as the initiators for such a thing do not need the upfront price to be that high if they are raking in money long-term through other means.

WOW.... you mean to tell us that the games industry would rebound if we all paid just HUNDREDS per game!?

What an absolute crock of moronic shit...

I swear, I swear to freaking god every businessman in this industry creams their pants when they mention a trend they so desperately want to see other businesses salivate at the mere mention of it.

"hey guys, gamers should totally pay $70 for games cus shits expensive or something"

Publishers: 

"Hey guys, gamers could totes help us rebound or something if they start paying EVEN MORE, like $100 + MT's and season passes, cus gaming's sooooo expensive....totally omgawd"

That's literally how those asshat analysts and anyone else suggesting price hikes come off to me as. None of them even know the ramifications of their "line must go up, and up and up" mentality on the rest of the industry's economics. 

Think about it. We've gone from paying guarters/dimes in arcade machines to a few expensive early home consoles/PC's, but having complete games (for the most part), to games that are barely games and are more just the same shit, just a bigger skinners box with extra steps, but we get less content and still have to pay more.

Analysts really seem to love that DLC Mona Lisa meme.

Nha, at £100 a game let the industry burn.