Warning, this is just a fun idea, nothing here will most likely happen. But let's digress

So, gaming prices have been a talking point lately and I believe this was brought up in the past. The question needs to be said, what determines a Video Game Price? Some will assume it's the games budgets, some will assume it's the quality of the game, some will assume it's the format size or all of the above. However, that isn't really the reality, as we see all sorts of games release at all sorts of prices. sometimes the smaller game costs more than a bigger game, sometimes an older game costs more than a newer game. Its bloody confusing and I believe the industry needs a criteria list and some sort of control to ensure developers are not just taking advantages of price hikes. 

What if the industry included a Criteria checklist for Developers to use to determine whether their game is worth the maximum price or the lowest price for market sale. Let's look at an example of what a list might look like.

Each criteria box ticked means the game can add let's say $10 to its total price. It sounds a little crazy but hear me out. Let's say the base price is $30usd

VIDEO GAME PRICING LIST

-Using Modern Graphic Engines

-Using Modern Sound design

-Using an Orchestra for Music

-Offers Both Single and Multiplayer Modes

-Game Length (Exceeds 8 hours)

-New created gaming Assets.

So, if a video game comes out and ticks each box, that game would then sell for the maximum price of $90usd, however each box that isnt ticked, you deduct from the maximum price. 

It's a little crazy but something like this will push developers to offer more in their games and not just sell a game at maximum price for lets say a 4 hour campaign with little to no features. Games like Fifa 2023 vs Fifa 2024 would have to either create new gaming assets, so they stop using the same old assets from previous game and resell at maximum price etc.

If a developer wants to charge $90 and do not tick off the full criteria, then retailers and or Online Police will hammer down the devs, and dictate that the price for their game based on content, features etc. I feel we will see more effort put into games rather than the bare minimal efforts in some cases. 

What do you all think, would something like this work if it was implemented or is it a really bad idea, and explain why.

I feel like "dialog" (and duration of recorded voices) and "motion capture" should be on that list.
Like useing Voice actors, and actual actors to capture motions with.... are probably big costs too.

Something like Celebrity status, should be a sub catagory for each as well (voice actors and characters ingame), as they will likely cost more.


Like this is part of why Nitnendo games are much cheaper to make.
Something like Mario Kart World, probably took like 1/3-1/4th of the developers to make, than a Sony Studio would use to make a AAA game.
Ontop of that, voice acting is very limited, and they don't use motion captures ect.

What I'm trying to say is Nintendo makes tons of profits on game sales... much higher than Sony or Xbox.
While their games sell crazy well too.

I don't think it's possible for their to be any set criteria for game pricing and it makes sense across the whole industry, no matter how many different metrics you try and account for.

Do I think a game like Mario Party should cost the same full price as a 100 hour+ RPG? Even as a big fan of that series I would say no. I'm sure the budget for mario party is relatively small and it sells a huge amount of copies, yet the switch 2 edition of jamboree is $80. Low dev cost, high sales and high prices mean they are rolling in it.

But I don't think setting a price based on budget and dev time given to the game works either. AA titles would get hammered as their sales volume is already low and I don't think them dropping the launch price would necessarily result in enough extra sales to make up the lost money.

Publishers can set whatever price they want and as always the consumer can decide whether they want to pay it or not.

*sigh*

No. Stupid post. At the same time, I believe in standardized prices. Value is only determined by the individual.

Just want to answer this question. "The question needs to be said, what determines a Video Game Price?"

Video game markets (at least for the AAA and AA publishers) are best approximated by monopolistic competition.

From the article,

"Short-run equilibrium of the company under monopolistic competition. The company maximises its profits and produces a quantity where the company's marginal revenue (MR) is equal to its marginal cost (MC). The company is able to collect a price based on the average revenue (AR) curve. The difference between the company's average revenue and average cost, multiplied by the quantity sold (Qs), gives the total profit. A short-run monopolistic competition equilibrium graph has the same properties of a monopoly equilibrium graph."

After Metaphor that'll be the last time I buy a AA budget like game for full price at 69,99, it was supposed to be an 80 hour epic worthy of the price but ended up being a chore with severe dips in quality and momentum cause of padding to extend time. It's the last time I'll be doing it, I know of only two upcoming games that deserve 79,99 and those are Death Stranding and GTA6, Ghost of Yotei is questionable as is many others. Yet I've bought a game recently, The first Berserker Khazan that is very AA budgeted but it was so much easier to justify at 59,99 but it's an odd case where the genre and difficulty makes it feel like you're getting more of a game, there are hand drawn animated cutscenes and it FEELS more beefy than it is. If it were a 15 hour DMC style action game as apposed to a 50 hour Souls like I'd very much be waiting for a sale. I guess the lessen is, the checkboxes aren't a way to justify cost and it's a subjective thing. I'm not paying full price for HellBlade 2, not in a million years is 5 hours of high quality content worth it but Black Myth even though the quality drops a lot, it is such a beefy game that it deserved my money but like with FF16 that can really back fire and end up feeling like padding with not enough of a hook to engage with it. It's something that can't be answered easily and you have to individually make your decision based on the knowledge from reviews and sentiment then gauge if it's worth full price or what type of sale you'll need to hop on. Some games the platinum Trophy will justify a lighter sale as was the case with Astrobot and Alan Wake 2. 

In Nintendos case they mirror these type of Atlus high quality, tighter but AA budgeted games and they are not just limiting themselves anymore but actually falling behind. Mario cart should look and have the same detail as Astrobot given the power but they aren't pushing themselves for those prices and really settling into that low budget feel as if yhey are aafe in it and they don't have to do the work anymore. Lack of detail and time and effort for polish shows through. Donkey Kong looks better but not as good as it should be considering how Hitman looks on the console. Astrobot should be the baseline. However if a Zelda game releases, especially a for 80. I'd have such a problem justifying Nintendo games cause they don't go on sale and feel AA in the modern age. I'd buy that system and it would get a game or two running up to Christmas, it'd be a colossal waste for me and without an achievement system to create a situation where I feel like playing a game long after it's credits roll, damn they ate just so far behind now for modern prices. It's revolting. 

At the first stage, video game prices are determined by what publishers think their game is worth. At the second stage, the market determines what a game is worth.

The publishers deciding on the price is part of the major issue this industry has.