Video Games Prices Could Be Increasing To $69.99

[Ceremony]

Gladly would pay $70 if it meant we're all getting the full game. That ship has sailed though. They'll charge $10 more and then add the garbage microtransactions on top of it. I imagine Jim Sterling will have a great video about this pretty soon.

I do remember seeing people claim that the reason we have micro-transactions is because the price of games hasn't increased in a long time, so publishers need to add additional revenue streams to break even (even though these huge mtx games make record profits). Does anyone really believe that the amount or price of micro-transactions will actually decrease because of this? I highly doubt it.

Obligatory:



If you ever encounter anyone braindead enough to claim microtransactions are necessary because games are expensive, ask them why the biggest companies with the highest revenues are the ones who use them so much.

The last game I bought at launch on its own was Red Dead Redemption 2. I was able to get a lot of money off it and got it for about 40% of what it cost. The last game I paid full price for at launch was.... Assetto Corsa Competizione last week, although that was £35 rather than £50. The last actual full price game I bought at launch was BioShock Infinite.

 

[RandV]

Yeah, the idea that increasing game prices means less microtransactions reminds me of the "a salary cap will reduce ticket prices" theories of a decade ago.

This is what I always say, it's a bit different but very similar in spirit to pro sports where you also get stuff like 'ticket prices are so high to pay rising player salaries'.

Realistically unlike regular physical goods you buy in the software industry pretty much all the cost of production (not counting marketing) is in the labour of creating of the product, afterwards duplicating and producing the product costs practically nothing - especially now with digital downloads. With general software you have to look at how much it's going to cost to build, how many people will buy it, and then set the price. Autocad doesn't cost like 20x the price as MS Office because it's 20x the program, it's because only a specific industry is going to use it so there's far fewer people to buy it so they have to pay a lot more.

With video games the publisher/dev has a lot of leeway in the cost of the game as you can always do more or do less. They've stuck with the same price tag for the past 20 years but that's offset first buy an increase in sales and later buy additional revenue streams. To the point that "$60" is more of a marketing thing than anyways. So my theory, if they're just now upping the price to $70 it's probably because the continual growth from increased sales and micro transactions are stagnating. No more blood to squeeze from their to meet shareholder's growth expectations on the next financial report so it's finally time to up that initial retail price.

 

[saluki]

All of this talk about in game transactions reminds me of the Dragon Age: Origins thing. Does anyone remember that?

It's been over 10 years so my memory might be hazy but iirc when you finally get to your camp there's a merchant there with a quest marker over his head. But he doesn't give a quest, or sell anything at all. He tries to push DLC on you.

lolololol What a boner. I remember literally facepalming.

 

[Osprey]

All of this talk about in game transactions reminds me of the Dragon Age: Origins thing. Does anyone remember that?

It's been over 10 years so my memory might be hazy but iirc when you finally get to your camp there's a merchant there with a quest marker over his head. But he doesn't give a quest, or sell anything at all. He tries to push DLC on you.

lolololol What a boner. I remember literally facepalming.

Haha. I didn't remember that at first, but, now that I think about it, that sounds familiar. I have a vague memory of being annoyed that there was a useless NPC in camp that I accidentally talked to a few times when I meant to talk to the merchant.

 

[Pilky01]

Its funny because NBA 2K20 is "free" right now with PS+.

And I bought NBA 2K19 last year during the 2019 Finals for three dollars and ninety nine cents.

I know the practices of sports games do eventually creep into other, better games, and thats bad, but I still can't help but mostly just feel schadenfreude over EA and 2K scamming morons out of their (or their parent's) money.

 

[Papa Francouz]

I wonder if publishers will finally go the route of offering digital copies of a game for a discount. I don’t feel good paying $60 right now for a digital game when I don’t get a case with it, or any physical goodies, and I can’t display it anywhere. Will publishers listen to their consumers this time around?

Lol nahh.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I remember paying over $100.00 for games like Phantasy Star 3/4.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I wonder how this’ll affect (effect?) Game Pass going forward.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Obligatory:

I figured Jimmy Boy would have a field day with NBA 2K of all games hiking the price after he laid into them for their gambling mechanics.

 

[saluki]

Haha. I didn't remember that at first, but, now that I think about it, that sounds familiar. I have a vague memory of being annoyed that there was a useless NPC in camp that I accidentally talked to a few times when I meant to talk to the merchant.

I had never seen anything like that in a video game. It was kind of shocking, really. I just bought the game and now you want me to pay more for stuff?

Nowadays I don't think anyone would even bat an eye.

 

[aleshemsky83]

The subject of "games are filled with microsansactions because they're still $60" is kind of funny, cause this exact same subject came up in a different thread about paying for online multiplayer on consoles. A lot of posters just simply could not believe that online multiplayer were doable as a free model and that console manufacturers take advantage of the walled garden and force you to pay for your own internet. It has to be that they lose money without the fee and games wouldnt have multiplayer otherwise.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Inflation-wise we'e finally catching up to the 80's and 90's.

I remember in a thread many years ago (probably around 2010) a person posted an actual ad for a 90's PC game. iirc it was Warcraft 2 and the price was $69.99.

I also remember reading that adjusted for inflation the NES was Nintendo's most expensive console.

What I absolutely concede is that back then, when you bought a game, you got the whole game. None of the micro-transaction/games as a service nightmare.

Gaming is also A LOT more popular these days. Inflation is one thing but demand is way up in comparison to that day and age too. Publishers are using next gen as an excuse to raise game prices. Guarantee they'll go up another $10 when PS6/Xbox <insert random code name here> comes out.

 

[Unholy Diver]

Eh it's 10 bucks, if I want the game I'll buy it. Prices of stuff go up over time, nothing to be shocked or alarmed over.

 

[Osprey]

Gaming is also A LOT more popular these days. Inflation is one thing but demand is way up in comparison to that day and age too.

Yeah, that's surely the reason why developers and publishers have stayed profitable despite prices being stagnant for decades. The demand has not remained stagnant, but has, instead, steadily been going up. If you used to sell 1M copies of a game for $60 and inflation has doubled since then, you can avoid upping the price to $120 if you can manage to sell 2M copies for the same $60. That's essentially what's been happening.

Now, if you were to take those 2M sales for granted and increase the price to $120, you might end up selling only 1M and not making any more money. That's the risk being taken here. It's only a 16.67% price increase, but if only 15% of people decide to not pay it, the games could make less money. They must have a lot of faith that less than 15% will balk at the price increase, which means a lot of faith in the anticipation for the next-gen consoles.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Eh it's 10 bucks, if I want the game I'll buy it. Prices of stuff go up over time, nothing to be shocked or alarmed over.

It's always crazy how much people don't seem to care about things getting more expensive. The gaming industry is raking in so much money it's insane, this isn't something that needs to be done by gaming companies. This is just an excuse they have to rake in even more money.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Eh it's 10 bucks, if I want the game I'll buy it. Prices of stuff go up over time, nothing to be shocked or alarmed over.

Keeping in mind of course that this will likely be for the base game. Any special editions or any kind of monetization will dent your wallet even more.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Yeah, that's surely the reason why developers and publishers have stayed profitable despite prices being stagnant for decades. The demand has not remained stagnant, but has, instead, steadily been going up. If you used to sell 1M copies of a game for $60 and inflation has doubled since then, you can avoid upping the price to $120 if you can manage to sell 2M copies for the same $60. That's essentially what's been happening.

Now, if you were to take those 2M sales for granted and increase the price to $120, you might end up selling only 1M and not making any more money. That's the risk being taken here. It's only a 16.67% price increase, but if only 15% of people decide to not pay it, the games could make less money. They must have a lot of faith that less than 15% will balk at the price increase, which means a lot of faith in the anticipation for the next-gen consoles.

Oh don't worry, judging by the gaming community's love of giving their money away, I'm sure the game publishers will do just fine.

 

[Unholy Diver]

Keeping in mind of course that this will likely be for the base game. Any special editions or any kind of monetization will dent your wallet even more.

True, but I never buy any special editions, rarely buy any DLC and have never done any of the microtransaction stuff with skins or whatever, so to me it has little to no change other than the initial 10 dollars

 

[robertmac43]

My rule for the past year has been that every dollar spent must = one hour played. Has made me think more about the games I'm buying and has made me more patient in buying big time story games. Not too concerned if they go up in price.

 

[YoSoyLalo]

$70 before DLC/Season pass/virtual currencies are brought into play. Then they’ll whine about not making enough when their fake currency’s value is more stable than several country’s economies

 

[cody275]

Listing for NBA 2K21 for PS5/XBX on Walmart/Bestbuy/EB/etc. in Canada is 89.99 for the base version for pre-orders.

Really hoping that isn't the norm after the previous increase a couple years ago I already tried to avoid any new games because $80+ tax was bad enough.

 

[S E P H]

An annual made sports game being the first one to pretty much confirm a price increase is so f***ing hilarious.

I want to see what Nintendo will do because they might actually be the winners in all of this if they decide to be the only company not to increase their games.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Yeah a sports game on a yearly release cycle charging more money is a pretty big joke. Might die from laughter if NHL 21 has the balls to charge me ten extra bucks for their nonsense.

 

[guinness]

I wonder if publishers will finally go the route of offering digital copies of a game for a discount. I don’t feel good paying $60 right now for a digital game when I don’t get a case with it, or any physical goodies, and I can’t display it anywhere. Will publishers listen to their consumers this time around?

Lol nahh.

No, they won't. That's my primary beef with digital vs physical too. While digital sales happen, and day one patches are putting a damper on disc-based games, a publisher charging the same for a digital based game isn't cool.

The publisher is saving money on pressing, packaging, shipping, the B&M store is saving on floor space, stocking time, setting up POS.

Some games still throw in a map poster, collector's editions have their goodies, but digital edition is just going to have some skins, a few weapon, soundtrack as its special edition bonuses (sports games will have cards/coins/fake money). That's boring and lame.

 

[Papa Francouz]

No, they won't. That's my primary beef with digital vs physical too. While digital sales happen, and day one patches are putting a damper on disc-based games, a publisher charging the same for a digital based game isn't cool.

The publisher is saving money on pressing, packaging, shipping, the B&M store is saving on floor space, stocking time, setting up POS.

Some games still throw in a map poster, collector's editions have their goodies, but digital edition is just going to have some skins, a few weapon, soundtrack as its special edition bonuses (sports games will have cards/coins/fake money). That's boring and lame.

Totally agree. If I want to buy a physical copy of a game, I expect it to come with some additional goodies like a poster, or a statue, or some other type of physical memorabilia. I'll gladly pay a little extra for a physical version with stuff like that.

Digital versions shouldn't cost as much as physical versions because you're not getting any goodies and you're getting the same exact game that comes with the physical copy. Digital purchases are likely where companies make the most of their money, though, since they don't have to fund any of those extra steps that come along with producing a physical copy of a game. So I guess that means those of us that buy digital copies at the same price of physical copies are the biggest suckers in all of this.