We need to talk about the cost of next-gen video games

Next-gen video games cost £70 - this is something that has become apparent in the last month.

[Hakuoro]

I blame all the people who defended this after the 2k leak. If so many people hadn't defended it I feel like people could have turned the tide. Now we have opened a Pandora's box to raise game prices every generation.

[morganfell]

People would not have turned the tide. Companies were making projections 2, 3, 5 years ahead.

[Hakuoro]

Publishers were making plans for loot boxes in single player games and people basically shut that nonsense down.

[morganfell]

Far different matter. Completely off the mark. $70 games were not be investigated by governments. You are missing the mark on the reason they are disappearing. They were there because people were buying them, and if people had continued screaming they would still be there because people were buying them anyway. The people did not stop loot boxes.

[RgR]

Not a different matter. Look what happened to battlefront 2 with their monetization.

People made a difference.

[JackBNimble]

RgR
So don't buy games... make a difference!

[ThereGoThatManQ]

PS1 $40 was the norm. PS2 bumped it up to $50. PS3 saw it rise to $60 where it has stayed up until now. Even with ps1 the norm was $50 until late in the console's life cycle when more games started being released at $40

This is normal business.

Quit complaining and save money

[indysurfn]

Really are you THAT GULLIBLE?! When companies are making PREDICTIONS they are actually TESTING you to see if you will fight back or lay down. It does NOT take a genuis to realize which one you did since your still unawhere of basic marketing, and are still defending. They dont just come out and ask you do you want to pay 59.99 for games or 69.99 for games?

[indysurfn]

You dont have to do what companies predict! VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET.....NOT with YOUR KNEES!

When they make a prediction they are test marketing...Vote with conviction .......Not with compliance!

[lociefer]

My man, people defended mtx, charging for next-gen upgrade, and some have even defended EA when it charged for used games' online access. Stupidity knows no bounds

[Hakuoro]

+1

If people had actually stood up to those things and actually complained we wouldn't have had those things last as long as they have.

[NecrumOddBoy]

The $70 price wasn't a huge issue for me, initially. I remember $90-120 SEG games and all those $75 N64 games. We had it pretty good; however, these games are still getting digital deluxe and special editions that are up to $90 and more. I get that games cost more to make, but we shouldn't have to fork out more for these deluxe versions. I am not going to pay $90 to get some extra DLC or skins for whatever game. A game like FF XVI can be $100 if it includes everything. Don't charge me $20 on top of the main game for the Cactuar summon and some ramen cup hats...

[ApocalypseShadow]

I don't believe it's the defense of $70. It's more of a defense of, or the will, to buying a complete, high quality, unbroken, low or no patches needed, no micro transactions, no loot boxes, lengthy game that's worth buying. Since most journalists have sold out to advertising and swag, it comes down to waiting on certain games before buying automatically. At least for me.

I also understand that it takes money, man power and time to make these next generation games. The cost isn't going to go down. Everything has mostly gone up. Food, taxes, living, etc. Not surprised game development would go up besides some developers greed.

Personally, I won't be buying games at $70. I've learned over the years that I don't need something right away or at the price a manufacturer starts with at launch. Back in the past, I would say I was guilty of buying Virtual Racing and one or two Phantasy Star games on Genesis for $80 or above. That never happened again. They were awesome games. But I'd never do that again unless a game is unimaginably rich with content. Like it was two games in one. But I'm not going to stop another gamer for supporting a high quality game at launch if they can afford it.

Since I'm more frugal, these companies aren't targeting me. They'd lose the battle of wills. Just like I'm winning the battle of wills of not paying for online or subscriptions to games, EA, Ubisoft or Activision games. I'd win on not buying $70 games unless they floored me on a ridiculous amount of quality and replay ability that I couldn't refuse and needed supporting so that other developers learned from it.

[smashman98]

Lol you think people bitching online is going to change anything. Nah. Vote with your wallets. Buy it or don't. That's all there is to it. All there ever was. For me, this isn't a big deal. Day one I will be picking up 6 ps5 games. For my buddy, he says he's waiting until games drop in price. No one is forcing anyone to pay anything.

[DaGR8JIBRALTAR]

I can't believe people thought game prices were gonna stay 59.99 forever lol. You guys....

[NeoGamer232]

People set value prices in their head for pretty much everything we buy.

Smart people set the price and wait for the price. It is only hard core "buy on day one" gamers that go and pay the day one price. This will make some people rethink buying on day one, but for the most part $10 won't sway the addicts that buy on day one.

I used to be a day one addict. $10 would not have changed my thought process on buying. The only thing that changed it was we had two kids and my gaming time disappeared for a while, then I realized how much I was spending on games and actively worked to reduce it.

Now I set a price based on what I hear about a game and wait for the game to get to that price. If it doesn't, I have a major backlog to dip into so don't care.

[Bronbron92]

A bunch of gamers complaining about the price of a game wouldn’t change anything, that’s like saying if everything complained enough about the series s being 299$ Microsoft would change it they wouldn’t at all but people will still buy it

[indysurfn]

those dislike votes are the sellouts in the flesh!

[NomadR3aper]

It was inevitable. As long as people pay they'll keep raising the cost. Just look at how Iphones sell out after constant rising prices well over $1200, people will pay anything.

[specialguest]

Yeah. I feel like the industry gradually started pushing boundaries on what consumers are willing to pay. DLC, micro transactions, content locked behind a paywall, and later overpriced DLC. There's been uproars over the years, but not enough to convince the majority to take a stand. Now we're here at this price hike

[Sambuchi]

Yeah games cost more to make these days but the size of the audience that these companies sell to currently has to be way bigger than before. This is just greed. Wait for the sales.

[smashman98]

I will not wait for sales. Demon's souls and Miles Morales day one.

as well as
-Destruction Derby
-The Pathless
-Godfall
-Sackboy

[smashman98]

Lol I don't understand the disagrees. I will in fact be purchasing all these games. I've paid off my ps5 and will be trading in my PS4 and Xbox one to cover the games

[Omnisonne]

I mean, that's why sales are a thing.. they want your money one way or another (let's face it, most of us have other expenses besides gaming)
I usually try to gauge how much enjoyment or gaming time I will be getting out of a game, and base my price off of that. Most games, with few exceptions this gen, I've bought around the 25-30$ range on sales.

[Seraphim]

that's just it. The companies are making record numbers in sales & profits. Corporate greed. On top of that we do already have a scheme/scam that includes $60, $70/$80, $100, and even $120-200+ packages for any given big name game. In the $70-100 range it's usually just some dlc crap and maybe a steel book.... But that's my biggest problem. The current structure allows the consumer to decide whether or not they spend $60, $80 or $100+ for any particular game.

$60 games to kick off the PS3 era was disappointing. I'd say I got over it but I never truly did. The PS2 gen I had bought at least 400 PS4 games. Plus however many Gamecube and Xbox games. PS3 I have about 100 atm so maybe I bought 150. For the 360 I'm not sure how many games I had before selling it but we'll call it about 30. I try to not sell any games but sometimes over the years I just clean house and decide particular titles aren't worth keeping. This gen I don't think I've even bought 100. Even if I throw in Switch titles I'm not at 100. Looking at my shelf, each row holds 50 and I have roughly 1.5 rows of PS4 titles along with maybe a dozen [purchased] digital titles. Obviously that doesn't include indie and digital only titles which I don't tend buy a lot of anyway.

With $70 games I'd be willing to bet I might not even buy 50 games next gen. I've always insisted on purchasing games, supporting the developers and companies instead of renting them. Instead of buying them and trading them back in after a week, etc, etc. But I'm afraid next gen I'll be renting more games. Especially but not limited to games I'd normally buy that I know can be played in a few nights. There was a point where I was buying a game a week. Or even 3 games a month. That time has long since passed. $200 got you 4+ games in the PS2 era. I say 4+ because there were quite a few $40 titles mid-late PS2/XB cycle. Last gen and this gen $180 got you 3 games. Now it'll cost $210 for 3 games and all those numbers don't include the $2.53 or more in tax on each title. I'll look for more games that I can play for months on end. Games that I know are going to last me a solid 2 weeks or more. I finally gave up Destiny 2 this Summer due to sun-setting but honestly, I'm second guessing that due to $70 games. I need something to fill my time and I can't afford to fill it with $70 titles. Food for thought. 2 games a month at $70 is an extra $240 annually. Over 7 years that's $1,680. $10 a month more a good portion of us simply don't have because as everything around continues to increase in price our wages have remained stagnant.

[indysurfn]

Hmmmm yeah renting is going to take off more......too bad for the suckers that only have a digital ONLY console! FULL $70 price and NOT ABILITY TO RENT!

[smashman98]

If it is a sony exclusive 9 out of 10 times I will purchase day one.
If its a game I'm really excited for I will purchase it.
If it's a game I'm interested in I will wait for reviews from my favorite reviewers and based on what they say I'll make a decision.
Otherwise, I will wait for sales or preowned deals on ebay or gamestop.

In terms of new Day one games I will usually buy 15-25 a year. Used games can be as much as 70 games and as little as 3 games. Finally games through digital sales and big box retailers will work out to about 24-36 games.

[patriz420]

Simple solution gamepass+ps5. 70$ for top ps5 exclusives is reasonable, gamepass for the rest. Problem solved.

[PitbullMonster]

Not every game comes day one to gamepass.

[patriz420]

Who plays every brand new game that releases? Seriously? Lmao most new titles go half off 2nd week..you can wait 5+ years for a game but not 2 weeks for a sale? Oh boy...cry me a river.

[Profchaos]

Living in Australia there hasn't been a standard game cost for two generations now with nearly all games last gen costing half of the PS3 era when EB Games realised they couldn't keep squeezing consumers for $120 a game anymore.

Seeing an increase I think is because it's the start of the generation as the market gets competitive pricing had to also get competitive

[CaptainObvious878]

I don't see the cost of next gen Aussie games remaining the same over time.

Once the core gamers that can stomach these prices get theirs (I'm a core gamer and absolutely love the souls series, but I will NOT to buying the DS remake for $125) sales will plummet and greedy, scummy publishers will be forced to reduce prices.

Publishers are simply taking advantage of the early adopters atm bc they know they can charge any price they want and will still sell.

I was fully intending to get a PS5 day one, but I will wait until prices are actually somewhere in the vicinity of sensible.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

The best way to deal with this situation is to control your urges to spend and wait for games to go on sale, which is what I fully intend to do.

[DarthZoolu]

If you don't buy them at 70 they will go on sale immediately lol. There are companies releasing free games with monetize cosmetics as the way the game will make its money focusing on getting people to actually want to play the game and people still by the line that Triple-A development companies have to charge $70 because development is so expensive. That's a Lie! All the companies sell those games at the same price because that's what the market has decided they could get without too much fuss. Nintendo is not spending the same money to develop that Sony is. They are selling a digital product that upon completion has infinite stock. Infinite Supply. The way that supply and demand Works a literally means that the infinite Supply devalues the product. That's why Microsoft will sell you a year worth of games for $150. That's 2 and 1/2 AAA titles worth of money for a ton of games that companies will try to get you to believe they would go pour if you weren't paying them $70 a piece for.

[raiden_188]

My thoughts exactly. If you can't afford day one games like myself then just wait for sales. I'll just replay some old games no big deal. It will take me a couple of months to complete games like The Witcher anyway.

[DarthZoolu]

The cost of next-gen video games is what you're willing to pay for them. Gaming is such a big business that regardless of what developers say they are going to continue making games even if you refuse to pay even $60. Because in the digital Market the new name of the game is getting everybody to buy at the price that they are willing to pay and multiple companies Microsoft included have gone to this model. Even with Game Pass and things like that they make promotions throughout the year that they know people will wait on because if this customer is only willing to pay $8 for something I'm selling for 20 and its digital it doesn't cost me anything to accommodate that $8 Customer. I just have to find a way to get that $20 customer to keep paying $20 without being too concerned about the $8 customer.

Also think about this you are paying the same price for a Nintendo games that don't cost nearly that amount of money to produce. And they resell that same product that was created long ago to you over and over again for premium. Realistically Games should be much cheaper. I'd say probably around $40. If games were priced at a reasonable price from the beginning instead of just what they can get for them GameStop wouldn't even have it caught on.

Microsoft just figured out what drug dealers learned and the 70s. Paying $70 for video games Is For Fools.

[SegaGamer]

As I have said in the past, I will never pay that much for one game, I don't even pay the current price. I always wait for games to go on sale.

[smashman98]

If more people were like you, there would be more change and less whining that ultimately results in nothing.
Me personally I like to compare games to other things I do for fun.

I pay 15 dollars to go to the movies for what works out to 2 hours of entertainment.
I pay 25 dollars for a 4k bluray.
I pay 12 dollars to go bowling for what works out 1-2 hours of entertainment.
I pay 20 dollars to go to the arcade for what ends up being 1-3 hours.
I pay 50 dollars for Miles Morales: Spiderman and end up playing for 10+ hours. Already I'm at more value than any of these other forms of entertainment. I'll usually play through it several times as well.

[SpadeX]

I'm not too bothered with the price hike as long as they don't make it a trend to increase prices frequently when they see people buying. Games usually get devalued quickly anyway, and a $70 game could become $20 in a matter of a few months, although some publishers stick with the MSRP for longer periods but they'll get devalued eventually.

[StoneColdCrazy]

Expensive like hell !!!

[Good-Smurf]

As long as something like a $1000 Iphone sells this well it just a matter of time until game prices raise.
You can try defend it but clearly there aren't enough people to make companies to change that decision.
The noble vocal fans are just tiny minority in the sea of consumer video games market and that's hard truth to accept.
I wouldn't want price to raise as well but the only thing they will understand is to see people not buy their stuff not even if it's the game we wanted so bad then the sales dropped and then maybe IF there are enough people do that then they might change their minds.
Or you can just stick to discounted sales for game purchases.

[RgR]

Even if they keep the price up due to the lack of self control that many gamers out there have, I will still wait for sales. May even buy used depending on the company.

[kryteris]

Remember when Microsoft was like hey we don't need discs, we can make games $40 going digital. And a resale market!

[JonTheGod]

I'll be buying the majority of my next gen games in sales or pre-owned if they push for £70 for everything.

[Minute Man 721]

The hard part is assets creation. Dev kits do all the heavy lifting

[DJStotty]

Me personally will not be buying next gen games at launch, i will not be sucked in to paying £70 for a game with no justification for the increase.

[anast]

They are forcing everyone to digital. It's like a pack of wolves dictating where the sheep will go.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

Forcing is a strong word to use. I'd rather say they are pushing all digital because it's more profitable for them. (Corporations)

[anast]

The nudging isn't gentle that's for sure.

[smashman98]

Idk if this were the case I feel like there would've been many more digital consoles available for preorder. From what I hear, general digital stock was much less than physical. something like 5-20% of all ps5 stock was physical ps5s

[anast]

They are not going to make an absurd amount of stock before sales are all but confirmed. At first both digital and physical will be the same price, but the change will happen and then they will have everyone. Next, they will raise the price of physical games first, then under cut themselves by making digital games slightly cheaper. They will take a hit, but there will be more people that will pay under $70 than ones that will pay $70+. Next they will come out in press conferences saying that all digital is what people want. Then hike the digital games back to $70 +. People will complain, but there will be a segment that will defend anti-consumer actions, and so on.

[exputers]

Wait for sales, what else

[The-VG-shamman]

Many people seem to forget that we are making the transition from HDD to SSD. Next gen will use more expensive storage. Thus increasing the price of the game format (no longer HDD).

[smashman98]

I don't follow your logic. We aren't purchasing HDD or SSD from publishers. With digital nothing changes on publisher side. With physical were paying for the disc. Physical versions are being upgraded to 4k Blurays which does increase cost but has nothing to do with SSD vs HDD

[The-VG-shamman]

Wether it’s digital or not the production would still have to format SSD, the only way to compensate without costing company’s more production value is to up the price and keep production cost just as effective. Publishing and producing are 2 different things but both contribute to final price.

[rlow1]

Gaming is getting pricey and I'm wondering how the market will play out. If the economies keep on building backup then I see it being sustainable. But if things go down hill, then those prices may change or subscription will become a big thing. Though it does seems that subscriptions are already heading in that direction.

[smashman98]

Yea the future of gaming is in services. Just like the future of film and TV is in streaming. A lot of gamers deny this fact but the numbers and the patterns don't lie. I will personally hold out for physical as long as possible. I fully expect companies like limited run and super rare to become much bigger in the future.

[gaffyh]

The price is too high for the UK, should be £55-60, not £70, nobody will buy games new ever

[smashman98]

I think you'll be surprised.

[Chocoburger]

If modern games didn't have endless micro-trash-actions, multiple DLC packs or season passes, 3 or more special editions, or 7 patches to fix the bugs that shipped with the original release because they refused to delay it for Black Friday sales, then maybe $70 would be acceptable.

But here we are, games are riddled with all of the above. They are sold broken, incomplete, with additional purchases, and are usually over-hyped and under-deliver. Yet they want to increase the price? You can't have it both ways, and the industry wants to have it both ways, and that right there is my main issue.

[smashman98]

if this 70 dollar increase didn't happen those problems would have gotten worse. I would personally prefer games go back to being full and complete products and would be willing to pay as much as 100 dollars per game. But that's just not likely.

[Bronbron92]

Yeh people will pay regardless of the cost from iPhones, computers, hell even cars sure that’s a different item completely but what do you get out of paying more for a car better seats, audio system etc, same as games standard was $60 you wanted more content when you purchase the game $70 you want the top of the line stuff with the game $80-$150 depending on other games even more I don’t get how people are mad about this games have been charged more by editions throughout all generations but now that it’s next gen better gaming pretty much the industry felt the need to raise the price I’m sure there’s more to it but people will pay for anything regardless of price but always have your priorities set before splurging on games launch day week or month

[Jared2500]

no we don't