AAA Games Will Get More Expensive And That Might Not Be Entirely Bad

Najam from eXputer: "The norm of $60 AAA games is no more as developers now charge more for their games. Here's why this might not be a bad thing for gamers."

[Kaii]

*Elden Ring type games, yeah sure. (scoring 8+)
(AAA/quadruple A) slop can shove it up their discounted ass

In recent yrs my purchasing In Indies has increased and its decreased for major IP's because I cba with the lack of innovative gameplay.

Focusing on the topic, why not mention Take-Two CEO getting his pay increased while axing 500 staff? I'm getting annoyed that those practices get ignored by the "gaming" media because ya don't want to burn potential bridges but seriously, gtfo.

[fsfsxii]

Im not contesting that triple a games are not innovative, but most indie games are 2D side scrollers with pixel art, fompletely lacking in innovation

[MrBaskerville]

Not really though.

[CantThinkOfAUsername]

Agreed. 99% of indie is metroidvania, rogue-lites and visual novels.

[Sgt_Slaughter]

That shows me you know don't anything about indies if that's the conclusion and generalization you managed.

[Tacoboto]

"I'm getting annoyed that those practices get ignored by the "gaming" media because ya don't want to burn potential bridges but seriously, gtfo"

What exactly is gaming media going to do that it's not already doing?

Welcome to capitalism and corporatism - every industry has this problem, it's not a gaming one.

[Sephiroushin]

They can start by saying the price increases is not good especially with all the micro transactions publishers put on games we pay for; but instead they tell people that the price increase on games is actually a good thing 🤦🏻

[thorstein]

It's a bad thing for gamers and for in the chair game devs. We just heard of massive layoffs across the industry.

I'd pay more if I read articles about how they were hiring. I'd pay more if I read articles about how the people who made the game scored record setting pay raises and CEOs were no longer given 1 year bonuses that could sustain a small studio for 10 years.

But that's not what happened.

[Crows90]

Yeah there's only so much people are willing to pay for entertainment. Especially in the form of games at the same time that there are free to play games and cheaper in the titles that compete with triple A. You're not going to be able to keep increasing pricing and get the same amount of sales. I already don't buy games at the new price or even at $60. I wait for $40 or less. And I don't believe I'm alone in that department. If you don't have any other expenses you can probably continue to afford buying games at the top price but many people eventually have other things that take priority and you're just not going to spend it that much money on a video game.

Heck if I have to play one game for the rest of my life I'd probably end up playing Warframe or Counter-Strike. These are all either free games or were paid games and now are free.

The AAA industry is a threat to the gaming industry. They're trying to continue to ride the way and keep increasing prices. They're trying to get all of the money as long as they're able to.

[anast]

Good point. I usually wait unless it's a favorite, but there are only 3 publ./dev. teams I can say that about, and 1 out of 3 gets day 1 treatment.

As for F2P, I'm a Path of Exile fan myself. I would just start hitting that hard and wait until prices drop.

[Crows90]

Path of exile would be an also pretty good alternative. I probably choose path of exile 2 since it'll be fresher and will receive more content most likely. I don't know

I did grow tired of path of exile after a while

[anast]

2 looks really good

[Software_Lover]

It's bad. People just want good games at decent prices. Not everything has to be super realistic with 200 voice actors. Look at Palworld.

[Ironmike]

Terrible article game prices go up any more u can kiss this industry goodbye

[TiredGamer]

The industry will and is already imploding due to double standards relative to prices everywhere else in society. Just as with food, housing, transportation, and other forms of entertainment, costs will increase even if only due to the constant rise in inflation.

Inflation is a fact of our modern world, and is a consequence of normal (usually healthy) economic activity. It is a result of a slow and continuous growth due to increasing money supply, and the complex relationship between consumer supply and demand. Inflation leads to the eventual increase in wages, whether through cost of living increases, yearly increases, minimum wage increases, or a higher demand of workers than there is supply.

The fact that the game industry has managed to keep game prices at or near the $60/70 range for DECADES is amazing in its own right. The buying power of a dollar has dropped in half in the last twenty years, so each year that prices don’t increase, it is essentially a price decrease for the previous year. Think about that.

Part of the problem is that games have been arbitrarily held at such a low price for so long that it has created a psychological ceiling in peoples’ heads that can’t be exceeded. MTs and other schemes have been created to try and mitigate this discrepancy, but those don’t work with every game/genre and have also received their own significant consumer blowback.

If games can’t exceed the $60-70 barrier even though that $70 is economically a lower “true” price than the cost of games even a decade ago, publishers will do what they can to make up the difference before eventually running out of options and exiting the industry.

I don’t like to pay more than I have to just like everyone else, but you have to be fair in comparing price increases (or lack thereof) in the game industry with the price increases across the rest of society.

[anast]

..."$60/70 range for DECADES"

This is false. Incomplete games have been this price for decades. For at least a decade or two, complete games have been $100 or more. They sell games as standard version and complete version, but now is some kind of version of deluxe, gold, complete, and ultimate. The tiers tell you that the standard version is not complete. It's explicitly stated. If the 60 game is sold for 70 and doesn't have tiers, micros and live service elements, I understand, but we most publishers aren't doing that.

"Part of the problem is that games have been arbitrarily held at such a low price for so long"

The have been held at a relatively low price, but gaming has never been cheap.

"If games can’t exceed the $60-70 barrier even though that $70 is economically a lower “true” price than the cost of games even a decade ago, publishers will do what they can to make up the difference before eventually running out of options and exiting the industry."

Most publishers need to leave the industry. This would actually be a good thing, but they won't because games complete games haven't been $60 for decades. It's usually $100 or more for the complete games and extra for the live-service elements, which rounds it out to a $50 game in the 80s, plus all of the micros and live-service fees and on top off this games are gravitating to being for rent in perpetuality via digital only releases. I would say they have more than already made up for it.

[Ironmike]

U should work with government mt nobody will pay 100 or even 80 for a game I do t how amazing u think it is that they kept prices down it not sustainable and only thing they kept down is the state they release have these games have
microtranscations this industry is going to hot Brickwall ppl already sick of prices then they release half finished games

[TiredGamer]

Everyone should have to study macro and microeconomics in HS so that they understand how a market economy works. I don't really hold college degrees with any reverence, as I feel that many degrees are outright scams, but I have studied economics for many years and at the graduate level. It's fascinating stuff and helps explain so much of the world we live in even since ancient times.

Not sure what you're going on about with complete vs. incomplete games. DLC and expansions are not a requirement for most (all?) games. I rarely buy expansions outright (unless part of a GOY edition) and never feel like I'm missing anything significant. Core games are still "complete" experiences for what they are. The digital landscape has just made extra content more viable. In older generations, when games were not massive development projects taking years to make, a successful game would be followed up with an "expansion" sequel a year or two later. Microtransactions are certainly a way that publishers are trying to pay their bills, and I understand that not everyone needs/wants them. Developers are more apt to make a DLC expansion today because the act of creating a true sequel to a game is just a monumental task. When a sequel is made, it's a whole new multi-year investment and a higher level of expectations.

I've been buying games since the 16-bit era. I remember when R-Type for the TurboGrafx was $69.99 at Toys R Us... in 1991. Most new games were in the $50-60 range. The N64 era commonly had titles ranging in the $70 range. So yes... prices haven't budged in decades, but the dollar has dropped by at least half in as much time. So that N64 Turok game was more like $140 in today dollars.

I don't disagree that some publishers should leave the industry. But the economics of the industry aren't and won't just affect some publishers... it will affect all of them, and it will lead to less risk-taking and a retraction from the blockbuster AAA games we are seeing today.

[anast]

@Tired Gamer

If people need an advanced degree to understand the difference between complete version and standard version, we are all in more trouble than I thought.

Example, AC Valhalla has a standard version, a complete version , and so on. Other companies hide this via other names. It's an actuality. There is not an amount of appealing to authority that can change this.

The fact that you have been doing something for a long time doesn't make your argument sound. This would be a fallacy of which we don't need an advanced degree to know either. If the games have tiers where the complete version is sold at a separate cost, then the standard version is not the complete game. Of course you can play an incomplete game, people have been doing it for decades.

Iron Mike

Your words do not mean what I say is not an actuality. You are not offering any evidence.

[TiredGamer]

An advanced degree is absolute not necessary to understand basic tenants of a market economy that have been practiced since ancient times. A basic HS course or even a competent YouTube video would likely suffice.

It's clear that we are now dealing with stoic perspectives and a general anger with the industry trends that are largely out of our/your control. We can argue semantics all day about complete and incomplete games, and we can probably make valid arguments both ways. I will submit that GOY, "Premium", or "Battle Pass" editions of titles do not invalidate that the standard editions are not whole experiences on their own. I won't accept that every bit of DLC, paid or unpaid, is required for me to feel like I have been cheated out of my game experience. If I look at the PSN storefront now and look at God of War Ragnarok, for instance, the standard edition has everything I would expect from a complete game. The Digital Deluxe Edition for $10 more gives me a couple of cosmetic items, a digital art book, the soundtrack, and an avatar set.... this sounds like a "limited edition" set with a few extras to sweeten the deal for true fans, which is a practice that has existed for decades in all sorts of industries. Nothing there is essential in any way to the core/complete game experience.

As far as game prices being far higher (in current dollars) than today, there is no argument. Games of all types have been priced at the $50-70 mark since the early 1990s, and any AAA game today is made on a budget at least 100x higher than those early 90s titles. That's a pretty dramatic statement that needs no explanation. When expectations exceed the capability of the industry to deliver at certain price point, you can either increase prices, reduce quality, or go out of business. You can't go into a grocery store/restaurant and buy a Prime Steak Dinner and expect to pay 1990 prices for it.

[anast]

@Tired Gamer

I agree that people have knee jerk reactions, but we can't let such paint a picture that is not actual. Companies are in the business of exploiting as much as humanly possible, if not then they aren't a successful business. Therefore, it is also understandable that people are going to cry foul when they quote "the economy," something they know that hardly anyone understands, as the main reason why they are asking for more money.

It's always going to be suspicious when billionaires ask for more. I was curious myself after returning to gaming after a long break that spanned generations and I noticed a lot of shady practices and I was actually shocked how all of this stuff is unregulated, such as gambling in the form of loot boxes, cut content sold as "DLC", live-services and list goes on.

[PhillyDonJawn]

I won't be buying games day 1 then. I'll be damned if I spent a ton of money on something that end up being trash

[FPSRUSSIA]

just buy it physical and sell when your done with it or if its bad people are always Looking for games on Market apps.

[monkey602]

I've already taken that step.
Looking forward to playing Baldurs Gate 3, Stellar Blade, Alan Wake 2, Dragons Dogma 2, Robocop, FF7 Rebirth, FF 16 and a load of others when I get them cheaper in the future.

I've built such a backlog over the years too, that I'm enjoying getting through great games that I just didn't have the time for so I don't even feel like I'm missing out on anything.

[MrDead]

Take Two paid their CEO and President $72 million in bonuses before firing 600 workers, anyone that tells you games aren't expensive enough is lying to your face.

[Ironmike]

Well said brother the making more than enough it's a joke

[mike32UK]

That’s actually disgusting.

[rlow1]

My take, they need to stop launching unfinished games that use the consumer as the beta tester or fix it in post. Stop chopping up the games so you can piecemeal it out to squeeze more money out from gamers. Show games that take advantage of the current generation and move on from the prior. Also while you’re at it, allow the people who are making the game to make it. Without having all these oversight committees scrutinizing everything they do. Which I believe really slows things down.

[anast]

The title is shillin'. Complete games haven't been $60 for at least a decade.

[CrimsonWing69]

It was bad enough when games went to $70, how in the hell is it better if they get MORE expensive? Who’s to say the price hike isn’t what’s made people just wait on sales or just get out of the hobby completely? People are struggling financially and the industry’s answer is to raise the prices more?

How about this industry, why don’t you lower the dev budget and make it where 1-2mill in sales actually bring you in profit instead of hiring more people, raising dev costs, and then expecting people to buy things for $130 a pop?

[TiredGamer]

I agree with the dev budgets. Would actually prefer devs move away from AAA titles and focus more on smaller budget single-A experiences that touch a variety of genres. But that means we will see a sort of regression in the game industry with the scope of the games being released.

[CrimsonWing69]

See, I don’t think they need to leave the AAA space. Think of it from a business perspective, if you’re overpaying staff and budgets are out of control and people aren’t buying enough of your product to pull in a profit, what do you do to fix it?

Do you:

A) Raise the price of the product underselling to make up for the crazy costs and losses?

Or

B) cut back on how much people are being paid or hire less people, adjust budget costs so that the average amount you sell of the product now can become profitable?

I vote B.

[TiredGamer]

How do you create AAA games on a skeleton crew? You’re literally saying that they either need to work harder or longer to make up for fewer staff (hello crunch), fire current experienced (expensive) staff and hire cheaper/less experienced labor, or ask staff to take a pay cut. Either of these options suck and would likely backfire.

The other option is to make smaller non-AAA experiences, use smaller staffs or perhaps break up a large AAA staff into multiple smaller projects, or build new small, lean staff groups that can work on new small projects.

I pick option 2. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. While there is probably some fat that can be cut, it’s easier said than done and might be small potatoes compared to the whole.

[CrimsonWing69]

Yea they may need to cut pay, for sure.

Here’s the deal there were smaller teams working in AAA games back on the 360 and PS4 era. Prices weren’t crazy, games were $10 less and honestly after comparing Kill the Justice League to Arkham Knight I’m not seeing where all the budget and extra dev staff is going to.

Again, from a business standpoint how does it make any sense to pay people way more and spend way more when you receive less in profit or really a Return on Investment. I was looking up the average pay for a game developer and it’s $100k. You may need to roll it back to $70k spend less on the budget and once profits start rolling in you can adjust after the fact.

It doesn’t make any sense to pay everyone crazy amounts of money and spend crazy amounts of money when you get less back in… right?

[TiredGamer]

You clearly have not run a business before. Unless the job market is terrible, people aren’t going to take up a pay cut or work for you if they can make more somewhere else. We may claim that it’s the corporations that are greedy, but in reality, all/most people are naturally greedy and want to maximize what they make. This is exactly why a market economy works so well, because it taps into everyone’s motivations to maximize inputs/outputs.

What makes you think that game companies are “overpaying” its devs? Does that make sense? Why would a shareholder-run entity designed to maximize profits pay more than it needs to for its staff? They pay what is needed to recruit and maintain staff and very little more. You’ve answered your own question in the end.

[CrimsonWing69]

@TiredGamer

Oh boy, I hope this is sticking to being civil here. Look I don’t want to make you feel like an idiot, but…

There’s this thing in the business world called “salary reduction.” Are you familiar with the process, because for someone claiming I “clearly” have no idea about things, I’m a little suspicious that… well you don’t.

Let me do a quick breakdown:

Salary reduction is a *gasp* reduce in pay, either permanently or temporary.

This can happen for a number of reasons, but I’m going to list you a few reasons that are relevant to the topic at hand:

- Current company's financial difficulties or restructuring plans.

- Reduction in work hours or job responsibilities.

- Economic downturns affecting the industry or the economy as a whole. (Pay attention to this one.)

- Decline in company profits or revenue.
Reducing salaries to cut costs or increase profit margins. (Pay attention to this one, too 😜)

Here’s another thing:

https://www.business.com/ar...

A few key take aways if reading is exhausting for you:

When should you cut employee salaries:

“ To protect your business: If your company is facing economic hardships or other financial struggles, you may need to reduce operating expenses and protect your cash flow to stay afloat. Since labor costs can account for up to 70 percent of an organization’s total business costs, according to workforce analytics company HCMI, it only makes sense that reducing payroll would decrease your overall expenses while you make it through hard times.”

Also, since everyone is so concerned with devs keeping their jobs in here, check this one out:

“ To protect your employees: OK, we know what you’re thinking: Reducing pay seems like more of a “con” for employees than a “pro,” but that depends on how you look at it. If you must drastically reduce operating expenses, you have the option of furloughing or laying off workers. Employees may agree that taking a small pay cut is better than losing their jobs altogether. So if you want to protect staff members’ jobs, reducing their salaries is one solution.”

Clearly though… I guess I don’t know what I’m talking about, tee hee hee 😅.

So, to answer your question on what makes me think companies are “overpaying” devs and how that makes sense? It’s quite simple my knowledgeable business guru, friend… when you don’t produce a profit and pay your staff and the cost to do produce a good, THAT’S when you realize something is off with costs.

Look, I’ll give you an even better example that fits. They raised the wages of McDonald’s employees to $20/hr. and what did they do to compensate? Well, blimey! They raised the prices of a Big Mac… guess what happened Mr. Business Genius, they started seeing a loss in business.

So, what do you think they should do? Go back and make AA and Indie Burgers and nuggets?

Ball’s in your court now. Let’s maybe try and refrain from accusing each other that we don’t know what we’re talking about, yea? It’s just one of those things… y’know?

[z2g]

Yet another thing I’ve been saying for a while to many disagrees. They gotta adjust the rate somehow. Studios aren’t laying off and closing up for no reason. You can argue who is pocketing the cash but it doesn’t change the fact that games have gotten exponentially more expensive to make, while the relative cost when adjusted for inflation has remained flat or even decreased. A SNES game in its time was often times the equivalent of $70-80 in todays money and took a fraction of the team and time… cheaper to make

You can also say that all those big budget games don’t matter… that it’s all about the gameplay or story… but the reality is the internet is constantly bitching and fighting over anything from story to graphics to performance and who is doing what better - that says to the consumer those things matter… and those things cost money and studios need to constantly make better things to keep people interested in buying them.

[TiredGamer]

Exactly this. We don't have to like it, but we at least need to acknowledge the reality of the industry. Devs have to keep pushing the envelope with BIGGER, BETTER, MORE REALISTIC.... and if they don't, they get gamers burning couches in the middle of the road because a puddle was removed from a preview screenshot, or a couple of textures were blurry even though the game is still 150 GB.

You can't have it both ways. Either demand the bigger and better and accept the 3-4 year development times AND higher game prices and MTs, or show that you are all willing to accept smaller budget stuff with lesser detail and scope.

[MrBaskerville]

It would be more sensible to reduce development costs to make current pricing feasible. Instead of jacking up the price and just hope that people keep buying.

[TiredGamer]

Agreed. See comments above. But the devil is in the details with the “reduce development costs” part. Gamers want bigger, more, and hyper detailed. It’s hard to accomplish that unless you have the staff and experience to do that, which = big money.

[DustMan]

After the Jump to $70 I never bought a new release. I waited on Tekken 8, and I'm glad I did seeing as how they added MTX after they launched the game. I wanted to buy Persona 3 reload, and then saw it had a $35 dollar season pass. Likely to add content from the game that was already in Persona 3 FES edition. Guess I'll have to wait for whatever version they release in a few years that contains everything at a discounted price. Persona 5 Royal finally jumped to $25 in a sale, and I grabbed it instantly. Helldivers 2 launched at 39.99 for a live service game. Do you think if they'd put it at $70, or even $60 it'd be enjoying the current success it's had? Doubtful. I've been able to buy the game and all three current premium warbonds for the same price as a new release. I've felt that I've gotten more than my moneys worth.

The greed of the AAA developers is pushing AA games to prominence. Which I look at as a good thing. Developers who worked for these mega corporations seem to relax a little in smaller studios and develop something they actually feel passionate about, and though the scope may be a bit smaller it seems gaming benefits in a way as a whole during this weird flux.

[TiredGamer]

Greed isn’t necessarily the only issue, or even the biggest issue. If you spend a lot to make a big product, you expect that you can recoup the cost and make a profit on it. Many games barely achieve this. So publishers move to safer and safer game types, sequels, and remakes in order to avoid getting burned.

Helldivers 2 is a lower budget title and does a good job with the limited development it had. There’s a lot that they pulled out of relatively simple game mechanics and level maps, and if they had charged $70 for it, gamers would have ripped them apart limb from limb.

I’m tired of AAA walking simulators and interactive movies. I vote for more Helldivers 2 games that are in the vein of classic PS2 game experiences. Simple, fun, and to the point.

[Petebloodyonion]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Really increasing prices will help gaming companies and AAA?
Hell no!
increasing game prices will make ppl even more selective of their AAA experience meaning only popular IPs like COD, TLOU, Halo, etc.
Sony even acknowledged that in a prior investor call where they told the board that increasing the price didn't increase the amount of $ spent on PlayStation games but narrowed ppl selection of established IPS.

So increasing the price would mean killing innovation and new gameplay Ideas.

The problem lies with the simple notion that there are only 24 hours in a day.
yet AAA is competing to offer longer and longer games to justify their pricetags.
and that creates the simple problem that when you play 1 game well you don't play another one.
for example, playing a 50 hours game like Fallout 4 at 2 hours per day = 25 days
100 hours 50 days, etc.

And mentioning Fallout 4 brings me to another reason why game length and higher price are a problem
Games from PS3/X360 are as good as today's game meaning why do I need to spend 60$ to play Farcry 2024 when I can have the same fun with Farcry 3? Gta5? Uncharted 2,etc...

The author mentions the price of movie tickets yet forgets that buying a DVD still costs about the same as early 2000 (despite cost going up) and that movies lengths are still made to watchable in 1 evening.

[TiredGamer]

Your DVD example is interesting, but don’t forget that movie studios don’t really sell many DVDs anymore, and that the measure of movie success is still based on box office sales. And don’t forget what has replaced traditional DVD sales….. streaming and online rentals, which are making studious decent returns on their movies after box office runs.

[Roiu89]

If they're gonna start charging more can they include initial patches and already built in DLC into those prices?

[HyperMoused]

And teh CEO's will give themselves a nice pet on teh back an dpay rise...i wont be buying much day one if prices keep going up already have a huge backlog anyway,

[1nsomniac]

If you think that will make them better games then you really are stupid!

[starforge71]

AAA titles are turning out to be a damn bad joke

[REDDURT]

Charge what you want…I’ll wait

[BABI-PANGPANG]

I canceled my playstation premium subscription last month, grabbed my Steam Deck and bought the GOTY edition of the Witcher 3 and Fallout 4, three Battlefield games and the Mass Effect Trilogy for a total of 40'ish Euros.

Couldn't be happier and I doubt I'll be buying any newly released game this next year other than maybe Black Myth; Wukong.

[gigoran8]

Stellar Blade sold for 50% more retail on release than other new release titles in my country. Good? GTFOOH

[HansyJ]

Why do we even allow these articles and opinions to be shared lol I know we got free speech and all but some things are just better left. Not sad because they’re so idiotic. Yeah please I’d love to pay more money for my video games sounds good.

[Ironmike]

Exactly mt

[Barlos]

Yes, it is bad. Higher prices are rarely a good thing, especially when most AAA games aren't even ready when they launch, and require patches to fix issues. Yeah sure, I'll pay £70 or £80 to be a glorified beta tester.

When the developers can show that the extra cost presents more value then maybe I'll take notice, but until then I'll be very selective about what I buy and how much I pay.

[Tankbusta40]

Game developers need to learn to stick to timelines and budgets. Its not our fault for the industry wide mismanagement of resources

[Abear21]

Yawn, we’ve been hearing this for years, but I still buy games on the cheap— Games stay at $70 for about three months unless it’s Nintendo or a huge release like BG3. Why pay full price when you know it’ll be cheaper and a better game in just a few months. These devs push it out the door now and patch later, often you are paying full price for a product that isn’t finished.

Add in the price for DLC (which would have been part of the game years ago) and the price is even higher. They’ve already increased prices dramatically and have us paying over $100 for the “full experience” if you buy day one. Never mind Season passes and Gold editions. What more do these devs want?

Maybe they need to spend less on making the game if they can’t make a profit. Or better yet, make a bug free amazing game, like BG3, and they will make their money at $70!

Instead, games aren’t marketed and rushed out the door to lackluster reviews and now they want to raise the prices? If anything consumer confidence in gaming needs to be restored and prices lowered, less confusion with different Gold editions where you pay more for cosmetics and nothing else. This industry is money hungry now, they can increase prices, but I’ll just wait longer for those inevitable deep sales.