Pachter: Game Companies Incredibly Greedy, Morons & Idiotic to Charge $70 for Games

On a recent episode of the Pachter Factor, Michael Pachter laid out the real reason why the price of games is increasing and it's not because development costs have gone up.

[darthv72]

huh... completely forgot about this guy.

[Jin_Sakai]

I finally agree with Pachter. Never thought this day would come. Lol

[thecodingart]

Same, this is sort of a miracle..

[TallDarknWavy]

Pachter's predictions are usually wrong but he's still very pro-consumer.

[CaptainHenry916]

Yup I agree with him as well

[Gaming4Life1981]

Same here Jin lol. I completely agree with him on this subject matter.

[Wrex369]

You and 80% of N4G I remember this guy getting LAUGHED at hard on here like 6-7 years ago. Jesus.. time flies..

[northpaws]

Don't forget whatever he says the opposite would become true, so $70 will become very reasonable in the future.

[JackBNimble]

This is what the left does to appease left wing activists... it's called pandering

[IamTylerDurden1]

Do ppl still listen to this guy? He was a joke a decade ago. Any article with Pachter as it's source is weak sauce. And yes, nobody wants price increases, but looking at the fact that an official increase hasn't occurred in decades, it at least makes sense on next gen exclusives considering inflation alone has dropped profit margins and legitimately great developers with well known IP are struggling to stay afloat.

I'm speaking for myself, in the USA. I know Canadians and even UK residents have been struggling with more abhorrent prices, but I can only comment on what I know, and what I see. $10 more, for me, on next gen exclusives is a drag, but certainly understandable if it helps projects become profitable and ppl keep their jobs.

Now, I understand the counter is, but the publishers are greedy and the money will merely line their pockets. Technology makes development cheaper if anything. No. Just no. Devs/pubs are dropping like flies. Independent developers are forced to sign bad deals or be acquired. The desperate need to break even amidst rising costs is the reason why we continue to see fans getting screwed over with EGS deals and arrangements like the one with Yakuza Like a Dragon that ultimately spit in the face of the fans that have truly supported the franchise over the past generation. Publishers need revenue more than ever, so they are more willing to sign deals that hurt their reputation or their own fan base.

Major AA or AAA games are indeed more expensive to make/market, particularly on next gen. Projects are riskier and riskier, hence why we see games taking less risks and injecting more egregious monetary practices. MTX in full priced titles are commonplace. Day one DLC, tacked on GaaS features or season passes, and the rise of the lootbox are all because of the fact that publishers need to squeeze more revenue from these releases. The prevalence of game services only adds to the MTX craze. It alters the business model into something more akin to a f2p.

In other words, the lack of the game industry's ability to increase base price to a minimum level of at least keeping pace with inflation has largely created these abhorrent financial practices that have poisoned gaming over the past half decade or more. If this minor (for me in America) next gen price increase can help to counterbalance some of these practices and make games releases more clean, I can live with it. Obviously some will abuse it by continuing to stuff their full priced next gen products with egregious MTX, but if some portion of publishers can use the increase as a means to not nickle n dime the consumer in other areas and if it can give quality ppl and quality products more security and more confidence in taking risks, again, I can live with it. We'll see.

[Bruh]

Guy works at Wedbush and you don't lmfao so whose winning huh

[Kurt Russell]

Games are more expensive to make and market yes. But the audience has increased significantly increasing profits.

Where I am prices have gone from £50-55 up to £69.99. That's way above inflation. People's wages however have declined during the same period on average.

If anything it will be least interesting. I know for me, this hike has decreased my likeliness to spend on a new game. It'll have to be near perfectly reviewed and empty of micro transactions for me to even consider it.

These companies are reporting record profits whilst letting their developers go (I'm looking at you Activision). Meanwhile the guys at the top are collecting massive $200 million bonus'. If you think Devs are profiting from this you'd be wrong.

[1nsomniac]

So wrong on so many levels. The facts are easy enough to find. Charging £70 for a game is obscene. Many of these devs make their entire costs of development back in a single day. Are you really trying to suggest that they’re hard done by and struggling??

[lukejd1088]

Lol

[DJStotty]

@iamtylerdurden1

You are completely missing the fact that game companies make millions and millions off of games these days through MT's, which they opted for as opposed to DLC.

So these companies charging $70 for a game, and then milking you on top of it through MT's, is exactly what it says on the tin, greed.

[wwinterj]

Sorry but no. What's created the gaming practices we all hate over the years is greed by the publishers. Publishers who STILL will do these things. Publishers who ARE NOT struggling for money. The only publishers that will charge $70/£70 are those already making so much money. The "struggling" publishers/devs won't charge $70/£70 because they are indie game makers to begin with. Patchter is right on this one. It really doesn't matter how you choose to justify this greed to yourself. It's still greed and not needed period.

[TheLigX]

Prices haven't increased in decades? Where have you been?

[Darkegg]

Explain how the little guys work 100+ hours a week, their jobs get slashed, and the CEO makes over 200 million dollars. Charging more for games only helps the one guy make more money. It doesn't go to the developing team.

The problem is infrastructure.. and needs oversight to prevent the manager or corporates from abusing the employees. I'm not one for union but the capitalistic failures is most evident in the gaming industry where high moral fiber is practically shatted on.

[cooperdnizzle]

@Bruh. I dated a girl named Webb and she had a huge bush... does that count?

[Crazyglues]

Yeah $70 dollars is ridiculous, mainly because they are not making better games, they are making the same games and just charging more, these new titles have nothing going on that was not in the $60 buck game... it's just a cash grab, and that's a dam shame..

If the game had better physics's and more things going on, better destruction, longer story ( meaning the game lasted more then 6 hours to beat) had more enemies far better effects, then I would be all for it..

But to pay more for the same game, which is what these studios are doing, that's a hell no.... Complete Epic Fail..

[RPGer]

Exactly, Demon Souls is exactly the same game and charging $70. Is it Excellent? Yes. Fun? Yes. New? No.

I mean It Takes Two although it does offer best platform and co op experience with smoothness and creativity still only charging $40. Although it miles better than most Ubitsoft and EA themselves, it miles cheaper and nowhere near the indie quality or performance.

[derek]

@RPGer why don't developers ask you first how much you want to pay for their work.

[LucasRuinedChildhood]

€80 is an even tougher pill to swallow.

None of Sony's launch games have had even a small discount on the PS Store since the launch almost 5 months ago.

I've completely avoided these €80 games but I think Ratchet & Clank is going to break me. Hopefully Miles Morales goes on sale because I intend to bounce back and forth between them (Insomniac sugar high) - it would offset the €80 price a bit I suppose.

I'd like to play Demon's Souls, but €80 is too much.

[Kornholic]

That's why going digital is a bad move. You can get a physical copy of Demon's Souls for way less than 80 dollars.

[TheEnigma313]

That’s the reason to get the physical edition.

[Army_of_Darkness]

@Kornholic

Doesn't make a difference in price whether it be digital or physical. No need to lie bro.
https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-c...

The best option is to wait a few months for a good sale.

[UltraNova]

I came here to say the same thing. In EU they charge 80 euros for a single game, frankly it's ridiculous. How to they expect us to buy new games at that price? I for one won't be spending that amount of money on a single game.

I've also noticed that there were no deals on ps5 games (digital or physical) to date. Even used DS:R discs start from 65 all they way up to 80 in some cases (including shipping) and they are hard to find.

I was open on perhaps getting a few games digitally this time around but these ridiculous prices and lack of discounts have solidified my decision to sticking with physical/used market no matter how much time it takes for the prices to go down.

Things are getting prohibitevely expensive by the day for us gamers and with recent times where the games industry is moving closer to going full digital (no ownership/ resell option), is it looks like gaming will be taking a back sit afaic.

[Kornholic]

@Army_of_Darkness

Are you kidding me? That's only one retailer, you do know that right, or are you so out of touch? Apparently you don't know how to use Google search.

[neutralgamer1992]

Exactly the games on current gym cost 60 and the same ports on next-gen consoles cause somebody makes zero sense. Just like Miro transactions publishers got away with it and now they're getting away with this. We as a gaming community are too busy arguing with each other and not standing in solidarity to make our voices heard

[senorfartcushion]

Remember when Activision’s exec said “price increase or microtransactions.”

We got both lol

[spicelicka]

Not to mention they have far more ways of making money now, like from cutting content and selling it as DLC, and having microtransactions.

[Orchard]

For once Pachter is actually right...

[gaffyh]

I do find that I won't purchase a £69.99 game at all...2 weeks after launch it drops in price anyway! Just makes you feel stupid when you buy early, it's like they think we are suckers who have no self control.

[wwinterj]

I've learned my lesson with buying games day one. This price increase is just going to make me more picky. Even more so when many games come out with complete editions down the road anyway. It's always more "worth it" to wait with tech, even more games.

[Smellsforfree]

Or it will be a PS Plus/PS Now/Game Pass title before too long.

[BandarHub]

Believe it or not...Pachter actually predicted that Xbox would purchase Bethesda a years before they Xbox bought them.
There is a certain truth to what he says... it's just the way he says it.

[Vanfernal]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day... When you make so many predictions one is bound to be right every once in a while. Doesn't change the fact that he's wrong 99% of the time lol.

[frostypants]

Was gonna post the "broken clock" analogy but I see someone already did. Pachter is the perfect example of it. His list of bad takes is enourmous.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Gouging for money is dumb, but if they've too(most likely not) just increase prices on special editions.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Pachter is just playing to the crowd. He's right And he's wrong. More obvious stuff coming from him. Just a normal day.

I'm a discount guy or sales guy. Or even free guy when I can get it.. Last gen, I may have bought 5 games at full price because I wanted a game right away at $60. That's because I'm older and wiser and have more patience to wait on something I know will lower in price eventually. When I was younger, I bought games at launch for Atari, Coleco, Nintendo, Sega and NEC systems, etc all the way up until PlayStation 2. I even bought games like Phantasy Star and Virtual Racing for $80 and $100 decades ago. You eventually learn you don't have to have something right away.

Companies aren't wrong in asking for that price. He mentions that it's easier engines and cheaper development hardware, etc. What he tries to ignore is the inflation as if it doesn't exist. He mentions it. But he ignores it. "Oh, it's only a little more." Bullshit. Does he mention that a lot of these big AAA games have a team of 200 or more artists, programmers, animators, voice actors, advanced sound design, etc than games years ago? Does he think that buying that equipment or renting it to make these top games is cheap? No. He doesn't.

How much does it cost to market the games worldwide in print, television spots, etc? Shipping the games? The logistics of protecting product from being stolen? You need security a well. He's not being realistic as well.

I love lower prices. I'll take it if you give it. It also means you don't have to go buy the game at that price. No one is forcing you to buy at that price. But you can't expect games to stay $49.99 forever when everything else is going up.

Yeah. I'm playing the devil's advocate. And just for thought, how many Sony first party single player games have micro transactions? Can't find one in Ghost, GOW or Spider-Man. He neglects that as well.

[Rebel_Scum]

Devils advocate...nah. tbh this is the first logical post in this comments section.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Thanks. It's not that I want $70. But it doesn't mean I have to buy $70.

And if gamers don't buy, these companies will have to lower the price anyway. Gamers will let them know when it's too much.

We don't see them screaming that consoles are now $400-$500. They did before with PS3 at $500-$600. But PS3 gave gamers everything and the kitchen sink. I bought the $600 PS3. Then when Sony ripped shit out to lower cost, they complained they didn't get launch system features for free.

PS4 releases cheaper than PS3 at $399. They complain it's laptop CPU's. But those laptop CPU's produced Horizon, Spider-Man, Ghost, etc. I bought PS4 at $299 with 5 free games. Now, they seem to not complain about $400-$500 current gen systems.

Gamers are all over the place on pricing. Some just want to complain and just follow the herd. They forget game systems used to be $199-299.

[Kavorklestein]

You know what you're right. I used to go to gamestop and do the midnight launches for my fave upcoming games. Now I wait till they are $40 with DLC, or even better, less than $30 with DLC.
I mean a good game is still a good game later on.
I literally do the same thing usually and look for good seasonal sales and never feel ripped off.

Then for the few games I might be on the fence about, Gampass has let me try a few and then some turn into a purchase (with discount) or I simply beat them while on Gamepass. If I was a single guy or teen again, I'd probably beat and play even more titles.

Now I kinda budget it with my available time and go, "Do I really have time for another open world game right now?"
Or, "I'm gonna play that other MP shooter I already have 1st, till I unlock everything I want, and THEN I'll start this new one"

Unless of course a few "must have" games come and of course, I just buy em cuz they have me sold from the start.

Good times for gamers who want to find a good deal or price.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Which makes sense. Some games you know you want right away. You know what you want to play. It's those other games that have unproven developers. But even main developers can create duds. But it's rare. The question becomes on if you want it right away. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. But no company can force me to pay $70. I'll just wait.

Yours makes sense as well.

[Imalwaysright]

Why don't you mention the record profits that both Sony's gaming division and Activision had prior to these companies upping the price of games wich renders any argument you have completely useless? Patcher is being realistic in calling out these companies greed and you're doing what you do best: corporate shilling for Sony.

[Edgelordsupreme]

He’s a broken record.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Lol. A shill trying to call me a shill.

Instead of speaking for yourself and creating an argument, you just spew useless name calling. I just support the market leader that's better for gamers.

Gamers like you talk about Microsoft profits all the time. But Sony gives back to their community with free games. Yes they make profits, but they're more consumer friendly. When XBL was released, Microsoft went 10 years giving nothing in return. But are the richer company. Sony starts their online, and gives back hundreds of dollars in games. Microsoft releases zero games for the launch of a new system. Sony gives one away packed in. Sony gave away games last year and this year because of covid. What did Microsoft do? Got damn nothing. All you guys talk about is paying for subscriptions bundled together. Sony offers a subscription with PS Now and the online is free. Fools like you were paying to play F2P games. Lol.

Keep lying to yourself and continue to fall for the wait and see tow line. Fools usually do. Who's the shill? I support a company that puts in effort and takes risks while giving back. You support a company that can't even release a VR headset and just lies about why they can't. There's only one shill here. And it's not me.

[Imalwaysright]

And obvíously you reply with crapola that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand because you're full of shit and you know it. I couldn't care less about wich multi-billion $ company you support you useless tool. I care about what's best for me and for my fellow gamers and upping the price of games in an exercise of greed is not what we gamers needed especially when there is an economic crisis looming over our heads so go on your usual kowtowing routine in hopes that Sony let's you lick their ass and I'll be here to call you out on your bullshit.

[Viking_mo]

Never thought I'd see the day where I'd agree with him

[Redemption-64]

I have no problem with games that increase in price, as long as there are no micro transactions in them.

[JEECE]

The thing is, if they were going to do it, it needed to happen across the board or not at all. Either $70 needs to be the standard price for AAA games, or it needs to be $60. Because now there are people (many of them on here) who refuse to buy $70 games when some are still $60. However, there are inevitably going to be people who look at anything launched under $70 as being "budget" and thus not worth their time (just as there were people last gen who wouldn't buy any game that launched under $60 and who won't buy digital only games because they see both types of games as secondary).

[ApocalypseShadow]

I also believe the subscription model is giving some gamers a false sense that it doesn't cost these companies millions to make and market their games. I'm aware they want to make profits if you let them. They're businesses. I expect them to try. But gamers shouldn't think it's as easy as Pachter makes it out to be.

He mentions Unity. As if Rockstar Games, Sony, Microsoft, etc use unity for their big games. Some barely use Unreal to make their games. They build their games from the ground up. And employ hundreds of people. That takes skilled workers great at math, architecture, science, biology, zoology, chemistry, etc. People doing research, photography, sound recording, orchestras.

Using Sony as an example, we see they create their own game engines. They program advanced weather patterns and lighting. They put in some of the best textures from artists. They get some of the best actors or voice actors from each country they are releasing the game into. And that's just Sony. Look at Rockstar when they make GTA. That's not a 20 or 30 man team.

I know gamers what prices to stay the same. But my guess it's going to be a case by case basis. We know Indy companies can't charge $70 on a 3-4 hour game with less production. And we know games with a micro transaction model can't be $70.

But hand crafted games, and that's basically what a lot of these games are: HAND CRAFTED. These gamers have to understand that high quality might mean a higher price.

[wwinterj]

I mean games are on sales all the time so regardless I go for the cheaper game most the time. Still I really don't think someone seeing a new game for £50 is going to think it's a budget title. Even more so if it's a well known franchise. I hope as many publishers as possible stay with todays price and not just onto the bandwagon of a price increase.

[DFresh]

There’s always sales going on and games are much longer these days.
I haven’t paid full price for a game in awhile.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Very intelligent. A sign of an aware consumer.

[DFresh]

The last few games I spent full price on is The Last of Us 2, Ghost of Tsushima (worth it) and Final Fantasy VII Remake.

[derek]

Maybe we can all be like xbox fans and stop buying games completely.

[galmi]

yay a dig at xbox, here's your troll candy sir

[phoenixwing]

That troll candy must taste good since there's so many trolls for everything.

[Shadowsteal]

$60 adjusted for inflation is $74-$75 today. $70 makes perfect sense, and whoever disagrees just simply doesn't understand economics.

[purple101]

I understand that if a publisher makes 125million in profit. They can afford.to absorb a 2‰ inflation so games don't go up by 10 or 20 for a young kids, or, for some that much money that is a huge amount! (Would you believe it, possibly not.)

With increased playerbase of last gen + with the huge sales expected again this generation, economies of scale are going to offset the small inflation rise.

It's costing them roughly the same amount to make a game as it always has. but the're selling more and more copies.

[Yi-Long]

Well, if you're gonna adjust for inflation, you also have to realize that $60 20 years ago bought you a whole lot more than $75 buys you now. The value of your money has gone down, because costs (rent, food, mobility, education, healthcare, etc etc) has gone up way more than your income, so for most folks, your disposable income is now less than it would have been 20 years ago.

In short, you got way more bang for your buck back then. More coffee, more donuts, more comics, etc.

[Father__Merrin]

i bought Cold war cross gen upgrade version £64.99 which is $89 so a $70 game would be roughly £51 aka £49.99 which has been the average price for a game new AAA for a long time. ive checked the price for demon souls its rightly around the £50 mark new. NA does not equal the world....

[wwinterj]

You paid £65 so paid £15 more than the standard £50. This $70 is actually £70 for us in the UK when it comes to RRP so sure sounds about right. A £15 -£20 increase is what's happening here and it's not needed. Also $10 would equal roughly about £8 so we should be paying around £60 (a £10 increase) yet that's not how this works clearly.

[Outlawzz]

I probably won't purchase anything at $70. I have a hard enough time justifying $60. The sales bin always has plenty of gems for me lol

[Darkborn]

OK so in 100 years you still want to pay $60 for games right? Prices go up at some point guys. I actually support it because it makes bigger budget games more financially viable. If the publishers and execs aren't getting a return and the game dev costs keep going up, eventually we're all going to end up getting rushed GAAS games that aren't finished and are AA. Maybe that's why we get rushed games guys...

We're paying pre mo-cap prices for games in a world where most big budget games cost an insane amount to make and are huge risks. Look at how much marketing costs now compared to before. It's really a big difference in development compared to the last time there was a price increase.

[ApocalypseShadow]

I agree. It's just sad that gamers feel like they are entitled to a fixed price. Even when no one is telling them to fork over the cash immediately or swipe their card at launch.

If big companies stop investing money into AAA games and expect a return, they'll make smaller games. Then, these gamers will complain of the very thing they are responsible for. Cheap games.

[Darkborn]

Exactly. Gamers just want to cry about stuff. They cry that micro transactions and skin dlc are in games, as well as pre-order bonuses and deluxe edition content. All of those were designed to get the crowd early and to actually turn and try to guerentee a profit. So many companies are just trying to break even at launch and it shows. Why do people think they rush games out the door to a buggy mess? It's not because they love getting bad press. It's because the execs want money and they don't want to wait 10 years for it.

[galmi]

it might actually get a lot cheaper to make games in 100 years you know, so the price could be cheaper than 60...

[Stanjara]

I do agree with him for once.

[Donjune]

AAA games come day one to Gamepass! Battlefield 6 is on the way!

[boing1]

For me, the game would need to be stellar for 70$. I think we are entering a territory where enjoyable experience will have to be *guaranteed* if they want us to shell out this kind of money for new game.

[Inverno]

Budgets can be managed. Most times it isn't even game development itself but the money put into advertising. I don't see why I gotta pay for your budget mismanagement, and on top of that you wanna keep putting microtransactions? When I see that games are actually doing more than just being more of the same then maybe I'll think it worth that. Pretty graphics don't work on me, neither do controller features.

[waverider]

I think all games shouldnt be 70. But big quality triple AAA games? Not a problem. Now, we are getting average games at high price. Sorry but no. Games that come year after year with almost zero evolution.... Broken games at full price...

[Knightofelemia]

Funny how people bitch when a game is $70 come to Canada and buy a game brand new here then you'll have something to bitch about when you see our prices. And depending where in Canada you live or shop that game is $80-$90 brand new can be even more with a federal sales tax, provincial sales tax and a harmonized sales tax all thrown into the mix. I would love to see a brand new $70 game when it launches haven't seen that price since the PS3 days. I would hate to buy a game in the NWT, Nunavut and the Yukon where that shit is flown in by plane the price will be even higher.

[Tetsdah]

Lmfao, I agree with this idea if a lot of these games were even worth $60. I don't agree with every game going up $10, but that isn't the case. But Nintendo is charging full retail for ports of WII U and WII games.

Basically charge accordingly to work done with product. And consumers will decide the value is appropriate. But this logic should have applied before $60 games, especially with lil work I have seen done to cross gen titles.

Imo, DSR or RA should not be priced the same as ACV or Outriders. So fine, sensibly DSR can go down in price if those games go down in price as well. The argument is lost on me, because pricing has been wonky for some time.

C'mon Pachter lol

[Yppupdam]

Like I have said before, The publisher can charge whatever they want...and I will play their game if it looks good but, I'll just have to wait a little longer. and that's fine, I'm a patient man. I'll NEVER pay full price for a game and I will Never pay 70.00. M. Pachter just said what I have said in the past. don't be fooled by these whining publishers crying poor while they hop into one of their Lambo's and cry poor all the way to their mansions.

[Vanfernal]

According to the USD inflation calculator:

If in 2011I purchased an item for
$59.99

then in 2021 that same item would cost: $70.14

Cumulative rate of inflation: 16.9%

I don't know... That looks kind of spot on...

[XxINFERNUSxX]

You can be greedy but I can take most for free on PC via torrents 😁 So throughout the year I save a shit ton of $$, this also carries over to any movies/tv/music. I do not sub to any streaming service at all I take what I want via torrents , Disney+, Netflix, etc, etc. All shows are usually up within a few hrs anyway to download, wait a bit longer and you will have nice 4K rips in a smaller size which I keep (look up the group UTR for 4K) 👍I do have a Switch but I buy a few games a year for it, mostly only Nintendo first party so by me torrenting most for PC I don't mind buying a few on my Switch.

[sweendog]

Absolutely spot on. Yes games are costing more to produce but more people are gaming than ever before. Top publishers are reporting year on year record profits. An increase in game prices is pure greed.

[masterfox]

Agree!, paying 70 dlls for physical media that doesn't even have a proper instruction manual really sucks, no to mention there is a huge risk that the game can probably be pretty bad, hell is even more annoying to pay that in a digital form. I have to be honest here putting the same price digital and physical is the dumbest thing every game company is currently doing, I mean imo a game company can easely remove 10 or 20 bucks in a digital release and they could easely sky rocket their sales compensating the price reduction, I mean they arent spending on logistics shipments with digital or other like custom taxes etc, and for physical let the normal price be for obvious reasons, but yet again be fair to your customer and justify its increase price.

[justadelusion]

Agreed.

[GoodGuy09]

As if $60 wasnt already high lol. I always only wait for a sale now unless its a game to play with my friends or one that I know for sure I want to get. Usually AAAs drop by $10-$20 in sales in just a couple months and down at $20 or $30 in a half a year. That gamepass is looking mighty attractive right now.

[Elda]

Some may not agree or accept but AAA Video games have been $60 since 2005. Did folks actually think it wasn't going to increase after 15/16 years 2 generations later,the increase was bound to happen.

[neomahi]

Agreed, its certainly not fair that the most recent and soon to be released The Show 21 is going to be $10 more on Sonys own platform developed by their own studio and even worse is that its free on Xbox, THE COMPETITION.

It was apparently explained to Inverse that the MLB did dictate the decision that the series go to Xbox for more gamers to experience The Show. Now mind you, The MLB didnt develop the game and spend years and years tuning it and making it the quality piece of software it is today so who are they to say. They get licensing fees from Sony every year. Theyre not doing all the hard work to make it and market it and make it the success it is. You wanna tell me all the ballplayers that play every game on thr ballfield makes the difference? No, that makes no sense.

And, yes, further, Sony allows The Show 21 to be made available free to Xbox customers while PlayStation fans not only pay for it, but have to shell out $10 more which also equates to more than has to be paid than $10 because taxes increase on a more expensive game. Its preposterous!

I HATE YOU Jim Ryan and it wasnt long after Herman Hulst came on as their executive line that Sony started ported games to PC like they have. Its a new PlayStation regime and it sucks.

What are Microsoft doing as "gratitude" to Sony and Sony fans that have made The Show what it is today, its all nauseating.

[boing1]

FYI, price of MLB 21 is the same on both platforms. MS has for sure an upper hand with it being free on GP, though

[sourOG]

Pachter still has his pandemic haircut lol. I thought I was watching Chong.

[Mithan]

I rarely buy games at release anymore. I used to buy about 15-25 games a year at release, now its more like 4-6. Life is busy. I can easily wait a few months for most games and pay 25-50% less for the game on some sale. This year, the only games I will purchase for list price are the Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Horizons 2, God of War Ragnarok and Elden Ring if it comes out. I can't really think of any other game I would pay $95 canadian for with tax.

I picked up the last Assasssin's Creed at release, but I dumped 120 hours into it and felt I got my money out of it and more.

[DivineHand125]

IDK where all this negetivity for Michael Pachter is coming from since most of his predictions are based on what he thinks would make the most business sense using the information that is available to him. Sure the wii HD never happened and instead nintendo released the wiiU which turned out to be a bad idea and went on to be one of the worst performing nintendo consoles of all time. Don't follow the crowed of hate people, he is an analyst and people pay him to get an educated opinion. I personally look forward to hearing about educated predictions from him and other industry insiders or veteran gamers. I just wished the voices speaking out against $70 games were louder but we will see how this works out for games like reternal and ratchet and clank.

[REDGUM]

I agree but also disagree.
Sure one could argue that paying more for anything these days for the same content as we had 10years ago etc is not right. Same game lengths, content, graphics engine, story, artstyle etc etc, we shouldn't have to pay more..... BUT.... on the flip side, the cost to build a game has increased, wages have grown, rents of buildings increase plus many other hurdles to jump along the way too I'm sure, will all cost money. If we keep taking those added fees out of the development teams and alike then they will eventually fold.
Everything goes up in cost. As an example, I own a furniture making business and back 10 years ago I could afford to make a bookcase at $100, now, 11 years on, that's impossible with timber costs that have gone up 10 fold with no exaggeration hardware costs, transport costs, marketing costs etc etc..... things have to increase.
You can't tell me that to are earning the same dollars that you were 11 years ago.
Things have to increase, although not always worth the price hike, costs will always increase not decrease.

[Muzikguy]

People are complaining a lot but honestly it doesn't seem to be that big an issue. Maybe it's just me, but I've seen so many things nearly.dounle in price that a $10 increase really doesn't seem that bad. Have I bought the games? Not yet, but I was thinking about Demon's Souls. And those that say things like "if they had this and this I would", you are just lying to yourselves because it would be some other reason regardless. Prices go up. It happens. I don't necessarily like it but I'm not complaining about it either

[Pyrofire95]

Not complaining but
Will there ever be a different picture of this guy to use in the thumbnail?

[Dixiedevil]

All a $70 game does for me is make me buy it used. Good job. You didn’t make a dime.

[shepherdzeMan]

Oh this fucking guy!

[Lionsguard]

If prices never dropped drastically and so fast, I'd agree otherwise it doesn't affect me. Those that want it day 1 will shell out the extra 10. I'll wait for the sale. You want to talk about greedy? Take a look at Nintendo and their penchant for rarely ever offering sales and when they do, it's never that much and it never drops below a certain price.

[Silly gameAr]

Let's just stop buying games period. Why should devs put food on the table for their fams, when they can give the games away for a small fee? Or add a bunch of MTs to recoup cost? That's the best way to support gaming..

[EmperorDalek]

Indeed. You cannot tell me that Godfall, NBA, or even the upcoming Ratchet took more resources to develop than The Last of Us 2.

[Manubiggs]

Outside of the US most countries have been paying $70 for current Gen and the price will get even steeper with next gen

[Acecalibur]

You all will learn to wait for price drops one day.

[neomahi]

Its already started.

[gold_drake]

wow. its 2021 .. and i agree with him.
this is it guys. the end of the world.

[SpineSaw]

Gaming is a hobby and its costly but this price hike for a new game from $60usd to $70usd is nothing it's $10! But if a little price hike in a new game for the first time in 15 or so years that should've been expected is a bridge to far then there are cheaper gaming options for you through the rental services. Every platform seems to have now though there are issues such as you don't get to decide the games that are put on these rental services and you may never see the games you want to play and when they do put the games you want that game may only be on the rental service for a couple months and then if your internet goes down so does the rental service and you'll never own these games through the rental services but if your poor and want to game then the rental service may be for you.

[oneplus04]

I agree with pachter

[addictedtochaos]

Holy crap, he actually got something right!

[Smok91]

I’m always entertained when people don’t understand supply and demand

[jBlakeeper]

These game development companies are not so hurting for cash that they need to raise prices. Especially in the midst of a pandemic. It’s greed and Sony knows full well that people will pay the price for their exclusives.

[Tyrant 8 RDFL]

What troubles me is a company wants to charge $70 for a game, but then sell MT's in the game. Now if I was that company and see how the free model has succeeded. I would make the game free, and make the money via MT's. All of it has to be cosmetics, and sell it at a solid price. Gamers love cosmetics and they have nothing to do with pay to win. I have seen that if the gamer loves the game they have no issues funding it though MT's.

I would want to get the game into as many gamers as possible, and the only way to do that is offering the game for free. Otherwise like mentioned here already. At $70 if the game doesn't score a 8.5 or higher many gamers wont give the game a look until it is on sale.

[TheEnigma313]

doesn't matter to me. I don't mind waiting a year for a decent price and all patches included.

[GamingSinceForever]

The cost of goods in general is on the rise.

[DarXyde]

Pachter looks like he's turning into Steve Bannon. The pandemic hasn't been kind to this guy.

[TheEnigma313]

he's only right when he states the obvious

[GordyNYC]

The price increase was short sighted especially w the new Xbox game pass model making Sony look greedy.

[GordyNYC]

We never received a discount for digital distribution which removes a portion of the backend costs. Also, technology has advanced to make a lot of the more time intensive elements of development faster. I believe they’ll have to lower prices to stay competitive.

[DJStotty]

PS5 exclusives in the UK are £69.99, which is close to $100 ($96.34 to be exact).

Absolutely no chance it is anything other than greed.

[Positivelypositive]

He's right for the first time! Nah, I got nothing against him. Still the price hike is pure greed by AAA publishers. Since I see most indie games don't launch at 59.99 yet even.

Here is how I see it. Have only the companies that really want the 69.99 can just place their games at 69.99 and everyone else stick with 59.99. That way its easier to know who it boycott.

Are there games worth 69.99? Probably. Those RPGs that have 150 hours of content before DLC and extras are the biggest candidates imo. Games like COD with a 5 hour campaign and 5 multiplayer maps are hardly worth a fin.

Could also just give everyone a 10 dollar dlc called. I loved it! It is basically a tip to the devs for how great the game was. If game companies want another 10 out of me they can't just clone the game they made last year and paint it different.

[Abear21]

Who buys games at full price?

[chiefJohn117]

It should depend on the amount of content and development cost. A remaster/remake no way should be $70. A game like RDR2....ok its understandable.

Those Cod numbers he gave is amazing. Some people think f2p hurt sells but we have seen time and time again it help sells

[TheLigX]

True... maybe Pachter can come around to agreeing with the need for unionization in the industry.

[TheHan]

Raising the prices would be a horrible move.

[anast]

A lot of, not all, AAA games have been $100 for quite awhile. $60-$70 will get a ticket to get in the park, but you still have to pay for the rides.

[akaFullMetal]

The market will decide, if people are waiting for price drop and numbers don't look good then they will drop price. Maybe games should be $70 but I don't want pay that.

[ajax17]

whoa, Pachter looks weird as hell with that hair

[brandonb21]

meanwhile in Canada they start at 89$. Yes I know the currency exchange and all that, but there comes to a point where a video game costs too much.

[Amplitude]

The ONLY game that I will willingly pay $89.99 CAD for is the new Ratchet and Clank game. All my other ps5 games I've bought used or on sale.

$90 is too much for any game honestly. Especially digital games lmao imagine paying $90 for a download of something? Like why tf lol

Anyway my backlog is pretty much infinite - I can just wait.

[TheRacingX]

Games have been $80-$100 since PS3/X360 - PS4/X1 days....selling the "gold" or "ultimate" edition of Assassins Creed or COD or Fallout or whatever was just getting the unfinished game and a $40 voucher for the rest of it when they finished it.....now they call it "season pass" seriously? how about calling it "rest of game" .... during PS1/PS2 and even OG Xbox you got the whole game and the vision the dev wanted to give to the gamer...... then innocently enough MS thought "hey! we have this HDD so we can add some content for the loyal gamers who keep playing our titles and charge a couple of bucks and prolong the games life!!!" then the next gen comes along and thats when the evil and greed seeps in....now its more like " Hey we have HDD's on these consoles so if we cant finish the game when the marketing dept wants it out just sell it as DLC!" then it s more like " Forget finishing the game, sell it as is and force the suckers to buy a " season pass" we can almost double our money for the same thing....." GENIUS! I'm not even going to get into the robbery of microtransactions , new outfit colors, guns etc....scam....corporatons took a hobby I loved and turned it into a nickel and dime rape fest.....worse than extortion.

[TheVigilanteCode]

Holy shit. Through a decade+ of hearing this dude and his delusions about the industry with his predictions or "analyses", this is the first EVER time that I completely agree with him.

2021, what a time to be alive.