Games might be $70 next gen.

[MrLachyG]

https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/2/21...increase-games



This might set a new trend of games costing $70. AAA developers might charge more for games that have less content so they can cram them with microtransactions, because that's how the industry works now; they try to see how much they can get away with. At what point do gamers say, "Enough is enough."?

You might say I'm jumping to conclusions or overreacting, but the game industry has done nothing to deserve the benefit of the doubt in recent years. I fully expect games to cost $70 next gen.

I don't mind games costing between 50 and 70; hell I have bought some over the years that cost a lot more than that. the thing that I hate is when DLC costs $10+ especially when it is minor things

[kodemonkee]

$70 for a game is gonna drive people away from gaming. Paying $60 was already a stretch

Not only this but nowadays you pay so much money for a half game because they want make more money and add DLCs into it for the same amount of money. I remember the good ol' times when you paid for the full game...

No wonder people in countries who not have so much money download cracked games.

[Yunru]

I don't mind games costing between 50 and 70; hell I have bought some over the years that cost a lot more than that. the thing that I hate is when DLC costs $10+ especially when it is minor things

The only Dlc that is acceptable is a expansion to the game and even then it needs to come out later (not on day 1). Most of the Dlc on day 1 is just cut content.

Not many games have expansions this days. This one for example is pretty ok:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of...gy:_The_Titans

But stuff like this is not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_El...%93_Hearthfire

Oh and Sims dont count as one. They cut out previos game stuff and just re-sold it as new expansion.
Something that was already there. For a expansion, it needs to be new.

[Linkedblade]

I'm not a console player so forgive me, but has it already hit the $100 mark? Last I knew it was $59.99 for the "game" and $79.99 for the "deluxe" edition/extras.

Depends on the same really. Take a game like Halo 3, they had the base game, the limited edition and legendary edition. And those prices after right what they were

[MrLachyG]

The only Dlc that is acceptable is a expansion to the game and even then it needs to come out later (not on day 1). Most of the Dlc on day 1 is just cut content.

Not many games have expansions this days. This one for example is pretty ok:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of...gy:_The_Titans

But stuff like this is not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_El...%93_Hearthfire

Oh and Sims dont count as one. They cut out previos game stuff and just re-sold it as new expansion.
Something that was already there. For a expansion, it needs to be new.

specifically DLC for games like DOA - that game costs $100 here, $115 for the digital deluxe then you have DLC of costumes which cost $36 per set. absolutely disgusting

[Temp name]

games are at same price for like how long? 20 years despite of inflation.

I mean, sure, if you ignore all the DLC and micro transactions and silver/gold editions, and all that shit.

[Aradur]

I don’t care...i nearly never buy Games Day 1 (Last 2 were GTA V and FF7R) And wait until they are 30€ or below including their DLC. Wont change that.

[Krastyn]

And you tried to paint the fake picture that most don't make too fucking much money already. Oh look Ubi after a serious of shit operations managed to lose money.
Its just Actilizzard and EA that make money, the rest are in just for charity and a passion for microtransactions.

Really? Where did I say that? Please. Quote me.

I see you glossed right over Take 2 and Square and chose to just focus on Ubisoft to build a strawman.

If you want to claim that "most" game companies make too much fucking money right now, that's on YOU to prove. I've given you three major studios who aren't. EA main business model is churning out the same games almost yearly. Activision has 75% of their revenue from non-product sales, as a third of their revenue is from King, and a third from Blizzard which is primarily subscriptions and the cash store. So Activision isn't really going to care that much about games going for $70 instead of $60 even if they do, because that's only a small portion of their revenue.

The big players are going to be fine as they'l find side revenue to make their money, and are diversified enough to get through it.

No one is agruing that the $70 price will remove DLC, MTX, or other monetization. What people fail to reailze, is that even AT $70, it is still below "market value", and it is DLC, MTX and other monetization that even keeps it there.

[aceperson]

well i'm certainly going to be less willing to try out games if the base price becomes $70. especially games published by ea and other stupidly greedy companies.

[CastletonSnob]

"Development costs have gone up, so game prices need to go up" doesn't work as an excuse. AAA companies have MORE than enough money to cover the costs of developing a game. Most AAA companies don't even pay any taxes, so it's not like they're bleeding money.

[Temp name]

"Development costs have gone up, so game prices need to go up" doesn't work as an excuse. AAA companies have MORE than enough money to cover the costs of developing a game. Most AAA companies don't even pay any taxes, so it's not like they're bleeding money.

But if they start spending money on that, they can't give as many bonuses to the executives!

[chiddie]

not familiar with any of those titles so can't really say anything to that. i've just gotten used to playing games that i can spend loads of time in so short cheap thrills might be fun but not worth as much in my book.

I was talking about 80ies coin-ops.

And it’s not wrong, but the length of the game is only a part of the story.

A 30 mins Green Day CD has the same price of a 70 minutes Opeth CD for example, but not necessarily the Green Day CD is worse or not worth the same money.

Video games are art for a reason, time you can spend on them matters but it’s not the only variable and often it’s not even the most important.

[Tech614]

I was talking about 80ies coin-ops.

And it’s not wrong, but the length of the game is only a part of the story.

A 30 mins Green Day CD has the same price of a 70 minutes Opeth CD for example, but not necessarily the Green Day CD is worse or not worth the same money.

Video games are art for a reason, time you can spend on them matters but it’s not the only variable and often it’s not even the most important.

All those takes do is encourage devs to bloat their games with shitty copy pasta content like Ubisoft and Bethesda are the worse offenders of.

Game length is beyond meaningless in judging the quality of a game.

[chiddie]

All those takes do is encourage devs to bloat their games with shitty copy pasta content like Ubisoft and Bethesda are the worse offenders of.

Game length is beyond meaningless in judging the quality of a game.

Meaningless maybe it’s a bit too much considering their price, but there are also other aspects to take into account. RPG fans are used to games that last a lot so for them length is probably a vital parameter.

[Lex Icon]

I was talking about 80ies coin-ops.

And it’s not wrong, but the length of the game is only a part of the story.

A 30 mins Green Day CD has the same price of a 70 minutes Opeth CD for example, but not necessarily the Green Day CD is worse or not worth the same money.

Video games are art for a reason, time you can spend on them matters but it’s not the only variable and often it’s not even the most important.

ah yeah i'm not unfamiliar with entertainment being short and sweet but with video games and movies i'm unlikely to play it over and over again.
music is probably one of the few exceptions.

anyway before i start forgetting what this was all about.. this is probably why i like mmo's. it doesn't end after the story part is done.

[deenman]

https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/2/21...increase-games



This might set a new trend of games costing $70. AAA developers might charge more for games that have less content so they can cram them with microtransactions, because that's how the industry works now; they try to see how much they can get away with. At what point do gamers say, "Enough is enough."?

You might say I'm jumping to conclusions or overreacting, but the game industry has done nothing to deserve the benefit of the doubt in recent years. I fully expect games to cost $70 next gen.

the costs of these games to develop are also going up

- - - Updated - - -

lol

Trust me, it'll be both higher prices and even more DLCs and microtransactions. And it has nothing to do with the costs (FFS, EA makes around $1 billion every quarter in profits)...it has everything to do with seeing if people accept the new prices.

oh boy,dude,development costs are going up,thats a fact,companies wont just be ok with making less money and just eating the extra costs for shits and giggles

[Tech614]

Meaningless maybe it’s a bit too much considering their price, but there are also other aspects to take into account. RPG fans are used to games that last a lot so for them length is probably a vital parameter.

Its absolutely meaningless. An hour played does not mean it was an hour enjoyed.

[RobertoCarlos]

All those takes do is encourage devs to bloat their games with shitty copy pasta content like Ubisoft and Bethesda are the worse offenders of.

Game length is beyond meaningless in judging the quality of a game.

I dunno. I think of those pretty journey games. Pretty fun/visually stunning but literally only lasts 5-7 hours. Makes me think it's only used for tech demos rather than actual gaming

[Tech614]

I dunno. I think of those pretty journey games. Pretty fun/visually stunning but literally only lasts 5-7 hours. Makes me think it's only used for tech demos rather than actual gaming

I'd rather play a 5 hour good game then a 50 hour shit game. Hell I'd rather spend $60 on a 5 hour good game then a 50 hour mediocre game game if you want me to get technical.

[chiddie]

Its absolutely meaningless. An hour played does not mean it was an hour enjoyed.

I see your point and I agree, but a great game that lasts one hour priced at 70$ can’t be probably rated 10/10, regardless how mighty that hour is.

Q/P has to be a factor somehow.