Diablo 4 is $69.99.

[Karlz0rz]

It is a bit sad to see all these people complaining about the price.
Because deep down, you know they really want to play it, but are too poor to actually be able to afford it.
Hopefully it goes on a sale not that far off into the future, so that they get to experience the game as well! <3

[Lex Icon]

this has nothing to do with inflation. stop making excuses.
if it did it would have been a way higher price hike.
they're only now starting to go for 70 because they're confident people will pay it.
that is all.

[Tech614]

It's unabashed corporate greed

Like everything else you consume. It's hilarious gamers draw the line at corporate greed with fucking video game prices of all things. Something you literally don't need.

Never change gaming activists, go put your whining into something that matters and maybe we could help out the world.

[tikcol]

Because they can and if you want to buy it, you will. Are you waiting for a sale? You can do that. The sale might be overpriced too in proportion to the new standard price though and you will end up paying the extra 10 moneys anyway.

Do I like this? No. Do I think it's normal for a 70 moneys game to be have a shop and battlepass? No. Do I like that they charge you 19 extra moneys to play the game 4 days earlier? No.

I might just forget about it though, if I like their product.

[Ghuntastic]

this has nothing to do with inflation. stop making excuses.
if it did it would have been a way higher price hike.
they're only now starting to go for 70 because they're confident people will pay it.
that is all.

And your thought process behind is, if people would only buy games for 30$, then they'd sell the same quality games for 30$? The result would be piss poor or pay2win games.
Some people don't realize the cost behind a development of an AAA game nowadays.

[Biomega]

The better question(s) to ask ourself is wether or not we still get quality and a bang for our buck today as we did in the past.

That's impossible to answer, because "quality" is such a vague term, and the gaming landscape is so different now than it was 10, 15, 20, or even more years ago.

Personally as someone who's engaged with gaming as a cultural phenomenon on an academic level, I'd say we live in a golden age for gaming - but that's mostly because of the high quality and wide proliferation of indie games, not because of the AAA titles. When it comes to mainstream, AAA stuff, there's a bit of a divergence: on the one hand, we have some great, very high-production-value titles around; on the other hand, we have franchised serial titles that are the fast-food equivalent of gaming with all the formulaic mass appeal that entails. How that translates to a reductive term like "quality" is a major negotiation.

[Adamas102]

Why do people think that video games will stay unaffected by inflation forever?

Because that's not how inflation works. You don't just say "well X amount of time has passed therefore things should be more expensive". Games nowadays are way more profitable than they used to be and it has nothing to do with inflation or increasing the box price by $10-20. In fact, these sorts of price increases are driven more by public perception (people like you just believing that the price should be higher because "inflation") rather than actual development costs.

Going to a predominately digital distribution model means that they greatly diminish the impact that rising costs of materials, production, transportation, warehousing, etc which tend to be large drivers of inflation. They also cut out the brick and mortar stores that used to manage part of that distribution chain. It would be pretty conservative to say that the physical production and distribution chain alone accounted for a good 20% of that $50 cost of a game back then.

Take a look at ATVI's quarterly reports some time. They could literally give away all their games for free and still make a couple $100 million in profit per year. Gaming is already more expensive on average nowadays thanks to supplemental revenue streams. "In-Game, Subscription, and Other Revenues" is where the real money comes from, and D4 is pushing those sorts of revenue streams even further with paid seasonal content.

You're right that it's astonishing that new games are sold for $60-70, because if anything they should be sold for less thanks to the shift from physical distribution of standalone games to digital distribution of micro-transaction laden games.

[Puupi]

I don't have a problem with a 70e box price by itself for an AAA game.

However, 70e for a game that has a battle pass and cosmetic shop included from the get go is too much.

[Delever]

While i think D4 will flop hard for anyone that doesnt have 'diablo brain' and thus its price is unjustifyable (its $110/140/155 in Aus btw)
2010 to 2023 has been around ~40% inflation.
$49.99 then is $69.99 now
Get a job.

Before making the typical boomer statement of "get a job", you have to stop and realize that most people here are at the very least in their mid twenties to early 30s and do in fact have a job.
I m not going to complain about 70 euros being the new norm to adjust for inflation as that is just how things are.
But the average wage that people get across Western countries have not gone up at the same rate as inflation has and the past couple of years have been increasingly difficult for people to deal with especially in the age group that I just mentioned. I have a job that a couple years ago would be considered quite prestigious and well paid and at the moment I am living paycheck to paycheck by maintaining a 30 square appartment, 1-2 hobbies, only going out on some weekends and going on vacation once a year.
This lifestyle should typically allow me to save a couple bucks here and there but appart from the May and December bonuses this has not been the case as every time I get a raise, rent, insurance and other monthly costs also go up accordingly.

So TLDR: getting a job is not the issue for most people when inflation is skyrocketing and wages are not keeping up.

[Cynical Asshole]

I don't have a problem with a 70e box price by itself for an AAA game.

However, 70e for a game that has a battle pass and cosmetic shop included from the get go is too much.

Yet you pay $25 to see a 2 hour movie.

[Puupi]

Yet you pay $25 to see a 2 hour movie.

I don't.

/10chars

[LordVargK]

I see the Inflation argument. This affects the development process. But I raise you the following:
- Distribution Costs are getting lower and lower every year, since less games are distributed physically.
- Blizzard's audience has grown since D2 and D3. Meaning they can expect more sales with fixed development costs
- The cost of supporting an online game per player is steadily declining

My personal theory is another:
Blizzard could easily affort to lower the price of the game and have it still be profitable, since lower prices -> more sales. But more sales would strain their servers. So Blizzard has developed a tiering system:
1. Deluxe Edition. Most expensive and get's 4 day headstart
2. Standard Edition. Still more expensive than necessary, get's regular access
3. Discount Edition. 55$, will be offered in a sale a few months in the future, when Diablo Servers aren't stressed anymore
With this pricing system Blizzard staggers the strain on their servers over a longer period, avoiding disasters like the D3 start or some WoW-Versions.

Think of the Standard Edition as a premium price to get a 1-2 month headstart in the game.

[Jindujun]

This made me chuckle a bit. Let me ask you how old you are, not in a condescending way but if you're old enough to remember or having experienced the first push from physical to digital.

Way back when in the faraway time of 1997 the first digital single record was sold and from that point it opened a new world of distribution. It started the whole "digital version of a previously physical good" thing. When people at that point asked why on earth they would buy a digital copy when they got so much more with a physical one the different companies and distributors said, among other things, that not only would you save the world from extra unnecessary plastic and transporting but this would ALSO allow them to sell the digital copies cheaper since they could save in money on packaging and transport and storage etc. etc.

Guess what. The prices never changed. What you're asking here is a question that has been around for about 25 years now. The answer could be "they want to make all the money so they wouldn't lower the price on the distribution method where they make the most money" but it could also be "as long as there are physical stores they don't want to piss them off by selling the goods cheaper online and have customers skip the physical stores.
I personally say it's 80% of the first one and about 20% of the second one.

[javierdsv]

One word: Inflation.

You better start getting used to this starting price point. Not just on Activision, but for any major game release moving forward.

[Hitei]

Like everything else you consume. It's hilarious gamers draw the line at corporate greed with fucking video game prices of all things. Something you literally don't need.

Never change gaming activists, go put your whining into something that matters and maybe we could help out the world.

You don't need to project your own failings on others.

[Tech614]

You don't need to project your own failings on others.

Nice copout after writing a 4 paragraph diatribe about how $70 video game corporate greed is some ultimate evil.

Worry about things that matter. If a video game is not appealing to you at $70 or you can't afford it there is an easy solution to that- don't buy it. It's not a necessity. Being so hot and bothered about it to make a post like your last one just looks like you are having a severe case of FOMO.

[Maljinwo]

I am sorry but I looked at the first 3 pages and no one is talking about this

Because people already knew and either will buy it regardless or will wait for a sale like a normal human being

[Cynicalnerd]

So much wrong information being said here.

SNES games were 60ish, sometimes more. I got Link to the past for my bday and i know it was 70.

PS1 games were sold at $40. Cd based was cheaper to produce than cartridge.

n64 games ran about $60 for a base but some went higher to 70.

It was not until ps2 that the base was increased to $50. Xbox followed suit and so did gamecube.

most full normal games went to 60$ for the ps3/360 era. It has kind of stayed the same but I noticed they started to go to $70. I think some ps5 games were the first. So I fully expected it be normal.

This information comes from working in a gamestop (when i started it was funcoland).

also if you are wondering why a digital costs the same as physical, well thats just how it works. Strangely the physical copies will go down in time and digital only will for sales. But honestly nobody is buying physical copies for PC in this day and age. Except for neckbeard virgins who really dont have anything else to put on their shelves

[Djuntas]

Yet you pay $25 to see a 2 hour movie.

Did you just defend corporate greed. Lamo what is up with the world. No wonder gaming is going to the shitters with people like you playing gatcha games 24/7.

[rarhyx]

that's why I'm waiting for a discount before I buy D4