Poll of the Day > How do you feel about next gen games price increase?

(+) Yeah! (+)

So games right now are 50 at best in the UK and even then I don't think most games are worth that. Now with next gen it seems games will cost me 70 out of the gate. I'll buy a PS5 one day but fuck 20 price increase means I'm going to be even more picky on games I buy at full price.

---

I very rarely buy games at launch or at full price, so I don't really care. But considering how much games used to cost in the past, a price increase was overdue.

---

Thank goodness for PS+ and Steam

---

If I buy a game at release, I'm pretty excited to buy it regardless. I wait for sales 95% of the time. Tlou2 and Spiderman Miles Morales being the only exceptions

---

Seems like everything is going to be more expensive and I bet they still try to nickel and dime you in game as well.

---

I would be fine with it if it meant less dlc/microtransactions, but I doubt that's going to happen.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Thank goodness for PS+ and Steam

dragon504 posted...

Seems like everything is going to be more expensive and I bet they still try to nickel and dime you in game as well.

funkyfritter posted...

I would be fine with it if it meant less dlc/microtransactions, but I doubt that's going to happen.

These

---

dragon504 posted...

Seems like everything is going to be more expensive and I bet they still try to nickel and dime you in game as well.

Oh for sure. I never did understand this "games cost more to make" bullshit when season passes and MTX make the money up and more. The devs don't get a pay increase. The higher ups do get a nicer fatter bonus though.

---

It just encourages me to wait even longer for the inevitable price drops, because there've been very few games this generation that I even consider worth the $60 price tag, let alone more. At this point I'm barely willing to pay more than $30 for any game, because almost no games these days are worth the asking price.

Considering how predatory the game industry has become over the last decade or so, I can only assume they'll push as hard as they can to charge even more for even less, and I'll wind up completely skipping even more games I might otherwise have been interested in (see also, The Avengers). There are very few games I see as "must have" these days, and it seems like there are fewer every year.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It just encourages me to wait even longer for the inevitable price drops, because there've been very few games this generation that I even consider worth the $60 price tag, let alone more. At this point I'm barely willing to pay more than $30 for any game, because almost no games these days are worth the asking price.

Holy fuck I agree with PO.

---

I'm gonna use this topic to ask a question I've been wondering...

If a game gets a free PS5 upgrade from PS4 and is releasing on both platforms....why in the fuck would anyone spend an extra $10 on the PS5 version rather than buying the PS4 version and just doing the free upgrade?
(If it matters, I specifically was looking at Immortals Fenyx Rising, which is $50 on PS4 and $60 on PS5, but offers the free upgrade for the PS4 version)

As for the poll... 3rd option.

The quality needs to be there for sure

---

I'm fine with it

---

I'm fine with it/Other (doesn't matter to me). I buy all my games on Steam during sales for 66-75+% off anyway.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It just encourages me to wait even longer for the inevitable price drops, because there've been very few games this generation that I even consider worth the $60 price tag, let alone more. At this point I'm barely willing to pay more than $30 for any game, because almost no games these days are worth the asking price.

This. Even Pokemon Shield I cbb to shell out $60 for... which was probably wise, considering I barely touched it.

---

It would probably turn me away from buying something new right away. Something like TESVI or Starfield I would be willing to buy day 1, hell I got Pokemon Sword day 1 but I'm not sure I would spend that on something I'm not already hyped for

---

My response is Other. They keep getting more and more unreasonably and unfairly expensive. They just want to rob people. This applies not only to games, but other things as well.

---

I love these comments...

---

wwinterj25 posted...

I love these comments...

Nobody likes paying more for something >_>

---

By the time I have an opinion on the PS5's cost, it'll probably be lower. By this point, I mean, there will finally be enough exclusive titles I care about to consider getting one; or maybe not and I'll skip it like the Switch.

---

It's been a long time coming, since inflation has meant that $60 now is cheaper than games have ever been (which has been true for a while, especially where the $60 standard really only became a thing during the PSWii60 era), but given that publishers have been using that (semi-reasonably) justify additional monetization strategies for the past 15-odd years, I'm not overly sympathetic to it. Even less so where those strategies have been successful enough that AAA games are more profitable now than they have ever been, meaning there is objectively no need for a price increase to cover inflating costs and this is just another money grab to line some executive pockets. But hey, AAA gonna AAA.

In games that don't employ additional monetization? I'm okay with it. In games that are already loaded up with four season passes, a microtransaction system, and a subscription? Well, I tend not to buy those games anyway, and this is just one more reason to keep up with that. In practice, I rarely buy games at full price anyway unless it's one I'm really looking forward to (although the percentage cost increase at any given sale percentage will be the same; $35 is still 17% more than $30), and rarely buy AAA games at all, so it's not going to change that much for me.

Zeus posted...

Nobody likes paying more for something >_>

Nobody likes it, but plenty of people will accept it when there's a justifiable reason, like paying a bit more to support a local business instead of Walmart/Amazon. The reasoning for increasing games' prices is quite justifiable, if viewed in a vacuum. It just runs into problems when you consider that publishers have been managing just fine without it by employing other, more insidious strategies.

---

For the most part it doesn't really matter because they'll drop in price often

The problem is they'll make nintendo raise their prices as well and those guys never go on sale rip

---

Wanded posted...

The problem is they'll make nintendo raise their prices as well

Not necessarily. Nintendo's very much just kind of doing their own thing, such that I wouldn't expect them to jump on this bandwagon just because the other two are doing it. They've already generally been a lot more reasonable about monetization than most other big publishers, including bucking the $60 trend by releasing a few smaller titles for less than that (Captain Toad and the WiiU Canvas Curse game were both $40 at launch). At the very least, I don't see them increasing game prices on the Switch, since that's more of a generation shift thing.

---

I think it's BS personally because games going back to the NES, SNES, N64 (some N64 games) did retail at $70-$80 if I recall correctly but for the 8 and 16 bit era, games generally ran $60. Disc based games PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn etc usually went for around $40-$50 if I recall.

---

Doesn't affect me.

---

adjl posted...

Not necessarily. Nintendo's very much just kind of doing their own thing, such that I wouldn't expect them to jump on this bandwagon just because the other two are doing it. They've already generally been a lot more reasonable about monetization than most other big publishers, including bucking the $60 trend by releasing a few smaller titles for less than that (Captain Toad and the WiiU Canvas Curse game were both $40 at launch). At the very least, I don't see them increasing game prices on the Switch, since that's more of a generation shift thing.

They bumped up the pokemon prices to even it out with the rest of the system

---

I don't like it. Especially since they're trying to go all digital, but still charge us more. If you want to do something crappy like that, at least pass a little of the savings onto us. Or keep the games the same price. I just think the price bump is dumb and I don't like it...

Muscles posted...

They bumped up the pokemon prices to even it out with the rest of the system

Weren't they $60 like every other game for the switch? I don't think they actually bumped up the price or anything...
---

There is absolutely zero justification for a price increase. The value of games has crashed so hard in the last decade, a complete version of the game is already roughly a hundred bucks, and that's assuming its worthwhile content and not just lootboxes and cosmetics.

---

Rotpar posted...

There is absolutely zero justification for a price increase. The value of games has crashed so hard in the last decade, a complete version of the game is already roughly a hundred bucks, and that's assuming its worthwhile content and not just lootboxes and cosmetics.

Their is a 100% justification. The devs won't see a dime but the ceo of the company that rubs his member on each womans lunch in the break room and the shareholders will get it. Its like congress why would you not vote yes to giving yourself a raise

---

BUMPED2002 posted...

I think it's BS personally because games going back to the NES, SNES, N64 (some N64 games) did retail at $70-$80 if I recall correctly but for the 8 and 16 bit era, games generally ran $60. Disc based games PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn etc usually went for around $40-$50 if I recall.

Something to keep in mind too is that the physical medium the games were on covered most of that cost. A cartridge on average cost $40 to make, and in the SNES era some of those cartridges cost upwards of $60 due to special chips and expended memory in the cartridge. CD was cheaper, but still had a pretty good sized overhead early on. Nowadays you don't need to worry about that due to digital. So in essence, game prices have been keeping up with inflation, just consumers haven't seen any difference until recently.

Conversely, look at comic books. If they followed inflation, then the 10 cent comic books would be about $1 now, but instead they are $4. Why? They use more expensive materials. Instead of being on cheap newspaper they are printed on higher quality magazine print. That is why you see a huge jump in comic prices around the mid-late 90's. And between the 30's and 60's when comics stayed 10 cents? They just kept reducing the number or pages until you had the 24-32 page comic standard of today (10 cent comics of the 30's were typically 64-96 pages)

---

LinkPizza posted...

I don't like it. Especially since they're trying to go all digital, but still charge us more. If you want to do something crappy like that, at least pass a little of the savings onto us. Or keep the games the same price. I just think the price bump is dumb and I don't like it...

Weren't they $60 like every other game for the switch? I don't think they actually bumped up the price or anything... Nintendo games are normally priced by the system, not the series... Though, the series can be something that influences prices sometimes...

I meant bumped up from previous pokemon games

---

Muscles posted...

I meant bumped up from previous pokemon games

Yeah. Except like I said, they don't price games by the game series. They price it by the console. If they had been on 3DS, they would have been the same price as other 3DS games. They were on switch, so they cost the same price as Switch games. Just like how the Pokmon games for other systems cost the same price as games from those systems... It had nothing to do with just making them cost more for no reason like the other systems are doing...
---

I'm not going to be buying a next gen console. Basically every game I've cared for this current gen has come out on PC I just don't see any value in a console, as such I'm not expecting I'll see any significant increases in price since a lot of the games I get don't follow standard pricing anyways.

adjl posted...

The reasoning for increasing games' prices is quite justifiable, if viewed in a vacuum. It just runs into problems when you consider that publishers have been managing just fine without it by employing other, more insidious strategies.

Agreed. If we got full games and no season passes then I'd accept a price increase. The thing is nothing will change though aside from the customer paying more.

Wanded posted...

The problem is they'll make nintendo raise their prices as well and those guys never go on sale rip

Could be possible. Once MS and Sony charge more and Nintendo sees people will pay more they will hop on the train simply because that's money left on the table.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

Agreed. If we got full games and no season passes then I'd accept a price increase. The thing is nothing will change though aside from the customer paying more.

TBH, I'd rather have it the other way. I rather have the season pass instead of the price increase...
---

Can't say I'm thrilled about it, but a $10 increase isn't that big of a deal. I don't really buy most games new anyway.

---

It just means I may finally make a dent in my backlog of games. Currently going through the vita and the trails in the sky series so I'm fine reducing the new games I buy

---

LinkPizza posted...

TBH, I'd rather have it the other way. I rather have the season pass instead of the price increase...

That's been my attitude toward DLC for as long as it's been a thing. Games could be priced higher instead of having DLC, but having DLC means the entry price can remain the same and the additional cost is made up for by DLC purchases, meaning only the people who have really enjoyed the game and think spending more is worthwhile have to.

Of course, that's a nice theory, but it's relatively rare (especially in the AAA market) to see DLC that's really just a bit of extra content for the people who really like the game and want to throw more money at it to get more. It's very common for games to feel incomplete without DLC or to otherwise pressure people into buying it (or worse, "preorder" it in the form of a season pass), which really undermines efforts to claim that the game only costs $60.

---

adjl posted...

That's been my attitude toward DLC for as long as it's been a thing. Games could be priced higher instead of having DLC, but having DLC means the entry price can remain the same and the additional cost is made up for by DLC purchases, meaning only the people who have really enjoyed the game and think spending more is worthwhile have to.

Yeah. It's basically an option. If I didn't enjoy the game, then I don't worry about the DLC. If I liked the game, I could get it. That was, the game stays cheap, but can cost more if I want more content...

adjl posted...

Of course, that's a nice theory, but it's relatively rare (especially in the AAA market) to see DLC that's really just a bit of extra content for the people who really like the game and want to throw more money at it to get more. It's very common for games to feel incomplete without DLC or to otherwise pressure people into buying it (or worse, "preorder" it in the form of a season pass), which really undermines efforts to claim that the game only costs $60.

Depends on the game, though. And most of the games where I have gotten DLC for have actually been extra. Like most Nintendo games (Hyrule Warriors, Hyrule Warriors Legends, One of the Mario Karts, Cadence of Hyrule, etc...), and HZD off the top of my head. Which have complete stories, but extra content. You could have the other games that are incomplete, but I usually try to avoid those (or at least avoid the DLC). Though, it doesn't matter. It's not like we really get a choice between the two. They're greedy and want money. They would give up other ways to fuck us over for just an extra $10 per game... In the end, I'd still choose DLC and season passes over the automatic price increase if I did have a choice... That way, I could choose if I want to spend the extra money or not...
---

LinkPizza posted...

TBH, I'd rather have it the other way. I rather have the season pass instead of the price increase...

I'd rather have all content in the game from the start. Still it matters not. Game + Pass would be the same as having all content and a price increase anyway really as it gets the same result. Although with that said DLC is optional so that would be a optional price increase so I guess that makes sense. I tend to not bother with DLC unless I pick up a complete version of a game such as a "game of the year" version and even then I pick them up in a sale.

---

Isn't it just going up with inflation?

---

Zeus posted...

Nobody likes paying more for something

Especially when it feels like the quality of what you're paying for is simultaneously getting worse.

But the real problem is that plenty of people will scream and bitch about how much they hate specific business practices or costs or complain about companies who abuse their employees or who lean heavy into crunch or get pissed at companies trying to kow-tow to China over the HK issue, constantly threatening to boycott companies or products forever, and then most of those people will immediately turn around and pre-order the next game that comes along anyway.

Most publishers have long since been trained to ignore most criticism from the audience, because what the audience SAYS and what the audience DOES are rarely the same thing. And even huge controversy or complaint doesn't necessarily translate into a significantly meaningful decrease in profit. So the standard response becomes to just ride out all dissent and wait for it to blow over before everything goes back to business as usual.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

I'd rather have all content in the game from the start.

That would be great, but it doesn't for all game unless you're a fortune teller. Games like the ones I mentioned from Nintendo got stuff added after a little time. Even now, the newest Smash Bros are still adding characters. And the added maps and character for Hyrule Warriors were great. Even with Mario Kart, it was a good amount of time after release. And for like less than $10, IIRC, you got 6 characters and 4 cups with 4 levels each. Like almost another game for a fraction of the price, which was nice...

wwinterj25 posted...

Game + Pass would be the same as having all content and a price increase anyway really as it gets the same result.

True... Except it's optional... Meaning if I just wanted the base game, I could pay $60, instead of being forced to pay $70 for stuff I wouldn't have paid for if I had the choice...

wwinterj25 posted...

Although with that said DLC is optional so that would be a optional price increase so I guess that makes sense

Yep!

wwinterj25 posted...

I tend to not bother with DLC unless I pick up a complete version of a game such as a "game of the year" version and even then I pick them up in a sale.

These are really nice as you can get everything for the original price. I will do that with games if I'm going to wait to pick them up. Though, depending on the game, I sometimes like to get them when they first come out...
---

Yellow posted...

Isn't it just going up with inflation?

Not really.
First off, "inflation" always seems overblown and bs, like...the same jobs aren't making double now what they were 20-25 years ago, like inflation suggests they should be.
Secondly, the costs of distributing games and the profit margins have gotten much better due to digital sales. No more physical store middle man needing a cut of the profits, no more costs printing to disc and shipping them. No need to worry about competition from used digital copies cutting into sales, etc...
Thirdly...all the monetization schemes have MORE than offset any inflation and are NOT going away.

Like...just look at how much the profits for large companies like EA and Activision have ballooned over the years and tell me with a straight face that these poor wittle multi-billion dollar companies need to raise prices to keep up w/ that scary inflation boogeyman.

LinkPizza posted...

Though, depending on the game, I sometimes like to get them when they first come out...

I know Cyberpunk 2077 will have a season pass like Witcher 3 yet I'm still buying day one. I'll probably pick up the complete version for that too much like I did with Witcher 3 depending how good the game is. Some games are worth buying now and "upgrading" later. The Witcher 3 season pass wasn't expensive too and it gave me at least 40 hours more gameplay.


---

wwinterj25 posted...

I know Cyberpunk 2077 will have a season pass like Witcher 3 yet I'm still buying day one. I'll probably pick up the complete version for that too much like I did with Witcher 3 depending how good the game is. Some games are worth buying now and "upgrading" later. The Witcher 3 season pass wasn't expensive too and it gave me at least 40 hours more gameplay.

That is true. Some of them definitely give a lot... It just depends on the game and developers...
---

streamofthesky posted...

Not really.
First off, "inflation" always seems overblown and bs, like...the same jobs aren't making double now what they were 20-25 years ago, like inflation suggests they should be.

I didn't think of it that way. So really the issue here is that people's wages are going down with inflation and they don't even realize it, instead blaming it on goods' prices, which are always consistent with inflation.

streamofthesky posted...

Like...just look at how much the profits for large companies like EA and Activision have ballooned over the years and tell me with a straight face that these poor wittle multi-billion dollar companies need to raise prices to keep up w/ that scary inflation boogeyman.

I wouldn't do that because I don't think that's true.

---

And damned big studios will continue to shove microtransactions down people's throats.

At least costco hotdogs still $1.50

---