Poll of the Day > "Games should totally cost 70 dollars now! Too expensive to develop!"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Meanwhile, in reality:


---

ok?

---

I'm not gonna go on another diatrab here but basically more games are sold now than in the past, electronic versions of games save the publishers about 30%, but none of that gets passed on to the consumer, and sadly salaries for game creators/testers have not actually increased much.

Net result is games should have actually been dropping in price slightly over time (for physical copies) and they could sell digital for 20% less right out of the gate, and still make more of a profit.

So instead of bumping prices to 70, they could have dropped em to 55$ for the physical copies (which deals with sales tax most places), and dropped the cost of digital all the way down to $50 (and still made more of a profit from digital sales than physical).

That would have made sense...but nope, lets raise the prices $10 across the board instead!!!

Thank you for making my decision to get every single freaking game that comes out on PC on that platform even easier (And it already was pretty easy tbh).

---

Does that factor in game budgets as well? Some games have budgets that rival Hollywood movies.

That said, I tend to prefer middle-market games (not quite indy games, but ones with very limited budgets for whatever reason), where the developers use what they have in interesting ways. Innovation usually grows through trying to make things work with limited resources vs. having millions of dollars to just throw at a team.

---

I'm not really following? The graph by itself doesn't really provide much context. And, in general, aren't there are far more people working on most games today? Logically if you have more people working on a game, the costs are going to be higher unless the industry started to rely on slave labor.

---

What gets me honestly is that they're pushing digital more and more, which would cost them less, but the cost of the game is the same digital.

They seem to be pushing towards a digital future and keeping the price the same as if it were physical.

Games like spiderman, god of war etc, all have made insane profits for the companies. Games that are on multiple platforms obviously don't make as much, but basically the companies are making much larger profits already (Breaking records regularly as more copies are being sold).

GoW broke all the records and then Spiderman broke em again and I would imagine something broke them after that.

So they are actually making more and more, while the cost to create the game is not going up that much.

There is really no reason for them to up the price except greed, especially on digital copies, they are already making way more then ever in the past, and the new transition into mostly digital is going to make them alot more as well, not only because they get 30% more profit per sale on a digital copy, but because there will be much less (and eventually no) used copies sold (which means people will have to buy from them if they want to play a game.

It's basic greed, which sucks. I know, it's the norm, but PC seems to avoid that already, and now it's going to be even more likely for people to get games on PC if prices remain the same on that platform (not to mention launch sales etc on GMG etc).

---

Totally depends on the type/scope of game

---

ChaosAzeroth posted...

What gets me honestly is that they're pushing digital more and more, which would cost them less, but the cost of the game is the same digital.

Most of the cost for retail is the amount taken by the retailer themselves, which also remains true of digital. I'm not sure that it makes as much of an impact as people assume.

And it's worth noting that many digital sales go far below retail sales for the same game.

---

games should cost 50$
next gen is gonna be so far in your pockets its not even funny


---

Does that also factor in the price of what amounts to paying for half the game at full retail, and then getting the other half in bits as multiple paid DLCs when it all would have had to be on the disc two or 3 generations ago?

---

Great topic TC.

Fuck these companies!

---

If you can't afford to buy video games maybe find a hobby you can afford like birdwatching or some shit

---

All this means is I be more selective about the games I buy full price and I'm already selective as it is. I find it hard to justify paying 40-45 for most games these days so 70 is certainly not happening.

Cobalt_Wasps posted...

games should cost 50$
next gen is gonna be so far in your pockets its not even funny

Other things like controllers and whatever seem priced right. The SDD expandable storage though will probably cost a lot. In time the games will drop in price from 70. The start of any console generation has always been expensive.

---

I haven't read the full thread yet, but we were actually talking about this at work today for a few minutes. It's pretty much a shitty thing to do. Especially since they want to go all digital... Going digital, the price should go down. Or at the very least, stay the same...
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Does that also factor in the price of what amounts to paying for half the game at full retail, and then getting the other half in bits as multiple paid DLCs when it all would have had to be on the disc two or 3 generations ago?

https://i.imgur.com/YAGpXPd.png

Cobalt_Wasps posted...

games should cost 50$
next gen is gonna be so far in your pockets its not even funny

It would be less terrible.


---

To paraphrase Jim Sterling, it's kind of a specious argument when so many games treat the $60 price tag as a "buy-in" price, and then keep double and triple dipping later.

When you're expected to pay $120 for the "Ultimate Edition", then extra for DLC and Season Passes, then on top of that they're selling microtransactions in-game, the publisher is making FAR more than the MSRP on every major game sold. Hell, Rockstar have sold something like 150 million copies of GTA V (which makes it the second-best-selling game in video game history), yet they've openly admitted that more than half their current annual income comes solely from in-game microtransactions in GTA Online. EA and Take-Two Interactive probably make even more than that from their sports games alone.

And that's before we start getting into the money they save by cutting out the retail middleman and production costs they save by selling digital copies.
---

This graph would suggest to me that video games are being sold for less than they should be

---

Dikitain posted...

Does that factor in game budgets as well? Some games have budgets that rival Hollywood movies.

That said, I tend to prefer middle-market games (not quite indy games, but ones with very limited budgets for whatever reason), where the developers use what they have in interesting ways. Innovation usually grows through trying to make things work with limited resources vs. having millions of dollars to just throw at a team.

Rival the budget? Many games DWARF the budget of Hollywood films. And they still have the gall to ask for another 40 dollars in DLC and other predatory practices.

Judgmenl posted...

ok?
Way to really contribute to the online discourse there, son.

---

Clench281 posted...

This graph would suggest to me that video games are being sold for less than they should be

Then you're reading the graph wrong

---

With the sheer volume of money being made you'd thing game devs would live like kings or at least dukes. Instead of struggling to afford food at times. Of course the executives get to swim in pools of cash and interns tears, but the average code monkey?

---

all games except nintendo ones drop significantly in price anyway

---

what the fuck is this graph?

If I'd be happy spending $60 for a game I'd be happy spending $80 on it.

I get most my big titles for $20-30 and small titles for $5-15.

The graph shows game prices should be increased.

I LOVE that some people can buy season passes and DLC at full price to support me...not doing that and still getting content I enjoy at a lower price, opposed to more expensive all-in-one packages that I wouldn't utilize.

blu posted...

If I'd be happy spending $60 for a game I'd be happy spending $80 on it.

I mean, I guess that's good for you. But I'm not happy spending $80 for a game just because I'm happy spending $60 for it...
---

blu posted...

If I'd be happy spending $60 for a game I'd be happy spending $80 on it.

That's a weird kinda logic for me. The more expensive the game the more I question "is it worth it?". Although changes are I will end up paying the 25 more I'm used to paying for games that I know will be worth my money.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

With the sheer volume of money being made you'd thing game devs would live like kings or at least dukes. Instead of struggling to afford food at times. Of course the executives get to swim in pools of cash and interns tears, but the average code monkey?

Capitalism, ho!

---

Maybe big companies should make more B games?

(EDIT: AND NOT JUST FOR MOBILES)

---

NBA Hangtime was $120 dollars at Wal-Mart when it was new. Only a couple N64 games came in at that price. I paid $95 for GoldenEye.

---

zebatov posted...

NBA Hangtime was $120 dollars at Wal-Mart when it was new. Only a couple N64 games came in at that price. I paid $95 for GoldenEye.

Ya, Megaman X was $107 and FF6 was $117 (CND) when I got them

---

My brother had to mail order Chrono Trigger for $75 when it came out.

---

Zareth posted...

Capitalism, ho!

I've heard a bunch of suggestions like making it so that people get paid based on how much the lowest earning member of the team gets paid. So a CEO would only be able to earn 3 times as much as the lowest paid member of the team or the like. At the least I think bonuses should be dealt away with.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

getting into the money they save by cutting out the retail middleman

Again, they still have a middleman, now it's just a digital storefront.

Chr0noid posted...

Rival the budget? Many games DWARF the budget of Hollywood films. And they still have the gall to ask for another 40 dollars in DLC and other predatory practices.

Either games have far bigger budgets than I thought, or you're using that word wrong. Oo

idk, it's kind of not an apples-to-apples thing since movie audiences tend to be substantially larger than game audiences.

Zareth posted...

Capitalism, ho!

No matter the economic system, you have people at the top and people at the bottom.

Lokarin posted...

Ya, Megaman X was $107 and FF6 was $117 (CND) when I got them

Those were brand-new prices at release or after the fact?

Unbridled9 posted...

I've heard a bunch of suggestions like making it so that people get paid based on how much the lowest earning member of the team gets paid. So a CEO would only be able to earn 3 times as much as the lowest paid member of the team or the like. At the least I think bonuses should be dealt away with.

Kinda depends on the job. I could understand doing that for say, a programmer, but not the guy in the mailroom or the janitor.

---

wolfy42 posted...

There is really no reason for them to up the price except greed, especially on digital copies, they are already making way more then ever in the past, and the new transition into mostly digital is going to make them alot more as well, not only because they get 30% more profit per sale on a digital copy, but because there will be much less (and eventually no) used copies sold (which means people will have to buy from them if they want to play a game.

I feel like that would bring on a new wave of piracy and less people trying out new games since they don't wanna spend 60 (or 70) on something they may not even like, it's like they don't understand the long term benefits of used games

---

The price should be forced down so companies like Bethesda can't float on their profits of one game for decades instead of making a fucking sequel. Equally it should be reduced so yearly game companies don't make ridiculous profit pumping out the same game.
---

Hellblade was made with 10 million dollars and a team of 20 people.
They sold it for $30 (25) and started making a profit in 3 months (they expected 6). That was only on PC and PS4.

I know it's launched on switch and maybe xbox since then so they made even more money.

I refuse to believe that we need to raise the price to $70. Especially if they're going to continue selling DLC and microtransactions.

---

Zeus posted...

Those were brand-new prices at release or after the fact?

brand new, Toys r Us for MMX, right on launch week

---

Chr0noid posted...

Then you're reading the graph wrong

The graph shows that video games are selling for less than they used to (adjusted for inflation). That every unit sold brings in less value than it used to.

This is entirely in line with developers/publishers claiming that video games should retail for a higher amount.

It even shows that games historically have been valued at an amount equal to $70 in today's dollars, furthering their point. If development costs have increased, it would stand to reason that costs would be even greater than that.

---

Clench281 posted...

The graph shows that video games are selling for less than they used to (adjusted for inflation). That every unit sold brings in less value than it used to.

This is entirely in line with developers/publishers claiming that video games should retail for a higher amount.

It even shows that games historically have been valued at an amount equal to $70 in today's dollars, furthering their point. If development costs have increased, it would stand to reason that costs would be even greater than that.

But I think it's also cheaper to make them. Before, games were expensive to make. They are cheaper now that you can put them on discs. Not to mention they already got rid of the manual. And it's going to be the same price for digital, as well. Which is absolutely insane. They just want to increase their own profits, and I don't think the people actually making the game will see any of those profits...
---

I'd wager that the costs of raw material difference (cds vs cartridges) is miniscule compared to the budget of all salaries for people involved and shipping and distribution.

The only real argument I see is for a reduced price on digital only. But that's likely subsidizing the cost of physical copies.

---

Clench281 posted...

I'd wager that the costs of raw material difference (cds vs cartridges) is miniscule compared to the budget of all salaries for people involved and shipping and distribution.

It might be. But there's probably a couple buck difference for each copy. Games now make so many copies that it probably adds up pretty quickly. So, making even just a couple million of copies of a game probably adds up...

Clench281 posted...

The only real argument I see is for a reduced price on digital only. But that's likely subsidizing the cost of physical copies.

And if they are trying to force the digital games, then they need to give me a reason to buy it. Being less than the cost of games now would be a start...
---

Digital is actually a lot better for them than it appears because you cannot overstock or understock digital copies. Theres a lot of games that could have been more profitiable if they had more or less physical copies printed and that cost vanishes completely for digital. Additionally theres no used digital games.

Also relevant is that games are played by FAR more people now. As long as each copy is in fact bringing in profit then it's totally feasible to sell them for less. Of course, the company is never going to do that unless their hand is forced but at least it means niche games are able to succeed more easily.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

Digital is actually a lot better for them than it appears because you cannot overstock or understock digital copies. Theres a lot of games that could have been more profitiable if they had more or less physical copies printed and that cost vanishes completely for digital. Additionally theres no used digital games.

Basically, digital with make they profits skyrocket, but none of that will be shared with the customers... I really like gaming a lot, but I don't know if I can continue if everything becomes digital, but they keep the prices the same (and definitely not if they go up)...
---

At this point the prices are basically just for release. WIth even minor patience you can pick up games for like 75% off a lot of the time.

I personally foresee digital games perhaps getting a bit cheaper but having more ways to pay additional money to essentially support the devs. I also sadly foresee mtx increasing over time because it's just so absurdly profitable.

---

Idk if tc is interpreting that graph correctly, but it means they've gotten cheaper as time has gone on because of inflation.

---

Yellow posted...

Idk if tc is interpreting that graph correctly, but it means they've gotten cheaper as time has gone on because of inflation.

That has been stated before, though. In other topics. Games stay they same price even through inflation. But they are still expensive. Mainly because cost of living also went up. But minimum wage barely did. So, they still seem expensive. Making them got to $70 in honestly a dumb idea meant to only line the inside of you CEO's pocket. Games already charge for DLC and MTX. There's no reason to also raise the price of games. Especially with their all digital dystopia around the corner...
---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

At this point the prices are basically just for release. WIth even minor patience you can pick up games for like 75% off a lot of the time.

*Cries in Nintendo*

AAA games are basically all trash now days, and while they have a huge budget they aren't worth the cost.

Most of the games I buy online are not $60 because they are made by small studios and only get a digital release, I'm pretty sure the last $60 game I purchased was Witcher 3 at launch years ago. The discussion of increasing the price of games is really a decade old discussion, who even buys physical copies anymore? I don't see a point to getting any future consoles so it's hard for me to understand why this is a thing people are discussing tbh as this is literally a discussion being driven only by the executives of mega publishers. We realistically should not be buying EA or Activision (ect) games period because they are generally cash grab trash.

Weird thing about game pricing is when the old NES was out those games back then cost roughly $60.00 then the SNES and Genesis came out and those games too cost $60.00 and now we're talking about pricing games at $70.00.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

who even buys physical copies anymore?

I do.
Many times way cheaper than digital too, and don't have to worry about something like what happened with my 3DS with physical overall.