Current Events > Needs to be said, £70 is fucking disgraceful for one game this generation.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Thats $97.32 so basically one hundred dollars. Freaking hell, that's insane. Even as an adult I never thought one game would get that expensive.

---

Forza horizon 4 nearly 3 year old game because it has no competition, it gets to re-release on steam at full price. Ultimate edition is something like 85 and still doesn't include everything.

And no save transfer from Windows store version

---

$60 itself is too much for most games these days, $70 is ridiculous. Games launch in sorry states with shit loads of bugs, and often with content missing saved for dlc, not to mention micro transactions.

---

if you're paying more than 45 for a game then you're shopping at the wrong places

---

Cobra1010 posted...

Forza horizon 4 nearly 3 year old game because it has no competition, it gets to re-release on steam at full price. Ultimate edition is something like 85 and still doesn't include everything.

And no save transfer from Windows store version

85 fucking pounds...

steveoSEK posted...

$60 itself is too much for most games these days, $70 is ridiculous. Games launch in sorry states with shit loads of bugs, and often with content missing saved for dlc, not to mention micro transactions.

Thats why this whole pre-order culture needs to die down.

TwoDoorPC posted...

if you're paying more than 45 for a game then you're shopping at the wrong places

For new games its almost impossible to get them that price.

---

There's actually some research done on this, developers/publishers actually take into account of sales when pricing their games. They know a large portion of customer's will rather wait for a sale, so they price it accordingly.
---

St0rmFury posted...

There's actually some research done on this, developers/publishers actually take into account of sales when pricing their games. They know a large portion of customer's will rather wait for a sale, so they price it accordingly.

They wouldn't fucking dare to make $70 launch games on PC, Sony is squeezing their fanbase because they know most people can't or won't hack a PS5.
---

I usually just wait for a game to be ~20 USD. Even good games will reach that range eventually. Got Horizon Zero Dawn with all DLC for 15, Spiderman with all DLC for 15, Witcher 3 with all DLC for 15, and a many others. That's not even mentioning all the free games that come around. I'm on PS and the free monthly games have included some worthwhile gems in the past. Some of my most played games were free tbh.

If you can fight the FOMO then you can save a lot of money just by waiting. Paying full price is a choice. Nothing wrong with it though, if its a franchise you really love then I'm sure its worth it to buy day one to avoid spoilers and support the game.

But tc, devs DESERVE it!
They spent so much time on that game! Be thankful you get ANYTHING.

I usual get the $110 deluxe edition, this prices don't bother me

---

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Even as an adult I never thought one game would get that expensive.

Inflation's a bitch. In the SNES era (~1994ish), brand new, AAA games were $60. That's more than $100 in today's income.
---

I remember paying 80$ for some SNES games back in the day, taking inflation into account it was probably a fair bit more expensive than a 100$ game nowadays

ROOTFayth posted...

I remember paying 80$ for some SNES games back in the day, taking inflation into account it was probably a fair bit more expensive than a 100$ game nowadays

Was going to say, I thought game prices have been practically unchanged since the early 90s. And games today have far more content. Gamers sure do like to complain.

---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Was going to say, I thought game prices have been practically unchanged since the early 90s. And games today have far more content.

Economies of scale.
Back in the SNES era, a game that sold 50000 copies was considered a success, and half a million was a monster hit. We've grown an extra zero in the meantime.

Cobra1010 posted...

Forza horizon 4 nearly 3 year old game because it has no competition, it gets to re-release on steam at full price. Ultimate edition is something like 85 and still doesn't include everything.

And no save transfer from Windows store version

no competition in the form of what exactly?

there are other racing games to buy and the high price is obviously to drive people to buy from the cheaper windows store instead.

it's a stupid tactic but that pretty much goes for anything that wants to compete with the absolute dominance of steam nowadays.

---

AsucaHayashi posted...

no competition in the form of what exactly?

there are other racing games to buy and the high price is obviously to drive people to buy from the cheaper windows store instead.

it's a stupid tactic but that pretty much goes for anything that wants to compete with the absolute dominance of steam nowadays.

Its the only half realism half arcadey racer right now with massive open world, massive library of cars with a lot of freedom in tuning/modding. Lets people upload decal designs and tunes to their system, lets people rate and download to use. Has auction house too.

---

It's so weird to me that video games are the one area where a whole bunch of people have decided that it's logical to demand that prices forever remain what they were when I was ten and getting a new Super Nintendo game.

Tenlaar posted...

It's so weird to me that video games are the one area where a whole bunch of people have decided that it's logical to demand that prices forever remain what they were when I was ten and getting a new Super Nintendo game.

Technology up to now has been deflationary thanks to constant advancements. Games on the SNES were more expensive thanks to a number of factors including:

• Cartridges are more expensive to manufacture than optical discs and especially digital distribution.
• Nintendo had an iron grip on the industry at the time and could dictate manufacturing costs and even volume.
• There was a lot smaller audience back then.
• Royalties were higher.
• Developments tools weren't as readily and cheaply available. Now Unity and Unreal Engine are professional-grade fully-featured engines that are relatively very cheap to license for commercial use. Plus there are other free tools available for smaller projects.

Not to mention that almost every game has fucking paid DLC nowadays to sell you games piecemeal. When you factor in the price of all DLC plus the base game, you end up with much more expensive games. With digital distribution you can't rent, buy used, lend from a friend, or even return the game in many cases. This means they capture far more of the money than what they could in the past.

I'll never understand people who argue that we should be paying more unless they were making money off the thing, which I doubt you are.

---

1337toothbrush posted...

Cartridges are more expensive to manufacture than optical discs and especially digital distribution.

This is why, back in the day, PS1 games were usually $40, while N64 games were about $70.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Economies of scale.
Back in the SNES era, a game that sold 50000 copies was considered a success, and half a million was a monster hit. We've grown an extra zero in the meantime.

they need to because the games cost probably at least an extra zero to produce as well, not to mention back in the day you've had instant classics like Chrono Trigger that was like a 20 hours game and nowadays a top tier RPG is like 100 hours worth of content

The only way to send a message is to stop paying that much for new games, unfortunately.

---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Was going to say, I thought game prices have been practically unchanged since the early 90s. And games today have far more content. Gamers sure do like to complain.

Games do not cost $60.

Not when you factor in day 1 dlc, Silver Editions, Gold Editions, ultimate editions, ultimater editions, season passes, second season passes, dlc not on the season passes, battle passes, and microtransactions. All things that we were told "needed" to happen because of how expensive to make games are. All this in addition to ads creeping into full priced games, product placement, mountain dew/dorito/pizza roll crossover deals, assets being reused across yearly releases (you can straight up find 2019 logos in 2021 year sports titles for fuck's sake), and the fact that all of these companies are constantly bragging about their exponential hand-over fist profit growth year on year. Before they lay off thousands of employees to push that growth even higher when they don't need to.

Sorry. I fail to see a compelling reason why the base price needs to be $70, when there are so many additional revenue streams per game and while the industry is bragging about how much money it's making year-on-year. fuck that.

---

guys, prices are going to rise everywhere, you thought countries printing that much money wouldn't change your purchasing power?

1337toothbrush posted...

Technology up to now has been deflationary thanks to constant advancements.

Throughout the 2010's development costs for big name games went from an average 50-60m, blew past 100m, and we're now seeing games in the 200m range. FF7's development was around 60m adjusted, FF7R is around 200m.

Cobra1010 posted...

Its the only half realism half arcadey racer right now with massive open world, massive library of cars with a lot of freedom in tuning/modding. Lets people upload decal designs and tunes to their system, lets people rate and download to use. Has auction house too.

The Crew 2 is a full on arcade racer, but I would count it as competition.

---

This topic is just full of people who had mommy and daddy recently stop buying their games for them. Cause if they had been buying them themselves they would already know that games have been that much and more forever.

Starfox on Super intendo was $80.
Zelda on Nes was $80-100 (depending on the store).

Tenlaar posted...

Throughout the 2010's development costs for big name games went from an average 50-60m, blew past 100m, and we're now seeing games in the 200m range. FF7's development was around 60m adjusted, FF7R is around 200m.

I'm going to need evidence of this average, because it's believable for huge blockbusters, but not for most games and one problem is that games are generally being set to the same base price.

---

LeadPipeCinche posted...

This topic is just full of people who had mommy and daddy recently stop buying their games for them. Cause if they had been buying them themselves they would already know that games have been that much and more forever.

Starfox on Super intendo was $80.
Zelda on Nes was $80-100 (depending on the store).

This post is full of a person that is unable to read the many counterpoints and yet feels superior for overpaying and kissing corporate ass.

---

1337toothbrush posted...

I'm going to need evidence of this average, because it's believable for huge blockbusters, but not for most games and one problem is that games are generally being set to the same base price.

and even then, its not like a ton of these games are struggling to break even, or even turn a tidy profit.

---

ROOTFayth posted...

they need to because the games cost probably at least an extra zero to produce as well

Yes. That's how it works.

1337toothbrush posted...

I'm going to need evidence of this average, because it's believable for huge blockbusters, but not for most games and one problem is that games are generally being set to the same base price.

You quoted me saying "big name games" so yes, I'm talking about the AAA blockbusters. The internet is full of evidence, feel free to go look.

Tenlaar posted...

It's so weird to me that video games are the one area where a whole bunch of people have decided that it's logical to demand that prices forever remain what they were when I was ten and getting a new Super Nintendo game.

On the contrary, it's so weird to me that video games are the one area where people get called entitled for saying they won't pay a certain amount for a product. Most of us think $70 isn't worth it. But cult-like videogame company fanboys say we need to suck it up and pay more or else we're disrespecting the poor companies who are working so hard to make these products for us. It's ridiculous.

---

Kuuko posted...

On the contrary, it's so weird to video games are the one area where people get called entitled for saying they won't pay that much for a product.

It's a good thing Subway doesn't really have a cult, who berates everyone who laments the end of $5 foot-longs

ROOTFayth posted...

I remember paying 80$ for some SNES games back in the day, taking inflation into account it was probably a fair bit more expensive than a 100$ game nowadays

Yup. This isnt new.




---

ROOTFayth posted...

I remember paying 80$ for some SNES games back in the day, taking inflation into account it was probably a fair bit more expensive than a 100$ game nowadays

This was my stance too, but were also dealing with dlc

---

ViewtifulGrave posted...

Yup. This isnt new.

Neat. And back in the 50s, a crappy. tiny black and white TV cost the equivalent of $2000+.

What's your point?

---

DarkBuster22904 posted...

Neat. And back in the 50s, a crappy. tiny black and white TV cost the equivalent of $2000+.

Reminder that PS2 was the cheapest DVD player on the market for a handful of years.

Games are cheaper than ever while development costs are high than ever

---

DespondentDeity posted...

Games are cheaper than ever while development costs are high than ever

DarkBuster22904 posted...

Games do not cost $60.

Not when you factor in day 1 dlc, Silver Editions, Gold Editions, ultimate editions, ultimater editions, season passes, second season passes, dlc not on the season passes, battle passes, and microtransactions. All things that we were told "needed" to happen because of how expensive to make games are. All this in addition to ads creeping into full priced games, product placement, mountain dew/dorito/pizza roll crossover deals, assets being reused across yearly releases (you can straight up find 2019 logos in 2021 year sports titles for fuck's sake), and the fact that all of these companies are constantly bragging about their exponential hand-over fist profit growth year on year. Before they lay off thousands of employees to push that growth even higher when they don't need to.

Sorry. I fail to see a compelling reason why the base price needs to be $70, when there are so many additional revenue streams per game and while the industry is bragging about how much money it's making year-on-year. fuck that.

---

Tenlaar posted...

You quoted me saying "big name games" so yes, I'm talking about the AAA blockbusters. The internet is full of evidence, feel free to go look.

Well like I said, the base price is applied to more than just big name games and they make tons of money in other ways (e.g. paid DLC) too in addition to the base price which likely already puts them in the green. The burden of proof is on you since you're the one throwing out figures.

---

DarkBuster22904 posted...

What's your point?

That this current situation isnt new.

Is good or right? I dont care. I dont really buy games from EA, Activision, Ubisoft, or Bethesda so a lot of those negative and predatory practices dont bother me. Although I am worried about Skate 4.

---

It's barely anything and games were going to increase in price some day.

Just buy what you want and wait for a sale and what you don't.

Games are as good as ever and drown you in content.

---

DarkBuster22904 posted...

Games do not cost $60.

Not when you factor in day 1 dlc, Silver Editions, Gold Editions, ultimate editions, ultimater editions, season passes, second season passes, dlc not on the season passes, battle passes, and microtransactions. All things that we were told "needed" to happen because of how expensive to make games are. All this in addition to ads creeping into full priced games, product placement, mountain dew/dorito/pizza roll crossover deals, assets being reused across yearly releases (you can straight up find 2019 logos in 2021 year sports titles for fuck's sake), and the fact that all of these companies are constantly bragging about their exponential hand-over fist profit growth year on year. Before they lay off thousands of employees to push that growth even higher when they don't need to.

Sorry. I fail to see a compelling reason why the base price needs to be $70, when there are so many additional revenue streams per game and while the industry is bragging about how much money it's making year-on-year. fuck that.

NOBODY is forcing you to buy the dlc.
Try again or ask your mom to keep buying the games for you.

70 euro? They're $70 over here. Damn.

Either way, this gen's prices are the reason I'm waiting on sales before getting games from now on. Nintendo's the only one so far who just recently went to $60 but that may change.

---

Tenlaar posted...

It's so weird to me that video games are the one area where a whole bunch of people have decided that it's logical to demand that prices forever remain what they were when I was ten and getting a new Super Nintendo game.

It's so weird to me that when other areas prices have gone DOWN when costs have decreased that people would defend prices going up when even game makes admit that they're making more than they have in the past.

DespondentDeity posted...

Games are cheaper than ever while development costs are high than ever

Production costs are cheaper than ever and profits are higher than ever

Where production costs used to be $5 for a cart, they're now under $1 for a disc and less for digital (which doesn't require packaging, transit, etc)

And more people buy games than ever before so not only are they often making more money on each sale, but they also have more sales

And then they're upselling DLC, season passes, mtx on top of if

---

LeadPipeCinche posted...

NOBODY is forcing you to buy the dlc.
Try again or ask your mom to keep buying the games for you.

I didn't say they were forcing anybody to buy it.

but people ARE buying it. and they're making money hand over fist with it.

That being the case, these "super expensive to make" games are making ludicrous amounts of money.

Which eliminates it as an excuse to jack up the base price. If the industry was hemorrhaging money, I'd perhaps understand. But its not. from where I'm sitting, its making more money than ever before, without petulantly raising the price of the base game just because they can.

---

Zeus posted...

It's so weird to me that when other areas prices have gone DOWN when costs have decreased that people would defend prices going up when even game makes admit that they're making more than they have in the past.

FF7 cost 60m in development. FF7R cost 200m in development.

Tenlaar posted...

FF7 cost 60m in development. FF7R cost 200m in development.

And they recouped 150% of that cost within a week. Far more by now.

These developers are far from needing to panhandle for more.

---

DarkBuster22904 posted...

I didn't say they were forcing anybody to buy it.

but people ARE buying it. and they're making money hand over fist with it.

That being the case, these "super expensive to make" games are making ludicrous amounts of money.

Which eliminates it as an excuse to jack up the base price. If the industry was hemorrhaging money, I'd perhaps understand. But its not. from where I'm sitting, its making more money than ever before, without petulantly raising the price of the base game just because they can.

But they aren't jacking up the price and a few of us already proved it to you. As long as YOU aren't buying $100 Madden (with dlc that's OPTIONAL) who cares if someone else does if YOU are fine with $60 MADDEN (I don't know if you play it, first game I thought of as example).