Current Events > Publishers Are Already Thinking About Charging $80 to $100 For Games

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/ea35c566.jpg

I know I have games I bought years ago that I haven't even touched yet.

Yeah, that's just an excuse to dig into my Steam backlog and enjoy various titles.

The comment in that picture also implies gamers have the impulse control necessary to avoid plopping $100 for a game at launch. Considering how video game boycotts and other principled stances against video game monetization policies tends to go, I wouldn't exactly hold my breath on the proposition that gamers will dive into their backlogs long enough to force publishers to rethink their pricing strategies.

Thanks Nintendo, particularly the accountant you got as your current company president and his insidious desire to monetize the absolute hell out of your customer base.

Agent_Stroud posted...

Thanks Nintendo, particularly the accountant you got as your current company president and his insidious desire to monetize the absolute hell out of your customer base.

Honestly, this isn't a Nintendo issue. Publishers have been eyeing increasing the cost of games and they've already successfully increased some games to $70. Nintendo was just the first to go out swinging at $80. But even without Nintendo, we already knew GTA6 was going to priced higher than $70 and people were already speculating $80-$100 for it.

This was something that was bound to happen. It was just a matter of who was going to pull the trigger first.

If games become 20% of the cost of a new console, Ill probably stop buying both games and consoles

Faulout

I mean I stopped buying day one generations ago when DLC became the norm. Ill buy the very rare game on day one but this just means there are more games ill simply never get because they dont become cheap enough.

A_Good_Boy posted...

The comment in that picture also implies gamers have the impulse control necessary to avoid plopping $100 for a game at launch.

Which is a hilarious notion.

*Shrugs* Gamers will pay it.

havean776 posted...

*Shrugs* Gamers will pay it.

ftfy

Yea, I'm not paying those prices. I do love modern gaming just as much as I loved gaming as a kid (as opposed to those people who say things like current game suck), but I'll either wait for sales or tackle my huge ass backlog that keeps growing because so many games come out that I want to play.

They were thinking about it for awhile. And Nintendo didn't create it, either.

Gonna be funny when all those "content creators" who made multiple videos bashing the Switch 2 are gonna have to explain why they still bought one.

So that means we won't have to hear anyone on here complain about launch price then because they will be contently playing their backlog that they have stated is too big anyway until it comes down to what they consider a satisfactory price point right? Right?

Somehow I'm guessing there will still be many complaints here.

It's scummy when Nintendo does it but at least Nintendo games have the quality and longevity where there's at least a contestable argument in favor of a price hike.

If the same game every year triple AAA slop publisher tries to do this it will flop.

They'll get away with it too because gamers are the most spineless marks of any industry.

SecretBase posted...

It's scummy when Nintendo does it but at least Nintendo games have the quality and longevity where there's at least a contestable argument in favor of a price hike.

If the same game every year triple AAA slop publisher tries to do this it will flop.

It's worse when Nintendo does it cause their games never go on sale.

While I definitely have a large backlog, that comment needs to speak for themselves. I can't imagine most gamers actually have large backlogs.

In fact, casual gamers--the vast majority of people who play games--only buy a few games per year, if that.

Agent_Stroud posted...

Thanks Nintendo, particularly the accountant you got as your current company president and his insidious desire to monetize the absolute hell out of your customer base.

This price increase was going to happen regardless of Nintendo. GTA6 has been rumored to be like $100 for far longer.

archizzy posted...

So that means we won't have to hear anyone on here complain about launch price then because they will be contently playing their backlog that they have stated is too big anyway until it comes down to what they consider a satisfactory price point right? Right?

Somehow I'm guessing there will still be many complaints here.

Of course people are going to still complain. Why wouldn't they? I'm not going to make complaint topics since that's not what I do, but of course people will. Not like the only people complaining will be the ones who mentioned the backlog anyway. And besides, not like it's contradictory. And if something receives enough backlash, sometimes it gets changed.

If I am priced out of the hobby, I am going to start exclusively using piracy.

A_Good_Boy posted...

The comment in that picture also implies gamers have the impulse control necessary to avoid plopping $100 for a game at launch. Considering how video game boycotts and other principled stances against video game monetization policies tends to go, I wouldn't exactly hold my breath on the proposition that gamers will dive into their backlogs long enough to force publishers to rethink their pricing strategies.

Gamers aren't a hivemind. Many will pay it and many won't.

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's worse when Nintendo does it cause their games never go on sale.

...True, in a way.

But on the other hand some linear interactive movie tech demo with 0 gameplay depth that's 5-10 hours long and has dead multiplayer within a month or two ever being priced $80-$100 at all is insane.

So I was pretty skeptical by the "Faulout" misspelling and the fact that Vault Boy and Naruto look slightly off-model, so I went to check out that channel

I didn't see any video with that title, nor does that appear to be anything even close to the room this guy records his videos in

The guy in the screenshot also looks completely different, that's not the right channel icon, and the subscriber count is wrong

So... did you generate this AI image on your own to try and spark the conversation, or did you just not fact-check despite the immediately obvious tells?

GTAVI will be the death of the Western "AAA" game industry.

Not because it won't sell, but because it will sell. Every single megacorp will see GTAVI sell like hotcakes at $80-$100USD and immediately mark their games to that benchmark.

We can already observe that $70USD is a harder pill to swallow, that consumers are only really spending on titles in the same numbers as the $60USD pricetag on established "surefire" brands and IPs (your Zeldas, GTAs, ect. Basically entirely your gamer watershed releases) and are backing out on absolutely everything of lesser status. Even former big IPs like Final Fantasy struggle to move units nowadays.

Overpriced trash in a dying global economy. What could possibly go wrong! Personally I say bring on the greed, I've always enjoyed a good train crash from a safe distance.

I worked at a mom and pop videogame store for YEARS. There was a guy who came in with a list of games like, once a month. It was all, to me, kinda old games. I was always a little confused about the list so finally I just kinda stopped him and I was like, "Your list makes NO sense to me. What's the deal?"

... the deal was they were the new releases for that month 2 years ago. In his own words, he still gets to play all the games he cared about, just 2 years later at a much lower price. It made him avoid games that were not supported long enough, balk at games that were reviewed poorly. What a fucking legend IMO.

Jupiter posted...

Of course people are going to still complain. Why wouldn't they? I'm not going to make complaint topics since that's not what I do, but of course people will. Not like the only people complaining will be the ones who mentioned the backlog anyway. And besides, not like it's contradictory. And if something receives enough backlash, sometimes it gets changed.

Fair point, I just get tired of the same broken record. It's the same complaint but everyone wants to have their own topic about it. And if you don't agree with them you are a "shill" or "spineless" or "have more money than sense". For many of these people we were already at a point where they thought games were already too much and weren't buying at launch anyway currently so I think them reiterating a topic about $80 being too much when they already think $60 or $70 is too much is just kind of beating a dead horse.

Jeff_AKA_Snoopy posted...

I worked at a mom and pop videogame store for YEARS. There was a guy who came in with a list of games like, once a month. It was all, to me, kinda old games. I was always a little confused about the list so finally I just kinda stopped him and I was like, "Your list makes NO sense to me. What's the deal?"

... the deal was they were the new releases for that month 2 years ago. In his own words, he still gets to play all the games he cared about, just 2 years later at a much lower price. It made him avoid games that were not supported long enough, balk at games that were reviewed poorly. What a fucking legend IMO.

That guy games.

Solar_Crimson posted...

This price increase was going to happen regardless of Nintendo. GTA6 has been rumored to be like $100 for far longer.

GTA 6 took like 10 years to make and is the most highly anticipated game period being the successor to the 2nd best-selling game of all-time, and will also likely come with an online multiplayer pack-in that'll receive a decade of frequent updates (if GTA Online is anything to go by); it's an exception, the average publisher is not making games remotely on the scale of GTA 6.

EA can't afford to do this with their games since many people already wait for them to hit Game Pass/EA Play, and even more would do it as well. I'm sure Ubisoft+ subscribers are like that as well.

I genuinely don't understand the need to jump on the bandwagon every single time a new game releases. There are piles of good games out there you can pick up for cheap and there's no way you're playing everything in your lifetime.

Jeff_AKA_Snoopy posted...

I worked at a mom and pop videogame store for YEARS. There was a guy who came in with a list of games like, once a month. It was all, to me, kinda old games. I was always a little confused about the list so finally I just kinda stopped him and I was like, "Your list makes NO sense to me. What's the deal?"

... the deal was they were the new releases for that month 2 years ago. In his own words, he still gets to play all the games he cared about, just 2 years later at a much lower price. It made him avoid games that were not supported long enough, balk at games that were reviewed poorly. What a fucking legend IMO.

It's a great way to do it. These days games fall in price so fast I don't think you even need to wait that long. I tend to wait for a reason other than price. On my big RPGs say like an Elder Scrolls, Witcher, Dragon Age type game I wait for all DLC/expansions and more importantly most of the bugs and small changes to be patched. I'm really patient even though I highly anticipate some games.

I didn't play Skyrim until 7 years after initial launch on a new system with an updated game version. I waited until after Blood and Wine was out for Witcher 3 and got a GOTY version. Same with multiple Dragon Age games. I felt almost guilty I got those GOTY versions with all content for around $25.

In this day and age I feel like most games at launch aren't quite truly in a polished state. I'm not saying unplayable but most games benefit from waiting a bit and getting some patches. It's rare I buy at launch for that reason. Saving money is just a bonus. No matter how much disposable income you have no one WANTS to pay more for no reason.

At the rate things are going, come next gaming generation we'll have games that are worth as much as a PS5 Pro.

I'm fine not buying games unless they're on deep discount.

If they never go on discount, oh well, I'm fine doing other shit.

Between my backlog of bought games and Xbox Game Pass, I could go a decade without buying another game and be just fine.

Most games will sell less at launch

I mean, I remember some N64 games being $80, and that's nearly 30 years ago.

Evthean posted...

If games become 20% of the cost of a new console, Ill probably stop buying both games and consoles

If games were 5% the cost of a new console, would that get your wallet open again?

Enter the $2,000 console

DiScOrDtHeLuNaTiC posted...

I mean, I remember some N64 games being $80, and that's nearly 30 years ago.

Hold on we're not allowed to acknowledge video game prices from 30 years ago and how expensive they are when adjusted for today's inflation

Just say "damn Nintendo" like everybody else who wasn't alive in the 90s

Thanks, Nintendo.

Yet I am still getting games on Steam for 5 dollars 6 months after they came out.

Dakimakura posted...

Yet I am still getting games on Steam for 5 dollars 6 months after they came out.

Certain publishers do that. Other publishers make you wait for 2 years. Still others just keep the prices at 50% during rare sales.

Either way, there are a lot of options out there for a "cheap ass" gamer.

No game is worth even $70, especially with day one DLC bullshit and a fuck ton of microtransactions.

Fuck $80 to $100.

The damn thing better come with all future DLC at no extra cost.

Potentially pricing people out of a hobby is bullshit.

Dakimakura posted...

Yet I am still getting games on Steam for 5 dollars 6 months after they came out.

That's kind of why prices are going to rise. They know people will wait until a game goes on sale for $30 or lower, those customers are a constant. You are not and never have been their concern when it comes to price hikes because you are never going to buy a game at full price. The concern is that they aren't generating as much profit from the first few months of sales from people who are willing to pay full price, which is where a bulk of the overall revenue comes from. If raising the price by $10 only scares off 5-10% of those customers then it's worth it to do that.

A_Good_Boy posted...

The comment in that picture also implies gamers have the impulse control necessary to avoid plopping $100 for a game at launch. Considering how video game boycotts and other principled stances against video game monetization policies tends to go, I wouldn't exactly hold my breath on the proposition that gamers will dive into their backlogs long enough to force publishers to rethink their pricing strategies.

So much this.

They already do with the Ultimate Editions

Both this:

DuneMan posted...

Yeah, that's just an excuse to dig into my Steam backlog and enjoy various titles.

*Well for me its backlog in general. I have so many damn games on just the PS5 and switch to play let alone previous generations that I would never be without any game to play in general*

And this:

havean776 posted...

*Shrugs* Gamers will pay it.

I already know no matter what I do the average gamer out there has no problem being suckered into whatever. Will forever fund whatever battlepass, online-only, microtransaction-filled gacha filled crap as long as their favorite content creators are being hype-beasts that gets them to want to play these 80 to 100 dollar games day one too.

As usual I'll just be doing me, mainly buying the cheaper lower budget AA stuff, indies, rely on sales and relying on buying used games off ebay, amazon or gamestop.

The moment modern consoles give up the access to physical games is the moment I'll finally bow out of modern gaming and just rely on all the old platforms I have gotten over the years. That and emulators with my decent but definitely not modern PC.

I already don't buy anything over 10 bucks unless I will play it immediately so this changes nothing for me really.

DiScOrDtHeLuNaTiC posted...

I mean, I remember some N64 games being $80, and that's nearly 30 years ago.

For what its worth my family and myself didn't buy those shits either, lol.

Not even exaggerating when I say about 85 percent of all of my family's gaming was done via rentals. For the nintendo 64 I only ever owned about 8 to 9 games myself. (super mario 64, mario kart 64, snowboard kids (I remember this one for being a good bit cheaper than the rest of the games at the time), star fox 64, zelda ocarina of time, banjo kazooie, conker's bad fur day, gauntlet legends, and perfect dark was all I personally owned.

My brother bought a few games like turok 2 and 3, all the AKI-made wrestling games like wcw vs nwo world tour/revenge/wwf wrestlemania/wwf no mercy, nfl blitz, goldeneye, mario party 2 and 3, and zelda majora's mask.

There is also some few N64 games I got on crazy good deals (because the PS1 was beating that ass some N64 game's got their prices slashed pretty quickly and decently). I do remember picking up mischief makers, mystical ninja starring goemon, castlevania 64 and jet force gemini for pretty cheap. My conker copy was used from blockbuster too now that I remember.

Everything else? Rentals. Same goes for the NES, SNES, genesis and the PS1. Thank goodness for rentals. Those expensive games back then will just be glanced at just like those expensive games now, and I may try them via 50 percent off or more sales or if I can find a cheap physical somewhere.

*Surprisingly north america still has the option of video game rentals via gamefly, but I personally don't go through enough video games in a single month to make the monthly fee worth it. It is something I am considering using again at some point though.*

Its crazy too because the vast majority of games arent even that good

Every year theres really only a handful of games that come out and are widely well received and actually warrant a day 1 purchase, even a majority of AAA games end up mediocre at best

If you only have once console that number gets even lower