Gaming Forums > General Gaming

How do you feel about $69.99 MSRP for standard, non-special edition games?

<< < (2/4) > >>

Order.RSS:

--- Quote from: nickmitch on May 23, 2021, 12:54:28 AM ---I'm ok with the price increase and think it's a good thing overall.  As stated in the thread, the costs of publishing a AAA (or any) title have only gone up since $60 became the norm.  We've seen companies implement microtransactions and emphasize DLC and pre-order incentives in order to mitigate those costs.  An honest and upfront price increase seems like the better way to go, imho.

Preferably, I'd like to see the scope of some games actually go down.  Not every title needs to promise the player so many hours.  Scaling back on scope could make production costs cheaper and allow me personally to play more games, which would be nice.

--- End quote ---

Somewhat agree, particularly about reducing scope. But unfortunately I really doubt the price hike will go hand in hand with the removal of paid DLC/micro payments/pre-order bonuses/lootboxes etc. It's not a trade being proposed - publishers have surely realized a 10$ price hike across the board will not compensate the lost revenue they make from all these additional income streams.
The NBA games went to 70 but still include microtransactions, and they have deluxe editions to play a few days earlier. Publishers will absolutely try to have their cake and eat it too.

Major movements in the industry have been to reduce up-front cost, either by going free-to-play, or fixed price catalogue access (Xbox Gamepass, Apple Arcade). I get it was sort of inevitable to do either that, or raise the price, but I would have expected a jump to $64.99 first. If publishers explicitly said they would raise the price and in exchange stop using additional monetization methods, their argument would probably be received better (but they don't want to abandon those options).

nickmitch:
That's a fair point: no one is explicitly offering that tradeoff.  The NBA games would probably need to see the revenues from those microtransactions drop off before they consider abandoning them.  I'm hoping we'll see stuff like that fade away in the long term, however.

As far as pre-order bonuses and deluxe versions go, I think that might stick around because possibly it's the easiest way to get cash flows for a product before you start selling it.  Something has to keep the development process afloat.

stevey:
I still haven't accepted the 59.99 price tag. Almost always I can find them going for 49.99 or less.

Stratos:
Its an interesting dichotomy (tri-chotomy?) because I NEVER buy non-Nintendo games at full price, especially PC games. Between Steam sales, weekly free Epic Store games, and even cross referencing Deku Deals I am always getting games for cheap/free. Its got to be an absolute known quantity or something I know I will play a bunch of (and a bunch of soon if I know it will be getting discounted down the road) or want to support for me to buy full price. A number of games I planned to get for Switch I now own for free on PC.

On the other hand the cheaper deals means I'm more likely to double dip on another system. Got it free on PC? I'll grab the Switch version if it performs well, especially if it has cross-platform save support (Civ 6, Witcher 3). Also, I'm migrating to all-digital so I'm rebuying games digitally I already own physically if I know its a game I'll continue to go back to over the years (I have Skyrim on Switch and I plan to rebuy digitally when it is cheap enough AND eventually get on PC to play through with better graphics).

So its funny how games are going up in value while at the same time there is massive devaluation of games across all platforms.

I mention 'trichotomy' because there is also the polar opposite of the $60-$80 games and that are the free phone games and even free PC and Switch games. Fortnight, World of Tanks, Warframe, and many others make gaming on a limited budget incredibly easy, but add in the slippery slope of microtransactions and the potential of gambling-like behaviors.

Kairon:
I'm pretty sure you'd be hard-pressed as a consumer to find silver linings in this. No one WANTS to have to dole out hard-earned cash for stuff.

But there's simply a couple points where this is hard to get riled up about for me.

For one, inflation is real. A $60 video game in 1997 with inflation is probably $85 dollars today. A price rise to $69.99 is not only overdue, it's actually not keeping pace with inflation! And likely this is for a more robust and content-full product to boot. (discussions about whether consumers are able to afford that entertainment are a completely different topic)

Another point is that one might argue that games have FALLEN in price! If you want to play a video game there are options ranging from $50 to $40 down to $14.99, $10, $2, and FREE!!! If we look at these as generally interchangeable entertainment experiences, then you absolutely don't have to buy a $69.99 game when there are so many new AND classic titles available for SO much cheaper.

But what about if you absolutely NEED that ONE game and nothing else will do? Well, aren't games a "luxury"? I'm not downplaying the importance of art and entertainment for social and intellectual edification, but I think it's a personal choice to fixate on a single game. A fun one, but it's hard to see anyone compelling us to be handcuffed to these launch purchases, these are handcuffs we put on ourselves.

There's just too many ways where complaining about the inflation of game prices sounds like a problem that's only important if you've taken care of so many other more important concerns on Maslowe's hierarchy of needs, and only if you CHOOSE to fixate on those $69.99 price points to the exclusion of other options.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page