Is It Time We Finally Move Past $60 New Releases?

[gf78]

The price of video games seems to always be a hot button and what we have seen is more and more developers / publishers releasing DLC, Season Passes, etc. 

It's a fact of the world that inflation exists.  Since 2006 when video games moved to the $60 average price from $50, the price of food, gasoline, electric and just about everything else has shot through the roof.  Doubled easily in many instances.  Average pay rates have risen as well. 

I have been playing games since 1978.  In the late 70's, Atari 2600 and ColecoVision games were $50 each.  Moving into the 80's, NES games were pretty much standard fare for $50.  The SNES and Genesis with their larger cartridges?  It was a free-for-all.  Games averaged $60 for SNES titles.  I remember paying (and still have the receipt somewhere) $80 at Walmart for The Illusion of Gaia.

The PlayStation and Saturn's release saw prices drop to $50 for top-tier titles because manufacturing costs for the CD-ROMs were much cheaper than ROM carts.  But in the intervening years, game development costs have increased dramatically.  While there are greedy publishers out there who intentionally withhold part of a game to sell as DLC, the fact that we as gamers and consumers must face is that games need to rise in price. 

I'll use EA and Star Wars Battlefront as an example.  Yes, I know EA are greedy a-holes but bear with me.  Battlefront is a good game.  It's gorgeous, it runs smoothly, etc.  And EA is catching a ton of flak for the $50 season pass and IMO, rightly so.  That's a hair shy of the cost of a new game! 

But how many people buy the season pass?  25%?  50%?  I would rather spend $80 for a game up-front, with all content included.  If the game was sold for $80 rather than $60, it would be guaranteed that you would have a 100% buy-in rate for all content.

Maybe I am being an idealist or a dreamer, but I would rather spend the money up-front for all the content on the disc rather than piecemeal for DLC.  Publishers/Developers would be making more money from each game sale and not have to gamble on DLC and what percentage of people who own their game would be willing to buy that extra content. 

I don't like the idea of handing over more money for a game than I already do.  But looking at it realistically, we have unfair expectations that with the cost of everything in the world going up, that video games should maintain the status quo in pricing.  Publishers are seeing diminishing returns and regardless of how greedy we think a company is, they exist for the purpose of making money pure & simple. 

Publishers like EA, Activision, Square-Enix, etc. need to have an open & honest dialog with retailers, gamers and the media.  Costs are going up and prices will have to rise as well. 

[burningdoom]

Actually, games used to be more expensive. And when you factor in inflation, on top of it, those were closer to $100 a piece back then:

[dreama1]

Would of been interesting to hear about the prices before the crash.

[haloofthesun]

Prices might go up, but it's not because they're going to put all DLC onto the disc and just charge you a larger price. There's more money to be made in the current way they do things.

If they had a longer development time to work on that extra content to just include it on a disc all at once, it would cost them more money. It would also mean longer periods between games, which means while the games cost more at a base price, the release dates are further apart, and of course release dates and the couple of weeks after are when a game brings in most of its money.

It also doesn't really make sense. Is there going to just be a basic version of the game without the extra content? If not, then the game doesn't have "extra content". And what's to stop them from just making more DLC later? It's exactly what they do now: they make content not part of the original game, not made within the timeframe of the development of the original game, to be released later. (Or at least, it's supposed to be. Let's pretend disc-locked content and content that's held back to be sold later doesn't exist, for a moment)

Fewer people will buy a game at full price if the price goes up. Let's say it goes up to $70. Sure, that's only $10 more and for most people that already buy new games, that's not a huge deal. A "small" amount of people who would normally buy at full price will not purchase it at full price, but that still hurts income. But if they keep it at $60, they still get tons of sales and can get even more from DLC later, and even more from rereleasing the game as a Complete or GOTY edition or whatever with all the DLC on it. Space out the content and charge lower prices. The lower the price, the more it sells, which is why $60 is still a sweet spot.

The reason costs are going up and developers and publishers are struggling more is not because the base game is $10 or $20 or whatever too cheap. It's because they spend ridiculous amounts of money on the game and no matter how much it sells and makes money, it's going to be viewed as a "failure". Hello, Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider, anyone? It doesn't take millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to make a great game, or even an amazing one. They are struggling and pushing out DLC and microtransactions and all sorts of nickel-and-diming garbage because they put themselves in this position where if a AAA game doesn't have the most cutting edge graphics to where you can see every pore on a player's skin then it's less than what came before it and there are plenty of gamers who would point at it and say "Graphics suck, no buy". Not to mention the loads they spend on advertising and partnering deals with Doritos and Burger King and whatever else. Because yeah, games like Call of Duty really need a ton of advertising for people to know it exists. 

Is it time to increase the cost from $60? Not just yet. I'm sure it's coming soon though. Like within the next 5 years. There will be a huge backlash over it, and I think that's the biggest thing stopping them from doing it. But as long as devs and publishers keep setting huge budgets with unrealistic profit expectations on themselves there's no avoiding it.

[desocietas]

Thank goodness for Shovel Knight retailing all their physical games at $25 (the digital version with PDF manual is the same price) <3

Am I wrong, but I think it also takes a lot more people to make a "big" game now than it used to, but maybe I'm wrong about that... Just a thought 

[dreama1]

Prices might go up, but it's not because they're going to put all DLC onto the disc and just charge you a larger price. There's more money to be made in the current way they do things.

If they had a longer development time to work on that extra content to just include it on a disc all at once, it would cost them more money. It would also mean longer periods between games, which means while the games cost more at a base price, the release dates are further apart, and of course release dates and the couple of weeks after are when a game brings in most of its money.

It also doesn't really make sense. Is there going to just be a basic version of the game without the extra content? If not, then the game doesn't have "extra content". And what's to stop them from just making more DLC later? It's exactly what they do now: they make content not part of the original game, not made within the timeframe of the development of the original game, to be released later. (Or at least, it's supposed to be. Let's pretend disc-locked content and content that's held back to be sold later doesn't exist, for a moment)

Fewer people will buy a game at full price if the price goes up. Let's say it goes up to $70. Sure, that's only $10 more and for most people that already buy new games, that's not a huge deal. A "small" amount of people who would normally buy at full price will not purchase it at full price, but that still hurts income. But if they keep it at $60, they still get tons of sales and can get even more from DLC later, and even more from rereleasing the game as a Complete or GOTY edition or whatever with all the DLC on it. Space out the content and charge lower prices. The lower the price, the more it sells, which is why $60 is still a sweet spot.

The reason costs are going up and developers and publishers are struggling more is not because the base game is $10 or $20 or whatever too cheap. It's because they spend ridiculous amounts of money on the game and no matter how much it sells and makes money, it's going to be viewed as a "failure". Hello, Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider, anyone? It doesn't take millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to make a great game, or even an amazing one. They are struggling and pushing out DLC and microtransactions and all sorts of nickel-and-diming garbage because they put themselves in this position where if a AAA game doesn't have the most cutting edge graphics to where you can see every pore on a player's skin then it's less than what came before it and there are plenty of gamers who would point at it and say "Graphics suck, no buy". Not to mention the loads they spend on advertising and partnering deals with Doritos and Burger King and whatever else. Because yeah, games like Call of Duty really need a ton of advertising for people to know it exists. 

Is it time to increase the cost from $60? Not just yet. I'm sure it's coming soon though. Like within the next 5 years. There will be a huge backlash over it, and I think that's the biggest thing stopping them from doing it. But as long as devs and publishers keep setting huge budgets with unrealistic profit expectations on themselves there's no avoiding it.

Sounds like the industry is eating it's self from it's own success. I heard some one make an interesting claim that 2008 is when gaming was at its peak not it's golden age but its peak, and been in decline since. Sure it looks pretty fine on the surface more people gaming ever than in human history but the internal affairs has been grim every passing day.

[gf78]

The reason costs are going up and developers and publishers are struggling more is not because the base game is $10 or $20 or whatever too cheap. It's because they spend ridiculous amounts of money on the game and no matter how much it sells and makes money, it's going to be viewed as a "failure". Hello, Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider, anyone? It doesn't take millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to make a great game, or even an amazing one. They are struggling and pushing out DLC and microtransactions and all sorts of nickel-and-diming garbage because they put themselves in this position where if a AAA game doesn't have the most cutting edge graphics to where you can see every pore on a player's skin then it's less than what came before it and there are plenty of gamers who would point at it and say "Graphics suck, no buy". Not to mention the loads they spend on advertising and partnering deals with Doritos and Burger King and whatever else. Because yeah, games like Call of Duty really need a ton of advertising for people to know it exists. 

Is it time to increase the cost from $60? Not just yet. I'm sure it's coming soon though. Like within the next 5 years. There will be a huge backlash over it, and I think that's the biggest thing stopping them from doing it. But as long as devs and publishers keep setting huge budgets with unrealistic profit expectations on themselves there's no avoiding it.

I agree with you that the publishers are spending ridiculous amounts of money on the development and cross promotional deals.  I see your point about a game like Call of Duty not needing so much advertising for people to know about it.  On the other hand, would it be the sales juggernaut that it is without those ads?

Tied to publishers needing to reel in their profit expectations, I firmly believe as I stated that these publishers need to have an open and honest dialog with the consumers who buy their product.  It works.  We have seen it work.  Look at the Witcher III.  CD Projekt Red made this wonderful, open world game full of things to keep you busy far past what your $60 earned.  With this game as with their past titles, any updates they make are sent out for free to their customers.  They have just now dabbled in their first real paid DLC and it is a huge amount of content for little money.  They have even sold it at retail (in a manner) by selling you a high quality Gwent card set with the DLC code bundled in for under twenty bucks. 

CD Projekt Red are a shining example of how being honest to your fans and providing them a quality project without trying to rake them over the coals is not only the right thing to do, it is quite profitable as well.

[turf]

For me, I'm fine with the price of games going up.  Things cost more.  Give me the full game at $80.  If it's something I really want (like this Battlefront I just bought), I'll shell out the cash.  All I ask is that you make my game complete. 

With that said, I understand what they're doing and I don't think it'll change.  Companies sell you a game for $60.  You really like the game, so you drop another $10 for a map pack.  Then, you drop another $10 for the next map pack.  It doesn't hurt as much if you buy it $10 at a time. 
The perfect example of this in my world is Skylanders.  The Boy is into it.  He loves it.  We go get groceries and he asks, "Daddy, can I get a Skylander?"  Most of the time I say sure.  It's $10.  I don't even notice that I've bought it. 

TL;DR Small amounts make easier purchases.

[kamikazekeeg]

I'm not against a price increase in my games if they make it worth it.  Battlefront I feel is a game with minimal content, essentially a multiplayer only experience, but still the same price as it would be if it had a proper campaign.  On top of that, there's a 50 dollar season pass.  Games like this should be less than the others for sure.  I'm not against DLC though.  Some developers feel it's good to support their fans with free content, that's great, but I don't demand every developer to do that and if the content is good and releases later, I'm okay with it.  Arkham Knight was one that I thought had real poor DLC and was one of the big reasons I got a refund on it when it was offered, though I only had the season pass cause I basically got it free with a good deal.

[dreama1]

People vote with there money. If you don't like EA's practices for christ sake stop buying the products every year.  The ps4 has a nice indie scene. Vote for the average game developer on smaller projects, not greedy corporate bastards  that managed to destroy the industry from within in less than a decade almost.

[matimo]

NO!, I already pay enough for new video games here in Canada at the equivalent exchange rate of 74.99 - 79.99 CAD. If it goes any higher in USD me and a lot of people i know would no longer be able to afford new video games, it would be a bad choice to raise the price of video games.

[ignition365]

I kind of stopped reading when someone said Tomb Raider sucked.  :p  I liked that game... very much, up there with Fallout in my top 2 franchises of current active IPs.

Let me put this discussion to bed, I'll try to explain this the best way I can.  Before DLC, a lot of companies would let go of a lot of employees shortly after releasing the game, because there was no work to be done.  Once the sequel or next title was approved, they would all get hired back on.  That's just how it worked, still works that way in some cases, they aren't going to pay you to sit around and do nothing, mind you they of course don't fire everyone.  With DLC, it allows the company to keep staff employed with work that will produce income, while waiting or preparing for the next title. 

Including the cost of the "season pass" into the game's price, you are just forcing all of your consumers to pay for content that should otherwise be optional.  Pushing back the release window to add in all DLC content at release, well, you are at that same situation where developers get let go after release.  DLC is a murky thing for consumers, $60 for 100 hours of content and then asking for an additional $10 for 5 hours of content, the proportions are out of whack, I agree.  But the majority of developers out there will tell you DLC is a great thing.  Microtransactions however, are a different story, but we aren't talking about that.

[gf78]

Let me put this discussion to bed, I'll try to explain this the best way I can.  Before DLC, a lot of companies would let go of a lot of employees shortly after releasing the game, because there was no work to be done.  Once the sequel or next title was approved, they would all get hired back on.  That's just how it worked, still works that way in some cases, they aren't going to pay you to sit around and do nothing, mind you they of course don't fire everyone.  With DLC, it allows the company to keep staff employed with work that will produce income, while waiting or preparing for the next title. 

I wasn't really considering that aspect of it, so thanks for pointing that out.  Though you also have to note that many times, map pack DLC is farmed out to other developers.  Raven Software does a lot of map pack work for various series, especially the Call of Duty games.

[ignition365]

Let me put this discussion to bed, I'll try to explain this the best way I can.  Before DLC, a lot of companies would let go of a lot of employees shortly after releasing the game, because there was no work to be done.  Once the sequel or next title was approved, they would all get hired back on.  That's just how it worked, still works that way in some cases, they aren't going to pay you to sit around and do nothing, mind you they of course don't fire everyone.  With DLC, it allows the company to keep staff employed with work that will produce income, while waiting or preparing for the next title. 

I wasn't really considering that aspect of it, so thanks for pointing that out.  Though you also have to note that many times, map pack DLC is farmed out to other developers.  Raven Software does a lot of map pack work for various series, especially the Call of Duty games.

Call of Duty is a special situation.  Activision is the reason for that situation, before the current CoD is released, Activision has already approved the next release a year in advance.  There is always work to be done at Activision.

[gf78]

Call of Duty is a special situation.  Activision is the reason for that situation, before the current CoD is released, Activision has already approved the next release a year in advance.  There is always work to be done at Activision.

LOL...I think Activision has at least the next six years of Call of Duty planned out and approved!  But they have three separate developers, all working on their own part of the series so each team has a three year period to make their title. 

But even then, Raven still makes quite a bit of the maps for Sledgehammer, Infinity Ward and Treyarch.  I guess those three teams stay busy, as soon as they finish with one game they start on the next.