How much is too much $ for games?

[EarthDog]

Double edged sword type argument?

I know how many hours I'll put into the game and I'm okay with it.

Which is a few people's point. Many users, including myself, can justify/stomach a higher price tag due to the number of hours we can get out of the entertainment. Nobody wants to pay more... it's just the sad reality. There's nothing I can do for $30 (or $70) that will give me hundreds of hours (or in the case of PUBG, THOUSANDS of hours) of entertainment.

I appreciate those fighting the good fight... but to me, that feels akin to trying to......

 

[JLK03F150]

I appreciate those fighting the good fight... but to me, that feels akin to trying to......

That shirt made me .

 

[Janus67]

It does seem a bit odd to me that you can buy a physical copy with a case/box and cover art or buy a digital license for the same price. IMO the digital should come at a somewhat lower price than the physical. The majority of what I buy is well after original release and usual a pre-owned copy.
I've been PC gaming since the late 80's and got upset when game prices went from $19.99 up to $29.99 (damn you Roberta! j/k).
Even though I wasn't happy paying $70 for Zelda totk on release day, I know how many hours I'll put into the game and I'm okay with it.
On another topic: the game worked perfectly on release day, which can't be said for many AAA games on release day.

I think that has been the hope for decades with the proliferation of digital titles, but I have to imagine that places like Gamestop/Target/Walmart [being likely the 3 largest gaming retailers in the US] would throw a fit if games at launch were differently priced. So it led to price parity and a choice for consumers, but ultimately if you want to save cash on games don't pre-order (unless you are getting a large discount, to which I generally refuse to pre-order no matter what out of principle), and pay attention to platform sales, postings on slickdeals, /r/patientgamers, or /r/gamedeals (or buy used, which I do fairly often as well).

As has been reiterated, game cost went up because they are pricing at what the market can bear using the new gen consoles as an excuse (granted, not an excuse for Nintendo, obviously). Do I like spending $60+ on games? No. Do I? No, I wait for them to go on sale or buy it used and let other people beta test the games for me.

 

[rainless]

My first thoughts? "Wait a minute... I DIDN'T create this thread..."

I thought I'd blacked out, hacked OCF, and painstakingly recreated every post of an argument I'd already exhausted.

I've got nothing to add except you've all been brainwashed by the combined forces of marketing and PR firms.

You're doing nothing but regurgitating the same nonsense they came up with while out at a convention down in the Cayman Islands... high as falcons.

"OH GOD won't someone think of the poor, destitute, trillion-dollar gaming industry!"

I mean listen to yourselves:

"Derrrr... Well it's actually worth WAY more than $70 since I'm getting over 876 hours of joy out of it..."

No human being on this planet actually thinks like that. That is NOT some original idea that popped into your head.

Do you even know who first said that? JIM RYAN... CEO of f'n SONY back in 2020.

Sony CEO Jim Ryan says $70/£70 is a fair price for PS5 games

Ryan wouldn't discuss first-party pricing, particularly for premium titles

www.gamesradar.com

It wasn't HIS original idea either. It's what his PR firm told him to say to get you to swallow this b.s..

...and swallow it you did!

Here's Nintendo's own take on it where they essentially back-up what I said about price gouging in Europe and use that as a defense for jacking up the price of Zelda!

"It's actually a fairly common pricing model either here or in Europe or other parts of the world, where the pricing may vary depending on the game itself."

Nintendo of America CEO Defends Breath of The Wild Sequel Price Hike

Nintendo of America CEO Doug Bowser granted a rare interview to Associated Press, presumably as part of promotional duties prior to the February 17 opening of its Super Nintendo World theme park at Universal Studios Hollywood. In an article published on March 13, AP News journalist Greg Keller...

www.techpowerup.com

I am NOT making this up. The entire European price fixing system would be... and IS illegal in America. Or do you not recall when music stores got in trouble for it back in the day? https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/11/...s-settle-federal-case-on-cd-price-fixing.html

Also his argument about the price being based on "What the game has to offer" is absurd. Did Mario Kart have nothing to offer? Mario Odyssey or Galaxy have nothing to offer? Zelda? Metroid Dread? Animal Crossing? SUPER SMASH BROTHERS ULTIMATE?!?! Nothing to offer at all in any of those?

CLEARLY he's charging $70 because he waited to see if the other game companies would get in trouble for it and now he's taking his swing at the bat.

If gaming is worth more based on how many hours of play a game has... then don't all of you owe the Skyrim and Oblivion developers a LOT of money? Hell... if it's worth more by the hour then why don't you PAY more? Why not go down to Humble Bundle and jack-up the price to $300 per game?

Didn't like my chess analogy? What about strategy games then? Why isn't Civ VI $150?

Why isn't Microsoft's Flight simulator $3000? You can actually learn to fly an ENTIRE FLEET OF REAL PLANES in it.

Why? Because it's a moronic argument. That's why.

And what angers me so much about it is that I spent the first half of my life sitting in corporate meetings listening to absolute jackasses come up with exactly these kinds of arguments. And the most bizarre thing in the world is that it always worked because people are gullible sheep.

If I said it... you'd never believe me. But if Phil Spencer says it: "Gee I dunno guys... I think this man has a point."

Wake... t.f.... UP. You've been played.

 

[Janus67]

I feel like I'm invisible as you skip past almost every point I've made. I and many have not been a 'corporate bootlicker', but outside of a #capitalismbad there's not much to say other than don't give anyone your hard earned money?

Your whole point about SF2 being 70 and thus equal to $120 today is such a manufactured argument that only further hinders your point, considering the $50 games in 1995 would be $100 today.

All that being said that games price largely didn't keep up with inflation or CPI compared to many other goods (all while having their budgets be ordered of magnitude higher than 30 years ago) which are made up in volume of sales. And with that, I still don't pay $60 for a game, let alone $70. I buy used or on sale, easy peasy if you're patient.

 

[rainless]

I feel like I'm invisible as you skip past almost every point I've made. I and many have not been a 'corporate bootlicker', but outside of a #capitalismbad there's not much to say other than don't give anyone your hard earned money?

Your whole point about SF2 being 70 and thus equal to $120 today is such a manufactured argument that only further hinders your point, considering the $50 games in 1995 would be $100 today.

All that being said that games price largely didn't keep up with inflation or CPI compared to many other goods (all while having their budgets be ordered of magnitude higher than 30 years ago) which are made up in volume of sales. And with that, I still don't pay $60 for a game, let alone $70. I buy used or on sale, easy peasy if you're patient.

Hi, Invisible One.

I skipped the whole thread actually. Everything after I said that I wasn't doing anything but repeating myself. (I didn't actually MAKE this thread remember... I was just commenting on the Zelda thing.)

First off I didn't make any point about SF2 being 70 adjusted for inflation to $120. For, I hope the very last time, I'll say it: I... PAID... $120 (plus tax)... CASH... FOR... STREET FIGHTER 2... in 1992.

I don't care what the msrp was... I don't care what the oil change dude down at Pitt Stop was selling it for... I don't really even care who believes me or doesn't believe me. I was there. That's what I paid. Highway robbery... Never should have paid it. But my rationale of "I easily spend that much, per month, to play the same game in the arcade" makes a whole lot more sense then the "hours of enjoyment" argument.

I literally was saving hundreds of dollars per year by buying the home version. Now I wish to god I hadn't bought it because all I was doing was putting arcades out of business, further devolving my social skills, and giving myself one more reason not to go outside.

And "inflation"? CPI?

Answer this question: Why is Baldur's Gate 3 $59.99?

Also the price of Blurays, DVDs... "Entertainment" products that cost waaaayyyy more to produce than games... they haven't gone up... they've gone DOWN.

What's your excuse for that?

 

[Evilsizer]

i wait for them to go on sale on steam, i general will buy at $20 and below. rarely will i buy a game higher then that but it has to be worth it.

 

[Railgun]

It’s worth as much as you’re willing to pay. Don’t think it’s worth it? Don’t buy it. But don’t buy it then complain afterwards. It’s a free market. Vote with your wallet.

 

[dfonda]

It’s worth as much as you’re willing to pay. Don’t think it’s worth it? Don’t buy it. But don’t buy it then complain afterwards. It’s a free market. Vote with your wallet.

That is about right...I mean some folks could afford a 250 mill yacht (Which as yachts go isn't expensive). We choose not to cause it is the epitome of a luxury item....

I understand being angry about something that is a need costing more like eggs or bread etc.

I can't get angry about "wants" being expensive...I don't need to buy a game when it first comes out, I choose to. This again does hinge on disposable income...$70 seems like $7 to me...

When I was 15 or 16 (The 70's) I never complained that an ounce of Colombian cost $40...It was just better than $20 Mexican. I did think of w**d as a need back then tho....
(I am referring to cigars)

Looking forward to Rainless checking in on the Starfield thread I am about to post...

 

[EarthDog]

It's funny.. I noticed we started this conversation in a previous thread (that Rainless actually created, lol) 2 years ago...I should've merged this with that one as the older one was forgotten/dismissed by the OP.

The $70 Gambit

https://totalgamingaddicts.com/can-playstation-exclusives-be-worth-70/ Can it work? Can Sony and Microsoft reasonably expect gamers to pay $70 (+tax in some cases) for a video game? This isn't actually a new question. In fact... Gamers have paid MORE in the past. I believe when Strider...

www.overclockers.com

Even in that thread, the $120 game (that was gouged by stores, not price set by Nintendo/Capcom) made an appearance, lol!

 

[dfonda]

It's funny.. I noticed we started this conversation in a previous thread (that Rainless actually created, lol) 2 years ago...I should've merged this with that one as the older one was forgotten/dismissed by the OP.

The $70 Gambit

https://totalgamingaddicts.com/can-playstation-exclusives-be-worth-70/ Can it work? Can Sony and Microsoft reasonably expect gamers to pay $70 (+tax in some cases) for a video game? This isn't actually a new question. In fact... Gamers have paid MORE in the past. I believe when Strider...

www.overclockers.com

Even in that thread, the $120 game (that was gouged by stores, not price set by Nintendo/Capcom) made an appearance, lol!

So what you're saying is the $70 price tag now with inflation is actually only $50... Nice

 

[rainless]

It's funny.. I noticed we started this conversation in a previous thread (that Rainless actually created, lol) 2 years ago...I should've merged this with that one as the older one was forgotten/dismissed by the OP.

The $70 Gambit

https://totalgamingaddicts.com/can-playstation-exclusives-be-worth-70/ Can it work? Can Sony and Microsoft reasonably expect gamers to pay $70 (+tax in some cases) for a video game? This isn't actually a new question. In fact... Gamers have paid MORE in the past. I believe when Strider...

www.overclockers.com

Even in that thread, the $120 game (that was gouged by stores, not price set by Nintendo/Capcom) made an appearance, lol!

Well at least now someone acknowledges how much I paid for it! I said the same 2 years ago and I've been saying the same since I put the cash in their hands (too young for a credit card) back in 1992... because that's what I gave them and that's what they put on the receipt! (PLUS tax mind you...)

And this was no mom/pop operation... Like I said it was either funcoland or gamestop (did they have another name between the two?) or whatever they were calling themselves at the time. I could walk straight there in my dreams.

I think they charged like 80 bucks for the first Mortal Kombat a year or two later.

This was not Chicago proper, mind you... This was Chicago Ridge Mall in... well... Chicago Ridge.

A far South-West suburb.

Maybe they figured those rich suburban kids could afford it...

...but there was no video game store in my neck of the woods or anywhere close to it.

There had been a couple of Funcolands in the NES days... but they were long gone and it would be another 10-12 YEARS (the PS3/360 era) before they opened another game store on the exact spot as those old ones.

 

[EarthDog]

Yeah, price gouging. It's just not Nintendo/Sony/MS... just stores. You're painting the picture of why it actually happened quite colorfully now.

 

[FoldingAddict]

Man somebody is really pissed they paid $120 for Street Fighter lol. I read this whole thread and it's really weird how the concept of inflation seems to be understood, but at the same time completely dismissed as a factor. Get over the modern day sticker price, it's irrelevant. $70 for a AAA game is the same exact money today that I was begging my dad to spend back in 1999 for a $40 AAA game at EB Games. Median US individual income in 1999, $24,000, median in 2022, $46,000. All these numbers line up pretty perfectly and fairly. And I believe this was already mentioned, if $70 was really too much, people wouldn't pay it, it's that simple. If tomorrow the publishers got together and decided the new standard AAA minimum was $199, I'm quite sure they'd see their sales decline, making the price increase into a bottom line decrease in sales. That's not really happening at the current price point because, as reflected by inflation, $70 is perfectly reasonable considering pricing trends of the past.

I feel like the niche internet hysteria over game prices is people that don't really pay attention to the pricing of general goods, seeing inflation directly impact something they DO pay attention to, and then getting pissed about the tidal wave they can't stop. Don't expect publishers, entertainment conglomerates, farmers, or anyone else that operates in a scarce economy to sit there and eat inflation for the consumer, it's not going to happen.

 

[Kenrou]

IMO there's also another factor, games used to be made by individuals or very small teams, payout was immense if it hit the big leagues, nowadays you can have hundreds of people working on the same project, there's more pressure to succeed because they all need to get paid...

Which is very strange considering just how badly programmed/rushed games are nowadays on release, you would think they would want big hits for big money

 

[rainless]

Man somebody is really pissed they paid $120 for Street Fighter lol. I read this whole thread and it's really weird how the concept of inflation seems to be understood, but at the same time completely dismissed as a factor. Get over the modern day sticker price, it's irrelevant. $70 for a AAA game is the same exact money today that I was begging my dad to spend back in 1999 for a $40 AAA game at EB Games. Median US individual income in 1999, $24,000, median in 2022, $46,000. All these numbers line up pretty perfectly and fairly. And I believe this was already mentioned, if $70 was really too much, people wouldn't pay it, it's that simple. If tomorrow the publishers got together and decided the new standard AAA minimum was $199, I'm quite sure they'd see their sales decline, making the price increase into a bottom line decrease in sales. That's not really happening at the current price point because, as reflected by inflation, $70 is perfectly reasonable considering pricing trends of the past.

I feel like the niche internet hysteria over game prices is people that don't really pay attention to the pricing of general goods, seeing inflation directly impact something they DO pay attention to, and then getting pissed about the tidal wave they can't stop. Don't expect publishers, entertainment conglomerates, farmers, or anyone else that operates in a scarce economy to sit there and eat inflation for the consumer, it's not going to happen.

It happens all the time. It's happening right now. The entire video game industry is built upon selling products, at a loss, hopefully in exchange for market share. There wasn't a single PC available that had a an actual functioning Gen 4 M2 slot in it when the PS5 was announced... but the PS5 was selling you a whole system with that, the GPU, a $60 controller, and a blu-ray drive for $499... and it runs Baldur's Gate 3 waaaaaay smoother than my $1000 desktop!

Game Pass... Playstation +... They're giving away Series X and PS5 games for "free"**... those same ones they supposedly can't get by without charging $70 for. (Looking at you COD Cold War...)

I have yet to pay $70 for a single console game because the speed and degree to which the prices fall. What were the launch games? Valhalla, Cold War, Watch Dogs Legion? Not a single one of them was selling for $70 within ONE MONTH after launch. I don't think anyone even believed, with a straight face, that they would. The last holdout was Demons Souls (a remake of a PS3 game from like 15 years ago...)

Ignoring inflation entirely and selling games (and systems) at a loss has been exactly the disruptive force than Microsoft has used to turn the industry on its head. Even Sony had to completely remake Playstation Plus in the image of Gamepass. Microsoft may not have been selling many systems... but they were selling the HELL out of Gamepass subscriptions...

IMO there's also another factor, games used to be made by individuals or very small teams, payout was immense if it hit the big leagues, nowadays you can have hundreds of people working on the same project, there's more pressure to succeed because they all need to get paid...

Which is very strange considering just how badly programmed/rushed games are nowadays on release, you would think they would want big hits for big money

Well... except in the indy market... games haven't really been made by individuals or small teams since the Atari era... or very early Nintendo. Everything from Revenge of Shinobi to Streets of Rage... Street Fighter and Final Fight... obviously Final Fantasy and Phantasy Star... you're talking about pretty big teams. They're even BIGGER today... of course... but there were always a lot of mouths to feed.

...but back then "game patches" weren't an option.

You COULDN'T go back and fix games with an update. "E.T." on the Atari tanked the entire industry.

It was a case study in "What if Cyberpunk 2077 destroyed the entire video game industry?" That's basically what E.T. was: Cyberpunk without the ability fix it with patches.

So those early developers in the Nintendo era onwards HAD to produce a game that functioned. If this meant the game got delayed 20 times... then so be it. But there were no do-overs.

Now devs take it for granted that they can just "fix" the game weeks... months... YEARS later if someone is still paying.

Because, as mentioned previously, they know that gamers are spineless, rabid consumers who'll buy whatever crap they shovel out there because they have nothing better to do.

Even at the HEIGHT of the CyberPunk debacle... it was still selling. On Xbox One... PS4... the very systems worst affected... until it was pulled from those stores.

You should EXPECT bad behavior when you continue to reward it.

That's kind of all I've been trying to say.

 

[Niku-Sama]

Not just E.T. on the 2600, **** games in general flooding the market from a surplus of cheap chips. theres a reason big N advertised the NES with a robot as a toy and not a game console.

what i wanted to bring up is you pay all this money for what you think is a game but in reality your paying for a license.
lately before i start any game up i have to agree to MULTIPLE TOS.

I rarely pay $60 for a new game (yea you read that right new game) but i did the other day and got Armored Core 6 on PS4. I had to wade through so much legalese and if you dont agree you cant play the game, but i just handed over money for this so why would i have to agree or be locked out otherwise?

This should be illegal, and any clauses about "being in possession counts as agreement to terms" should also be illegal before that comes up.

when you bought a game, you stuck it in, turned it on and went to town.
All this hiding behind a wall of text, agreement to arbitration by a company they have under their thumb, not going to a court of your peers, this is bull **** and it needs to end.

Thats why i say and i'll say it again, you arent buying games any more, your buying licenses for games, that can be revoked at any time for any reason and thats bullshit.

so yes $70 is too much, hell $25 is too much for a license that gives you permission to play a game.

 

[Archer0915]

My 2 cents... well ya see, the games are worth what they get for them. Considering you cannot just get hard copies at Electronics Boutique anymore (to me) they are less valuable.

Still, they are worth every penny to those willing to buy them.

 

[Woomack]

I didn't read all the replies, so I will say what I think about the main statement - "NO game is worth 70 bucks."
For me, any game is worth $70 when it gives you fun for long hours. By long, I mean at least 100+, and the best when you go back to this title every few months. One example, the last two Zelda releases. If you like it, you will spend 300+ hours each. Most expensive games nowadays have more cutscenes than actual gaming and typically take 5-7h to pass. For sure, I won't spend any money on a game like that.
I spent ~$70 on Diablo 4 ... a total fail and I see many disappointed gamers around the web who quit after 2-3 weeks. Baldur's Gate 3 - totally worth it, 4 passes, ~250h in total so far.

 

[EarthDog]

COD Cold War

Isn't that almost a 3-year-old game (11/2020?)? Isn't there one, if not TWO more COD games released since that time? Assuming that's correct, isn't this the normal life cycle process of a game? Expensive at release, sales, price drops, new game of the same name, last gen further price drops. Rinse and repeat. FYI, COD:CW sold 30M copies with 5.7M in the first month at that price.

AC:V sold 1.7M digital units in the first month (fastest selling AC, for the record) on it's way to over 1B in revenue (supported by frequent new seasons/updates). Also, Valhalla's MSRP for the base game was $60 at launch. There were several versions of it costing up to $120, however. I guess what I'm saying here is, even in the face of $60/70+ games, your examples at least, sold hand over fist. People are voting and breaking records with new releases, even at $70+. Sad, I agree.

WD:L was also $59.99 for the base version, deluxe+ was $70+. Ultimate is $120. It sold 1.9M copies in 3 days (released 10/29/2020) and a ton in the first month before prices dropped here too.

A lot of what we're seeing today are options over the 50/60/70 price point that drive revenues. Long gone are the days when a cartridge was it. They can front-load revenue with higher-tiered versions with goodies AND get you on the back end with in-game purchases (skins, etc.).

There wasn't a single PC available that had a an actual functioning Gen 4 M2 slot in it when the PS5 was announced... but the PS5 was selling you a whole system with that, the GPU, a $60 controller, and a blu-ray drive for $499...

This is true as written... but context is 100% required...

PS5 was announced in April 2019 and wasn't available/sold until November 2020. By that point, Z490 was out (X570 too?) and there were plenty of motherboards available starting in May (6 months before PS5 release) sporting 4.0 x4 M.2 sockets. So when the PS5 was actually available to buy, PCs with 4.0 x4 slots were available/in the consumer's hands well before the PS5 (and quite obviously, the decision to use these was set in motion at least several months prior). I'd call the PC first to market with 4.0 x4 M.2 storage, personally. I understand your underlying point RE: you can't get a canned system for that much (only because of video card prices), but... it was available first in PCs.

I didn't read all the replies, so I will say what I think about the main statement - "NO game is worth 70 bucks."
For me, any game is worth $70 when it gives you fun for long hours. By long, I mean at least 100+, and the best when you go back to this title every few months. One example, the last two Zelda releases. If you like it, you will spend 300+ hours each. Most expensive games nowadays have more cutscenes than actual gaming and typically take 5-7h to pass. For sure, I won't spend any money on a game like that.
I spent ~$70 on Diablo 4 ... a total fail and I see many disappointed gamers around the web who quit after 2-3 weeks. Baldur's Gate 3 - totally worth it, 4 passes, ~250h in total so far.

And that's all several of us are trying to say (nobody is right or wrong - however, I do take exception to that being "moronic" and "spineless and rabid" behavior, however, lol). While it may be bothersome (to some) we don't 'own' a game anymore (but 'merely' a license to play it), others don't care (raises hand). The number of hours of entertainment is what drives the worth for some buyers. Some get it at $70/full price (or pay $120 because a store is selling it for that much/or want the super deluxe early access version with posters) for a game of their own free will and volition...some wait until it's on sale...just different ways to do things.