https://www.ign.com/articles/embracer-boss-mulls-increasing-the-price-of-video-games-beyond-70
The controversial boss of Embracer Group has discussed the topic of increasing the price of video games beyond $70 amid rising development costs and an increasingly competitive market.
I mean, let them try? I, for one, basically stopped buying new games (with the occasional exception for an indie dev). By the time the worst bugs are fixed, it'll be on sale for 50% off anyway.
Yeah, I don't see any reason to buy (or pre buy!) any game at all. At launch you're paying double for a beta version basically. Like you said, wait for the actual game to be released a few months later at a good price.
Hey, Pokemon never goes down in price and is that much!
...Wait that just supports your argument
Good call mentioning pre-orders as well. I never did it back in the age of physical media, but there was at least a reason for it then. Now the only reason to do it is to get some bonus skins or other garbage with your buggy game.
I’ve loved every Besthesda game and preordered Fallout 76…learned from that mistake and never again. I’ll put games on my steam list and wait for a sale.
My backlog contains way too many games, and most of the games I really want day 1 are produced by indie devs.
Embracer won't see me buying a game at full price, $70 or more.
I just picked up Fallout 2 at GOG for $2.49. There are so many games you can get for less than the price of a coffee. The best way to fight against these prices is to simply not buy.
I haven't seen a single developer that thinks the current price of a game is high enough. They always cite how much it costs to make the game as the reason why they should be more expensive to buy.
And yet... Hollywood spends about the same to make a blockbuster film and movie tickets aren't $70 nor do people in the film industry say they should be higher.
Also...like...who needs an ultra realistic videogame? Cel shading and other techniques usually age better anyways. I want games to be fun first and foremost. Eye candy is just candy without substance.
Some games like Elite Dangerous benefit from ultra realistic, but I'd hardly call that a mass market game, it's more for simming.
The Coors Light of shooters could probably be cel shaded and be just as fun in 2024 as the next release 9-12 months later. And they could save a lot of overhead costs.
The Coors Light of shooters could probably be cel shaded and be just as fun in 2024 as the next release 9-12 months later. And they could save a lot of overhead costs.
Heck, take these two screenshots as an example:
The first is XIII (Gamecube), the second is Metal of Honor: Rising Sun (PS2). Both were released in 2003. I'd definitely say XIII holds up better visually.
They always cite how much it costs to make the game as the reason why they should be more expensive to buy.
They’re not wrong, but the audience just isn't swallowing higher upfront prices. The only way they’re squeezing more out is with DLC, battle passes, mtx etc. which only work in specific types of games that have already saturated the market. It’s kind of an impossible situation atm.
Cassette Beasts was 13 bucks on Steam the other day. Sales happen 24/7 this guy is huffing his own farts.
At this point I see anything above $40 as a red flag. Free games or $60 games and I'm almost guaranteed to be treated as the product instead of the other way around.
I'm old enough to remember when Doom 64 for the N64 was $74.99. In today's money that's around $145.
I'm not saying that's reasonable, I'm just saying it used to be a lot worse in the cartridge age.
Back then the market was also minuscule in comparison. If you ask for 150 bucks for a game, go for it. Just don't be surprised if the sales stay low, because I can buy 5-10 other games for that money.
One half of my mind wishes developers did make more money because these games are so much more effort than the games that were the same price decades ago, but the other half knows that devs don't see a dime of that hiked price.
The more something costs the more I expect from it. Baldur's Gate 3, was $60 on release. If you want that or more from me, my personal expectation is your game is if the same quality or better.
I'm not even going to wait for a sale. Because by the time a decent sale comes around an indie developer has made a better game for cheaper, and I've already bought it, and I'm playing it. Your old, overpriced game means nothing to me. There is no shortage of entertainment and the hype for these games often dies so fast you're really not missing out.
Basically buy any game that Tim Cain and/or Brian Fargo were involved with, and you're set.
They are older so they don't rely on expensive hardware, they are usually replayable, they've usually won a lot of awards, and they are usually very cheap.
Who cares? There's 10's of thousands of high quality gaming hours across every genre already created. You don't need anything they are currently making, certainly not for years
I think the AAA industry is really struggling with this.
Also, improved graphical fidelity isn't really a big selling point like it was in the 2000's AAA days.
Corpo prick says "I'm considering milking making more money after fucking over thousands of employees, IPs and fans".
Consumers say "So what else is fucking new? See you in the discount bin".
World continues to melt into the over-manufactured cesspit the corpo pricks force it to be.
Did you know that Coffee Stain Studios, the publisher behind the beloved pro-consumer Deep Rock Galactic, belongs to Embracer Group? I'm sure this mentality will lead to nothing bad happening to the monetization of this game in the long run.
Do it. If people want to pay high prices for brand new video games, let them pay it. I'll just do what I've always done; wait for a sale.
You realize that sales come in varying magnitudes, right? Each individual decides what a game is worth to them, and if that means a 50% sale might have been sufficient for a $60 game, but that it'll take a 65% sale to make an $80 game worth it, then so be it.
There's a fundamental disconnect here and I'm not sure where it is, so let me just explain my position and maybe you can tell me where you're confused.
Let's take, for instance, a game which at full price is $40, a game that's $60, and a game that's $80.
In all of these cases, let's assume I have decided that I am willing to pay $20.
In the first case, I will wait for a 50% sale, and buy the game.
In the second case, I will wait for a 66% sale, and buy the game.
In the third case, I will wait for a 75% sale, and buy the game.
If that sale magnitude doesn't happen, I won't buy the game. Similarly, if I've lost interest in the game by the time that sale magnitude happens, I won't buy the game.
It's very simple. Nobody is forcing you to pay $80 for a game, and nobody is forcing you to buy it just because it's 50% off, if the 50% off price is not low enough that you feel it's worth your money to buy it. It's OK to just not ever buy a game.
And now increase the price a little more, until you never ever reach your 20 bucks target price point. Please just stop playing obtuse. You should know how percentages work.
If that sale magnitude doesn’t happen, I won’t buy the game.
It's really not difficult. You don't have to buy the game. You can just choose not to play it.
So when everyone adapts those new prices, you'll quit buying games / quit gaming / pirate everything. That's your glorious solution.
I've played plenty of games that would be worth 100+ easily. The problem for a studio pricing something at that though is they need some way to sell me on the game. A demo, or like, first party Nintendo quality reputation. Something. No way I pay that as a default for a piece of shit, which most things released are.