230°

Would you pay $69.99 for Next Generation Games?

GamerFitNation's Gregory Laporte writes "Let me be clear before I begin, games are not going to cost $69.99. Sony has said that they are in fact going to be cheaper. However, during an EA investor call EA's CFO mistakenly said they will be. Well after hearing this, it raised some thoughts in my mind. If games did cost $69.99 would you be willing to go all in next generation? Earlier this month head honcho Jack Tretton said games are actually cheaper than PlayStation 3 games. If this is true, then how could EA even mistakenly mention this? Is it to in a way gauge consumers interest or is this EA living up to its reputation."

Read Full Story >>
gamerfitnation.com
pr0t0typeknuckles4069d ago

looks like ill be waiting for price drops this entire gen,if a game is $75.

Thatguy-3104069d ago

I'll pay for them. But I'll be a lot more selective at what games I get at or around launch. Basically what I'm doing now

T9004069d ago (Edited 4069d ago )

Well in some regions of the world game are already selling for 80usd. I wonder what will happen if the price rises to 75usd in the US. It probably will rise to 100usd where i am at.

Oh well.. Good old Steam, already have 200+ games there. Most of them bought on discounts for 10-15usd. Ill just carry on buying games on Steam, no harm done.

@delboy

"You'll pay, one way or another believe me."

That depends, I dont buy DLCs and for the sort of games i like aka "Skyrim", there usually are so many Mods on the PC it makes DLCs look like a joke. In todays day and age being a bit smart can save you a chunk.

delboy4069d ago (Edited 4069d ago )

You'll pay, one way or another believe me.
There will be more dlc (cut out content) next gen and microtransactions on top of that.

For me next gen is on pc, and games are cheaper also. :-P

Cupid_Viper_34069d ago (Edited 4069d ago )

I'm with you on that Dboyc310. Especially when multiplatform games a developed with the lowest common denominator, why the would I pay $69.00 plus taxes for them?

Games like GT5, Halo 4, Uncharted Series, God of War, Gears of War, yes. As those games are pushing the boundaries on their respective consoles.

But if EA thinks that I'm going to pay $69.00 plus Taxes, plus Micro Transactions for new soccer cleats in FIFA 14, than they've lost a cx in me. I've been Playing Fifa since I came to the US in 1999 til Present day. So EA can count the years and make the decisions on whether or not it's worth it to Nickle and Dime their customers.

Rant Over......for now.

@ so-called Journalist from Major Websites, This is a great opportunity to do something for the gaming community for once. We have Youtube and Facebook, and Twitter, shove a camera in their faces and make those execs explain to the gaming community why they "think that we LOOOVE micro transactions" and other BS they come up with, and post it on youtube and facebook. You'll gain back some credibility from us gamers.

Expose them for the crooks they are. Why not make it so that $100.00 buys you to games brand new, and you'd solve the used games sales problem by half already.

ProjectVulcan4069d ago (Edited 4069d ago )

I remember back when Xbox 360 first arrived, the games sold for their RRP in the uk which was £44.99-£49.99. It was at least 6 months before games came down to £39.99 and most big titles were no less than this, Gears of War was a year after 360 launched and it was still mostly £40-£42 new.

As generations go on typically game prices do deflate a little mainly because the userbase swells and the greater sales of games make up for it.

I fully expect games on a brand new console platform to come in to £44.99 or more for the first few months.

If you wanna be an early adopter you have to pay up for it...be it hardware and games. Thats a fact.

admiralvic4069d ago

Indeed, though I don't think it will come to this. Thanks to the failure that was Call of Duty Black Ops Declassified, companies SHOULD have seen how angry people can get about a minor jump in price. It would have to be a universal jump to avoid this, which I can't see every company attempting this.

AngelicIceDiamond4069d ago (Edited 4069d ago )

Lol there's no way I'll pay 69$ game. Because every dev will think their game will be 70$ quality.

Publishers will advertise like crazy, Hype it up to no end, tell you everything you wanna hear. Just anything to take your 70$.

You go to the store buy it take it home play it and it turns out it has just as much quality as Aliens: Colonial Marines and Duke Nukem Forever.

There's no way I'll let them burned me out of 10 extra bucks with a fear of buying a game that could possibly be crap.

Believe me, if that's the case devs will do and say anything to sell it at a extra 10$. They'll probably release false demos (Aliens)

Just because its "next gen" doesn't automatically mean its gonna be a 70$ product? Devs will still make bad games come next gen. As well as some games not even looking next gen. Devs have more power with these machines but its up to them to make a AAA game that's scream 70$ if they want my extra 10$. As far as I know, there's no more excuses when it comes to limited tech. Its new tech VS developer skills and imagination.

4069d ago
joab7774069d ago

Exactly...i hav no problem paying for a ge like bioshock. But i will be very selective.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 4069d ago
LOGICWINS4069d ago

Screw that. If that happens, I'm just gunna get Steambox and enjoy my heavily discounted games. $75 for a game is a joke.

ceballos77mx4069d ago

Don't forget the DLC that's allready in disc.

Good_Guy_Jamal4069d ago

I don't pay $60 already for current gen games, I sure as heck won't be paying $70 next gen.
I'll go with Wii U not Steam though, I like physical copies.

Cupid_Viper_34069d ago (Edited 4069d ago )

We don't always see eye to eye on most issues, but I agree with you Logic.

Used games sales on the rise:

Real people--- Economy is bad, I'm depressed and struggling to make ends meet, I want a distraction but I can't afford a $60.00 + Taxes game, So I buy it used.

Execs with big Bonuses--- The used game market is on the rise, let's raise prices of games, also ask for online pass on used games. Oh, let's also lock access to content on your disc as DLC, and let's add micro transactions, "They Love it!"

It's like they're living on planet Mars or something. The reason people buy used games it's because the current price of games ARE TOO DAMNED HIGH. Plus some systems requires that you pay extra to play online, Plus DLC's, plus internet bills. And not because they don't want dividends on your stock prices to fall EA.

LOGICWINS4069d ago

^^Steam is only getting more and more popular. Once people see how much value the service offers, other services/publishers will be forced to follow suit.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4069d ago
BlmThug4069d ago

I already buy carefully at £40. £45-50 will mean even more waiting for price drops for me

Blacksand14069d ago (Edited 4069d ago )

Hell No! Its already bad when you buy a game that's not good, then you pay for one 70-75 that's not good too.

ElitaStorm4069d ago

depends how good the game is

BillySpandex4069d ago

I'll just be more selective. It means fringe games or new IPs will have to find ways to entice me. Older IPs will have to work hard to keep my interest. It's a sad reality, but a higher price point means that I won't just walk into a store and walk out with 5 or 6 games.

ajax174069d ago

Same here. $60 is bad enough.

fermcr4069d ago

There are still too many unanswered question relative to next gen consoles, and this is one important one.

How much will AAA games cost ?

I'm not rich. If games become too expensive, then next gen will probably be a no go for me.

aceitman4069d ago

it will be the downfall of next gen , not in this economy .

lilbrat234069d ago

I won't like others will wait on price drop. Even now $60 is a bit much for half a$$ games that you beat in less then 5 hours.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 4069d ago
Outside_ofthe_Box4069d ago (Edited 4069d ago )

Nope. I hardly pay $59.99 for current gen games nowadays so there is no way I'd pay $69.99. Games need to go back to the $40-$50 sweet spot. I hardly buy games day one anymore because of the price. I don't like to buy used so I always end up getting a game a couple months after release now due to waiting for price drop.

WildArmed4069d ago

Ditto, I picked up games last gen (ps2/xbox) new because they were in the sweet range of 30-40$.

Now they are 60$ and I rarely buy a game on launch anymore. I just keep a 6 month delay on new games, I always have games I want that are much less than 60$ because they were released 6 months ago.

And sometimes you see great deals on amazon and such. I rarely pay the 60$ tag, I don't think I'll ever pay beyond that without some deep thought.

BillySpandex4069d ago

I haven't bought a launch title in months. These days, I generally only buy games that are going on sale. The shift from $50 to $60 has definitely meant less game sales from me, and if it hits the $70 mark, then I probably won't buy new releases.

At least, the back catalogue of PS3 and Xbox games will be cheaper, so all in all, the onus will be on nextgen to entice me to part with my cash.

SOD_Delta4069d ago

If EA (or any other publisher) is going to charge 69.99$ for a game I won't be buying a lot of games day one. But I don't think 70$ will be next gen standard MSRP.

shackdaddy4069d ago

Nope. Especially if they were like this gen. I'll just wait for sales.

Godmars2904069d ago

Considering DLC, you're paying $70+ for a "full" title right now.

And if gamers were $100, as they are in countries other than the U.S., they would still be asking for more money via DLC. as they actually are.

Show all comments (96)
70°

Disney Dreamlight Valley teases part two of paid expansion

Disney Dreamlight Valley devs have officially teased the second part of the paid expansion titled The Spark of Imagination.

70°

Best Stardew Valley Farm Names – 100 Funny, Nerdy, Cute Ideas and More

Starting out a new farm, but need help choosing a name? Check out this article for a 100 farm name ides for Stardew Valley.

190°

Bethesda Needs to Reduce the Gaps Between New Fallout and Elder Scrolls Releases

Waiting a decade for new instalments in franchises as massive as Fallout and Elder Scrolls feels like a waste.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
-Foxtrot13h ago

Microsoft have Obsidian but I feel it's Bethesda who just don't want to play ball as they've always said they want to do it themselves.

Once MS bought Zenimax in 2020 they should have put the Outer Worlds 2 on the back burner, allow Bethesda to finish off its own Space RPG with Starfield (despite totally different tone why have two in your first party portfolio with two developers who's gameplay is a tad similar) and got Obsidian for one of their projects to make a spiritual successor to New Vegas.

When the Elder Scrolls VI is finished Bethesda can then onto the main numbered Fallout 5 themselves.

The Outer Worlds 2 started development in 2019 so putting it on the back burner wouldn't have been the end of the world, they'd have always come back to it once Fallout was done and it would have been nicely spaced out from Starfields release once they had most likely stopped supporting it and all the expansions were released.

If they did this back in 2020 when they bought Zenimax and the game had a good, steady 4 - 5 years development, you might have seen it release in 2025.

We are literally going to be waiting until 2030 at the very earliest for Fallout 5 and all they seem bothered about is pushing Fallout 76.

RaidenBlack11h ago(Edited 10h ago)

Its not just only Todd not playing ball.
Obsidian have made a name for themselves in delivering stellar RPGs, but most famous once have always been sequels/spin-offs to borrowed IPs like KOTOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout: New Vegas, Stick of Truth etc.
Obsidian wants to invest more in their own original IPs like Outer Worlds or Pillars of Eternity with Avowed.
Similar to what Bluepoint & inXile wants to do or Kojima is doing (i.e not involving anymore in Konami's IPs).
So yea, even if New Vegas has the most votes from 3D Fallout fans, Obsidian just wants to do their own thing, like any aspiring dev studio and MS is likely currently respecting that.
But a future Fallout game from Obsidian will surely happen. Founder Feargus Urquhart has already stated an year ago that they're eager to make a new Fallout game with Bethesda, New Vegas 2 or otherwise. Urquhart was the director of the very first 1995's Fallout game after all.
And don't forget Brian Fargo and his studio inXile, as Brian Fargo was the director of Fallout's 1988 predecessor: Wasteland

KyRo7h ago(Edited 7h ago)

Obsidian should take over the FO IP. They're do far better with it than Bethesda who hasn't made a great game for almost 15 years

RaidenBlack1h ago(Edited 1h ago)

@KyRo
So, by 15 years, you mean Fallout 3 was the last great game Bethesda made?
You don't consider Skyrim a good game, which came out 13 years ago?
I'd consider Fallout 4 a pretty decent game as well. It's Story & RPG elements were a bit downgrade from New Vegas but the exploration and shooting on the other hand, were upgrades.
FO76 was disappointing and Starfield could've been better at launch I'll agree.

Duke197h ago(Edited 7h ago)

I disagree. Part of these games is the support for the mod community. If they move to releasing a "next game" every 2 or 3 years, the modding support plummets and the franchises turn into just another run of the mill RPG.

Make the games good enough to withstand the test of time, to keep people coming back to them and expanding on them with mod support.

--Onilink--4h ago(Edited 4h ago)

I dont think anyone is saying they need to come out every 2 years (not to mention almost no game is released that quickly anymore)

By the time Fallout 5 comes out, it will be more than 15 years since Fallout 4 came out (same with ES6 coming out 15 years after Skyrim). Even if you want to use F76 as the metric for the most recent release, that one came out in 2018. It will be a miracle if F5 comes out before 2030

The point is that for a studio that doesnt seem to operate with multiple teams doing several projects at once, that their projects normally take 4-5 years as a minimum, and that now they even added Starfield to the rotation, it becomes a 15+ years waiting period between releases for each series, which doesnt make sense. Imagine that Nintendo only released a mainline Mario or Zelda game every 15 years…

They either need to start developing more than 1 project at a time, let someone else take a crack at one of the IPs or significantly reduce their development times

Duke193h ago(Edited 2h ago)

Why should someone else take a crack at one of the IPs? Look at what happened to Final Fantasy as a recent example - there is pretty clear FF fatigue setting in because they are now pumping out titles in the franchise every few years. Pumping out more games faster doesn't always make a series better.

There are plenty of options to make new games, not just create more titles in the same universe at a faster pace.

-Foxtrot30m ago

"Why should someone else take a crack at one of the IPs"

He's literally just told you why

We're waiting like 15 years before a sequel comes out, it's insane

Skyrim came out in 2011, the next game is expected to come out in 2027 at the earliest so that's 16 years apart while Fallout 4 came out in 2015 and might not release until 2031, again 16 years.

We're fine with Bethesda trying new things and doing new IPs like Starfield but adding a new game to the cycle now means a bigger wait. Also Starfield didn't meet most peoples expectations, can you imagine waiting 15 years or so for a sequel and it's disappointing? It would feel even worse because you would have to wait another 15 years to see if they manage to come back from it.

They need to give it to another developer, we don't need main numbered titles but a spin off of Fallout and Elder Scrolls should be cycled in between the long gaps of the main releases.

Once again you are making out people want these games as quick as possible when all we want is a standard development time of at least 4 years or so rather than waiting 15.

mandf4h ago

Yeah I’m going to say it, who cares about the modding community when making a game? Half the time developers only tolerate modders because they fix there game for them.

Skuletor6h ago

Yeah, let's all advocate for smaller gaps between series' releases, then we'll probably get headlines about how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven. Let them cook.

SimpleSlave4h ago

"how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven" So every Bethesda game then? Got it.

Listen, I would agree if this was about From Software or something, but Bethesda?

🤣

C'mon now. What timeline are you from?

Skuletor2h ago

Think about it, they're already bug filled messes on their current schedule, can you imagine how much worse it would be if they rushed things?

-Foxtrot26m ago

@Skuletor

Who's saying to rush the releases? No one is saying that...

People just don't want to be waiting 15 years for a sequel, they aren't working on the game for that long, you do realise that right? The issue isn't coming down to them working on the game and us "rushing them", it's the fact they are working on other games like Starfield now meaning bigger gaps before they even get started on them.

I bet you any more Elder Scrolls VI only entered full development last year when Starfield was finished despite being announced in 2018.

Duke193h ago

I mean you aren't wrong. People are going to complain about anything

isarai5h ago

Hows about you focus on quality, just a thought 🤷‍♂️

Sciurus_vulgaris4h ago

Bethesda [or Microsoft] would have to reallocate internal and external studios towards fallout and elder scrolls titles. Bethesda has the issue of developing 2 big IPs that are large RPGs on rotation. If you want more Fallout and Elder Scrolls, development will have to be outsourced.

Show all comments (22)