The next generation of consoles is looming, and that means a whole new era of video gaming goodness awaits on the PS4 – but will game prices go up again? Daily Reaction’s Seb and Dan answer Greg Etopio’s community question. -PSLS
No. I suspect next games will look similar to how games like say crysis 3 or far cry 3 on PC look maxed out or close to it. If those games cost $60 now I see no reason why that should change.
they already milk us for dlc some more than others .
Can't argue with that. But I dunno...can you imagine paying $70 + tax for a game at retail (not including dlc)? Not sure many people could get behind that. If that were to happen I don't think I would be doing many day 1 purchases next gen. That or I'd just stick to PC exclusively and steam sales lol.
Not more than 500 bucks !
I'd pay $70 if these games came with a season pass for all future DLC.
1. They already charge $90 when you buy the DLC. 2. If they increase the base price that's fine with me, but i want the DLC to become less expensive to make up for that. 3. If both base price and dlc prices increase then i will not buy as many games or will find a less expensive hobby. 4. I vote to get rid of second hand games/used games before raising prices and i vote with my wallet.
In the end it will be the same as it was for this generation. The market will decide what the actual cost of the games will be. If games come out at $70, while possibly a fair price given rising costs, the market may not be able to sustain that price because people may not be willing to pay that much. If a majority of the people accept the increased price then expect a majority of games to be priced at this point, just like it's been this gen. If there is a significant decline in game sales because of the increased price, which is reasonable to assume, then the publishers will rethink that price, and likely development on those titles will change, or other methods will be devised to recoup more of the initial investment. The $60 games were pushing it this gen...$50 seemed to be a sweet spot in the prior gen...and well $60 was only $10 more, despite development costs rising significantly compared to previous gens. That significant rise won't exist this time, although there will be an increase in dev costs, just not as much respective to this gens shift.
If they do, I'm out!
Yeah but.... Lets see... Dead Space 3: 60$ + 11 DAY-ONE DLCs (110$ combined). THATS 170$ DAMN IT, expensive as hell.
No next-gen games will have next gen engines. Current PC games are just HD 60 FPS versions of console games with better textures and lighting. Next-gen engines will make console games look fairly different than current PC games.
you are aware that next generation engines are built from the ground up on a PC first right? Okay I was just checking.
unfortunately i think ps4 games prabably be around 69.99 79.99 if games come close like CRYSIS 3 I feel no one is willing to pay 70 or 80.00 for one game. 160(80) for 2 games?? 140 (70) for 2 games?
If Sony/MS wanted to go all digital in the future they would add $10 to the disk versions and make the digital version around $15/$20 cheaper to encourage DD adoption.
Great thinking. But I still enjoy my physical copy. It will be hard to take away from that without leaving *me* feeling empty.. quite literally.
Test Drive Unlimited was $40 on day one. And a great $40 at that
if the price does go up, I will have to be even more selective when it comes to buying games.
I think games could go up $5 without it being too big of a problem.
Appropriate username for that comment :P
No! They're already expensive enough compared to movies, iPhone games, etc.
Games used to cost more before actually (account for inflation). But they'll have very little luck convincing the masses that a raise would be fair. Plus as mentioned above already, they have to compete against other industries including the mobile gaming sector.
True, some games were actually quite expensive on release. They also fluctuated somewhat depending on memory prices or tech built into the cartridges and stuff. One major difference though is that there wasn't an accepted MSRP that existed across the board for all games. A games length and quality were often reflected in the actual price of the game, outside a few exceptions of course. This just isn't the case anymore, and again, outside of some exceptions, all games are priced the same, even though it's obvious they didn't cost anywhere near as much to produce. I like Sony's move with Sly Cooper being reflective of actual dev costs for the game. It shows that they want to sell the game and make a modest profit, instead of gouging the consumer up front. They also know that given the DLC stuff for it that they can make a better profit if more people actually have the game. Hell, this tactic is obvious in PS+ instant game collection, as some 3rd parties are willing to give their game away for free in hopes of DLC revenue, after all some revenue is better than none. Consumers can be savvy creatures, and it's best to not disillusion them in the short term to ensure long term success.
NOOOO...... Games are to expensive now. I'm paying $64 for a new game plus DLC. I think that games should be $30 seeing as we end up buying the rest of it thru DLC.
It won't happen right away. Wait until there is a large user base of 720 and PS4 owers and then do it. Better yet, let Capcom decide when games should be $70 each. First show me these improvements that more expensive games will bring. Wait, um, maybe a note to publishers: make three versions of each of your games. $50 $60 and $70 I know that last part will never fly.
UH hell no, isnt $60 already asking to much especially when you consider that we dont even get a full game nowadays.
Sometimes it seems like they are doing everything that they can to kill the industry.
Yes because I like to spend more money on games than I have to.
Before i buy the ps4 if the games are indeed $70. I'm not going to waste my time and just go to pc gaming.
Nope. It cost a lot more to make Avatar than Atonement, but it cost me the same to get in to see them at the cinema. Price of entry should have nothing to do with the cost of the end product. A film is a film and a game is a game.
Ugh just like how crappy games come out with a $60 price tag too. I'm looking at all those crappy movie to game adaptations. Nowadays though games have been coming out in tiers, such as Vita games. Some are $40 and others $50.
@Krew Yeah, I like the tiered structure a lot more than $60 across the board. However, a while back one publisher(can't remember who) said that they believed when people saw a game priced lower than others then they immediately though it to be a inferior product. While I don't necessarily think this myself, I do think that that perception does exist. On the other hand I felt that that statement taken by itself was just a cop-out, and most games should have been priced based on their dev costs and quality, as well as priced better for their intended market. I'm interested to know how Sly Cooper's price cut affected sales. It was pretty significant, and was pretty surprising given that a lot of people were anticipating the game. If it received very good sales then that could pave the way for better pricing tiers in the future.
Since they are all going to be on Blu Ray and it isn't super new tech anymore, games should remain the same price that they are right now. Funny thing is, I actually remember paying more for games on the N64 than I do right now, Jet Force Gemini was like $70...
Why? Most games now cost 110 dollars to get all of the content, why do they need to raise the entrance fee even more? Makes no sense. 60 dollars + 15 dollar DLC (5 or more times) = way too much as is. And yet they cry about sales on a daily basis.
The only way I see the price going up is if games from these next consoles cost devs more to create & since pc games already are a step ahead of these new consoles in all around stats & have games already being created for it & price isnt changing then i dont see why the price would even go up at all. That is why dlc is there for devs to make extra cash on top of the money we already spent buying their games. Edit: If devs want to really get their money, they should try an create their games knowing what made their game successful in the first place. Im talking to u Capcom with RE6 which was a disappointment in my opinion. Too much action & not even a scary game anymore. Heck fallout 3 was scarier lol.
They should cost less if they implement used game blocking technology
Should? No. Will? Possibly.
No, they're still using Blu-ray which has come down in price since PS3 was first released so if anything it should be cheaper. Staying the same is no problem either tho
The prices should be a little higher than rental prices. That's basically what we're getting given the state of control over software this gen. The terms and conditions are pretty clear on what video games should be worth to the consumer. Read them.
If publishers had any sense they would be stressing the tools used to make games. I won't pay more than $60 and based on the number of people moaning about blocking used games many other won't either. Publishers might price themselves out of the market if they get too greedy.
I sure as hell hope not. Lower prices would equal a larger amount of purchases, which would ultimately equate to more money for the developer, one would hope. It's better to have 5 people buy your game at $40 than to have 2 people buy your game at $60.
Not necessarily true. Take this overly simplified example for instance. Say the game cost them $30 per unit sold to produce, then they receive a profit of $50 for 5 copies sold at $40. But they receive $60 profit for 2 copies sold at $60. Factoring in things like distribution, packaging costs, etc, can mean even more profit at that $60 cost, since it would cost them less to move less units. Some of this varies, given that dev costs are fixed and not really a per unit thing, but the principle still remains. It's a pretty fundamental part of retail economics.
the only right anwser here is no! so anyone who did not say no are wrong.
Personally i think game prices should go down say £25-£30 the reason i say this people will buy more games also make them cheap enough and people will be less likely to pirate games as a new copy is cheap enough
Make games to expensive and piracy will increase and the whole industry will suffer then.
Although I'm against piracy but I do agree with your statement,people(especially teenagers) want to be able to afford the games they want to play and enjoy,raising the cost of games will only hurt the gaming industry in return.
and their parents xD
I'd like to think that games should be priced based on the cost of development and fair pricing that allows developers to make a profit out of every sale (they have to make sequels and other games with that money) without mercilessly savaging our wallets. Honestly, I'd be interested to know as to how much a game developer would price his/her own game as opposed to the corporation that's publishing it. I'd also like to know how they come up with their pricing.
If they do end up costing more than current games then I'll just wait for the price to drop. No big deal to me.
Watch what happens when you price games at 70 dollars. They will shelf rot until they are priced appropriately. There is no way that every game released on PS3/360 were 60 dollar games either. The market bore that out and many ended up more than 1/2 off their 'asking' price. Discount bins are the best.
Should a Ferrari cost more than a Civic? Performance and quality should determine cost for NEW games. Remakes are a separate issue.
I say they will cost more eventually. What gamers don't understand is that they only reason why games were supposedly cheaper back then was partly because people made less money and had less disposable income. They're just looking at yesterday's prices by today's standards. And by the way, this generation sold more games and generated more revenue than any previous generation. It doesn't look like the mass market is really that bothered by the $60 price tag.
Games should be going down in price, not rising. Thankfully the used game market has saved me hundreds of dollars.
Since when have games ever gone down in price? I'm surprised that they're not $70 already. Back in the 16-bit era, $70 video games were common. Not necessarily the norm, but still. Few games sold for less than $50 retail. Unsurprisingly, the only people complaining about rising game prices are those who didn't start playing video games until the PS1 came out.
I hope not
I think we have reached a time where sony/microsoft should be able to produce a console that can improve the graphics by a pretty decent margin and still cost as much if not a little more than the 360/ps3
Gamer : No Shareholder : Yes
Smart shareholder: No
no, due to the fact that games arent that great considering most of them are just part 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. or they are like 1.5 instead of 2. Then theres the fact we already pay 60, and then get sometimes lame add on content that shoulda been in the game in the first place, but thats how they make money. games will stay at 60, there already making mad money for garbage.
Digital releases should help procure the cost. I'd buy a ps4 with a 1TB hard drive. I'd buy 1st day on games that I feel are worth my money. There is no reason why digital should cost as much as retail when overhead is dramatically reduced.
When and IF they do, then I'll be officially out of gaming.
No. People make plenty of profit on a number of current gen games and they don't always sell above a million or 2. Look at Infamous 2. Many people thought it did badly but Sony bought SP right after its release so it must've done ok. Rayman Origins sold enough for a sequel.
No, just make them better so they sell more.