Would you pay $100+ for a blockbuster game?

Cnet writes: "As we continue to monitor our buying behavior during the recession, something we can rely on during these difficult times is that video games will be affordable. For $50 to $60, we can derive hours and hours of entertainment from a single title. It's generally not a bad deal, in most gamers' eyes.

But what if a blockbuster title that took years and millions of dollars to develop was priced at $100 or more? Would the price make us think twice about buying it?"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Natsu X FairyTail3119d ago

depends. if its like Guitar hero with the drums kit etc I would .

if its only for a game without anything eff outta hea.

Muppetmeat3118d ago

No... but many folks are after subscription fees anyway.

nycredude3118d ago (Edited 3118d ago )

I probably would, but only on very rare occasions when the games are just so good I can't pass it up. Here is a short list of games this gen so far that I would have paid $100 for. I hope the developers don't read this.

Uncharted 2 (probably UC1 also)
Demon's Souls
Oblivion GOTY Edition
FF13 and versus (if they are any good)

That is all I could think of for now. Feel free to add to the list if you want!

Edit: Forgot a few
Heavy Rain (loved their other game farenheight)

a_squirrel3118d ago

They seemed to manage pricing Killzone 2(4 years in development) the average $60, so why not others?

dirthurts3118d ago

are worth 100 bucks.
Sorry, they just are not. MGS4 is a good game, but I wouldn't pay more than 30 for it.

Rockox3118d ago

Fallout 3 GOTY Edition (not released yet, obviously)

poindat3118d ago (Edited 3118d ago )

No. Period. The end.

Here's how you should think about it: If you buy a game for $100, you are paying for a game what you should be paying for a full console, the PS2.

If you were stupid enough to buy MW2 for $149, you could have bought a PS2 and 2 or 3 of the best games it has to offer. Instead you got a game and some cheap goggles. Way to go.

Game prices are (especially in this economy), expensive enough as is. I rarely even pay $60, unless it's a must-have.

nycredude3118d ago (Edited 3118d ago )


That is your opinion and i respect that. However I've been a huge fan of the MGS series and have played and followed all of them so it's a no brainer for me and I am sure countless other fans feel the same.

That being said, you don't think Demon's Souls or Oblivion GOTY is worth $100? Those two games will easily eat up 60 to 100 hours each, which is more than 10 times the amount of gameplay than your average single player game these days (i am not much of a mp player)!?

poopsack3118d ago

i wouldnt, but how about the other way around, sh!tty games should be released at lower prices.

JsonHenry3118d ago


And oh yeah - NO!!!

Rockox3118d ago (Edited 3118d ago )

I paid full price for Rock Band 2 (not the bundle, just the game) and that was money well spent. The way I see it, the game has paid itself back simply based on the amount of nights it has been used as entertainment at parties. If it had been $100, as much as that would've been a gouge to my wallet at the time, it's totally justified because I've got my money's worth, and then some.

Christopher3118d ago

Would have to depend on many variables.

How many hours of gameplay can I get out of it in solo play?
What type of (advanced) multiplayer options are there?
How diverse is the gameplay so it won't seem repetitive and will offer tons of customization options in regards to abilities?

dirthurts3118d ago

I too am a huge Metal Gear fan. I have them all(metal gear solid I own on disk on on PS3 download). Dating all the way back to the NES (excluding snakes revenge).
I do not however feel any of them are worth 100 bucks.
Especially Metal Gear 3 snake eater which is my least favorite.
My two favorites are Metal Gear Solid, and Metal Gear Solid 2.
For them to justify the 100 price tag, it would have to be 40 plus hours of full amazement. It would have to have great multiplayer with free DLC.
But that's just me. I'm pretty picky about where my money goes. I know a good value when I see it.
Considering Metal Gear solid 4 sales for 30 bucks new, I'm assuming a lot of people agree with me when I say it's worth about that. If people where spending 60 bucks on it, it would still be selling for that.

ABizzel13118d ago

Many of you us purchase DLC for our games, and how much do you think you end up paying for the game after buying new maps, and everything that comes with DLC?

My guess is close to $80. So what will stop you from buying a game for $100 like Modern Warfare 2 if it had a 12 - 15 hour single player/co-op campaign, 20 maps, separate 12 - 15 hour co-op mode, and some other new mode that revolutionized games. What's the difference?

If you buy DLC then you are on your way to spending $100 on games. The $100 charge cuts out the middle man of packing in DLC later on and stops you from thinking your getting more which is a god and bad thing. DLC tricks you into going back to the game, and if it's all there to begin with than, people may not go back after they're done.

nycredude3118d ago (Edited 3118d ago )


I didn't say all the mgs games were worth $100. However I thought MGS4 was worth it, since it pretty much end the entire Solid Snake saga that I have followed for so long. I need closure and to miss out on that because of an extra $40 would have been a shame.

And like Abizzle said below, most of gamers these days who pay for dlc are already spending close to $100 per game. DLC is the developer's way to charge $100 for their games without us noticing.

BTW MGS4 for $30 is not only a good value but a freaking steal. It cost Kojima $50,000,000 to make!

Genesis53118d ago (Edited 3118d ago )

Guess I wounldn't be getting alot of day 1 purchases at that price. I would wait awhile tell they are forced to lower the price.

It won't help them anyway. What they make for charging so much they will lose in total sales. The only way to do it is make the game good so everyone wants to buy it. I'm afraid a $100 price tag would scare alot of people away.

dirthurts3118d ago

I have purchased all of Gears of War 2's DLC. That probably puts me right at 100 bucks. So I guess I could see that.
But that is with the DLC. Not just the initial game.
Now if Metal Gear had some great DLC it would probably be a good deal as well(I haven't checked in a long time so I don't know what they have).
So yeah, maybe under the right circumstances I would spend the 100 bucks on a game, But I wouldn't do it all up front.

GOW2 is the only game I've purchased DLC for. Mainly because it's the only mutliplayer I play enough to justify it.

Raf1k13118d ago (Edited 3118d ago )

DLC isn't just a way for devs to get us to pay close to $100.
It is also used to increase a products life span as is the case with products such as the PSP and iPhone. I remember my Business Studies teacher telling us how companies wait for sales to start to decline (or drop to a certain point) before introducing an upgraded product to rekindle the interest in that product.

When you play a multiplayer game you end up playing through nearly all the maps and sticking to the ones you like. If a dev was to release extra maps on day one and charge $10 more it wouldn't really increase the lifespan of the product. You'd still end up playing through all the maps + extras and then stick to the ones you like most. In which case you would get bored of a game almost as fast as you would have without the extra maps.

People can buy a game like MW2 at the higher price if they want but they will end up paying for the DLC as well anyway.

edit: it's not quite as simple as that though since there are so many things to take into account but I think I made my point reasonably well.

The Lazy One3118d ago

for steel battalion maybe :-X

Syronicus3118d ago

Kudos. GG makes the best looking game for a console this gen and it is priced at 60 bucks. They spent 4 years making it and it was released at 60 bucks. If games like Modern Warfare 2 come out at anything more than 60 bucks then it is only evident of the publisher raping the consumer and should be punishable by the consumer not buying the product.

GameGambits3118d ago

Aren't games already for some people that much anyway? It's called DLC...Draining Lucrative Cash. They just funnel it out of you as much as they can.

starvinbull3118d ago

Look at it another way. Which games that are out now with no extra peripheral device would you pay £70-$100 for? I can't think of one.

ChozenWoan3118d ago (Edited 3118d ago )

It's bad enough this gen saw a $10 spike out the gate.

If the gaming industry really wants to make money they need to start pricing games correctly. First thing we need is to go back to $50 for AAA games. With the economy being as it is, people are quicker to spend $100 vs $120 for two games. At $60 a pop, each games starts looking more like a phone or utility bill than an entertainment investment.

The second thing the industry needs is a 3 tier pricing policy. $50 for AAA, $40 for AA games, and $30 for Avg games. Avg games would be like your movie tie in games, AA would be your run of the mill games that we are not sure will be major hits or miss, and of coarse AAA would be the mega hits we have all come to know and love.

Lately, I've found myself hitting the bargain bins to catch games on sale as I don't believe that even half of the games released today are worth $30 bucks, let alone a full price of $60. Plus, I've put myself on a budget of $30 bucks a month for gaming, so I will only allow myself to get a new release once every 2 months. Of coarse I'll go over that if I can catch a steal on a classic such as HS or UC1, but those are must haves for my collection.

dirthurts3118d ago

Are still 50 or less. And the Pc has more exclusives.

sunil3118d ago

10 years ago the number of gamers were MUCH less than today. Most games make up for the so called increased cost in development effort by increase in the number of sales !!!

Even if it was MSG4 or UC 1/2 or KZ2 or God of War 3 or Gears of War 2 or Alan Wake of Splinters Cell

No way am i paying more than $60 !

raztad3118d ago (Edited 3118d ago )


WTF? testing waters to increase game prices? I'm not paying a single extra buck. 60$ for a game is high enough. Any game getting a higher tag price will be banned from my must have list immediately.

JoySticksFTW3118d ago

The FFV & VI were like $80 - $90...

And they were f'n worth it! But they are the exception.

It's easy to say that I'd pay $100 to play MGS4 now after I played the game, but I don't think that I would have made the leap if I didn't play it first.

Demo's should be required if games were that expensive

bnaked3118d ago

Uncharted 2 and GT5..

Upcoming Milestones :-)

DaTruth3118d ago (Edited 3118d ago )

An exclusive full Bluray release of GTA5 in San Andreas or any place that size. I would pay $100 for that! Obviously, with better everything(graphics and attention to detail) than GTA4 and much more content.

Off/Topic: I was playing GTA4 today and that game is hard to look at after playing Infamous. Infamous graphics wipes the floor with it!

Phantasy Star for Sega Master system was $100 when it released. Although, I was too young to know about currencies back then, but most games were $79.99CAD back then. 1988 maybe?

bnaked3118d ago

More attention to detail as GTA4??? Nearly impossible..

Myze3118d ago


Well, the old SNES (and NES) games were a little different, because the term Suggested Retail Price wasn't the same as it is now. Video games weren't extremely popular like they are now, and other than a few select stores (like Babbages (are they even still around?) and EB games), certain games wouldn't be available, guaranteed, anywhere else. So, the stores would hike up the price because they knew they could. I remember getting FFVI and IV, both, for about $50 each, because I was able to find them at Toys R Us, where they followed the normal retail prices. However, I paid $91 for Chrono Trigger from Babbages, because I couldn't find it anywhere else nearby. I imagine it just depends on where you lived and if the stores nearby carried that particular game.

Nowadays it's a lot different because store chains such as Gamestop and Wal Mart are absolutely everywhere, and they ship the same stuff to each store, even if one is in NYC and the other is in some 5000 population town. Not to mention, it's easy to just order stuff online if you aren't near any of those stores.

+ Show (28) more repliesLast reply 3118d ago
presto7173118d ago

If the price ever got to 100 bucks for one game, then I guess I'd have to go find some other way to spend my time...

and money.

El Botto3118d ago


If they priced it at 100 bucks, Ill sit and wait untill the stores offer it for 30 bucks.

wohoo3118d ago

European gamers already do.

Dark-vash3118d ago

you have said it all...

Avenged Sevenfold3118d ago

nope never. if games started being 100+ then all i'd do is rent and only buy a game i REALLY NEED.