New E3 Dates and Location Revealed

The revamped Electronic Entertainment Expo will be held July 11-13, 2007 in Santa Monica, California, where a number of hotels and the Barker Hangar will host press conferences, smaller meetings, and gameplay demos, the Entertainment Software Association announced today.

Read Full Story >>

The Price Of AAA Games Would Not Be An Issue If Most Actually Delivered

Many AAA games released in the last few years cost the full premium price but don't deliver nearly half as much quality.

Leeroyw15h ago

You disagree with the premise? How? I haven't played many AAA games recently that gave me a very good gaming experience. Except Indies and AA titles.

YourMommySpoils20h ago

Stellar Blade is the only game that delivered to me this year.

VersusDMC19h ago

That and FF7 Rebirth for me so far. 70 price point wise.

Snookies1214h ago(Edited 14h ago)

FF 7 Rebirth is absolutely astounding. Can't even believe that game is real, lol. The only thing that is personally frustrating me is going for that platinum... Those stupid hard mode minigame collectibles are going to make me lose my sanity.

TiredGamer19h ago

In 20 years, a hamburger will cost $50 at McDonalds and gamers the world around will be complaining that new game prices were raised to $80....

TheNamelessOne19h ago

Gamers have been told that things like microtransactions are there to keep the price of games down, yet all we see is developers, more and more, developing these games around egregious microtransactions, yet still raising the price of games.

I get it in free-to-play. I don't understand why more and more "AAA" games are acting like app store releases.

TiredGamer17h ago

See my post below about inflation. Inflation isn't just a magical phenomenon... it's a combination of falling buying power, wage growth, and cost increases. Even still, dollar inflation is definitely NOT the sole culprit in the rising costs of games. Development staff, development times, and overall cost of game production has been on a monumental rise over the years.

What might have been a team of 20-30 people making a AAA game over the course of 12 months in the 32-bit era (selling a game for $50 or $60), has risen to 200-300 people working for 3-5 years. Just looking at basic numbers here, we're talking of real cost increases anywhere from 30 to 50 times higher than they were in the late 90s/early 2000s. That's staggering!!! Game prices haven't even doubled since then, and yet the resources needed to make a game can be 30-50 times higher, not including inflation!

I will always preach perspective on matters. The answers to why developers release remakes, remasters, DLC, microtransactions, and multiple/PC ports are largely all there. I would argue that it's because the price cap of games is so price inelastic explains why companies have shifted to all these other "hidden" fees and practices. You have to make it back somewhere.

senorfartcushion16h ago

That was all a big lie wasn't it.

No game journalists jumped in to try and stop it though.

anast15h ago(Edited 15h ago)


"Game prices haven't even doubled since then, and yet the resources needed to make a game can be 30-50 times higher, not including inflation!"

This means they were grossly over charging their customers for all these years. They wouldn't have been able to stay in business otherwise . It can't be a fair price just now because of inflation now can it. The price hike, in this case, means that the customer is getting grossly overpriced products just like the past, especially with new technology that allows for efficiency, the use of AI, and the use of cheap independent contracting. Not to mention, the customer is getting saddled with 100mil worth of marketing fees. We don't need all of that. It's a hustle not some honest attempt to 'just try to get by because of inflation', businesses don't operate this way. A good business will hustle the socks off their grandma and everyone else's'.

In addition, those hidden fees as you call it are microtransactions, which for SP games the customer is charged indefinitely, because when this happens the game is no longer a game it is a monetization scheme. So, now, we are sold an expensive arcade game that will never be a game. I'm sure you know what I mean. This means the customer is still getting the price hike while not getting he complete product which in this case is a game. It's never black and white like you are trying to make it to be. There is some of the inflation stuff you mentioned, but it's not the whole picture.

DivineHand12512h ago

That $80 price point is likely to happen in 3 years, not 20.

VersusDMC19h ago

The premium price makes sense when switch games looking 2 gens old and wii U ports are accepted at 60$. Single game Ports and handheld games used to have a 40$ cap before the switch. I would charge more if that's accepted.

I don't know why Nintendo isn't brought up when talking about the increased price of games. Like it's crazy that there's controversy or a discussion to be had that Astro bot is 60 when remasters/ports of Luigis mansion 2 and Donkey Kong are 60 and all you hear is little complaining.

shinoff218319h ago

Nintendo is not allowed to be criticized, you know it, I know it. Stop before they get you.

TiredGamer18h ago(Edited 18h ago)

Technically, the price of all games, Switch included, have been dropping over the aggregate. Check out the inflation calculator link - eye-raising stuff.


A $60 Switch game in 2017 would cost $76.90 today. Here's how much $60 US was worth in past years:

2000 = $32.89
2007 = $39.60
2013 = $44.49
2018 = $47.96
2024 = $60.00

I like to approach things with unbiased eyes. it's easy to look at any price increase as an evil occurrence. As a business owner will tell you, cost management is incredibly important to your own survival. Sure, you can eat the cost of rising inflation and rising internal costs to some extent, but eventually you won't have a business left.

Is it not enlightening to understand that the $70 that companies are charging is actually less than what the inflation index is telling you that they logically could be charging (comparing against a $60 game from the start of the Switch generation (2017))?

TheNamelessOne19h ago

So Nintendo should be criticized, alongside Sony. Nintendo doing it is wrong. That does't make it fair that Sony is following their actions.

I think it's ridiculous that we have "remakes" of even the latest of Naughtydog releases, yet we can't get a single new IP since two generations ago.

VersusDMC18h ago

It is fair if a company raises their prices if others are as well. And the problem is that Nintendo isn't criticized as well.

And it's beyond hilarious that you're critizing Sony over Nintendo in regards to new IP. Just proves my point.

senorfartcushion16h ago

In fairness it's usually because once you pay for the game - that's it. You're not having the contents of a storefeont shoved down your throat 24/7 during the playing.

You pay a crappy price for a full game, while the blockbusters on consoles are £$70 for the beginning of the game.

RhinoGamer8818h ago

Some reasons in here changed my buying away from pre-order/day 1 to wait three months for a nice discount and 2-3 patches to deliver on the gameplay.

TiredGamer17h ago

Fair strategy. I can't say that I don't do the same with most games. The reality is that most platforms (except Nintendo) offer steep discounts not long after release.

Show all comments (22)

Microsoft's final non-backwards compatible Xbox 360 sale is a big disappointment

Microsoft's final non-backwards compatible Xbox 360 sale update is now live, and disappointingly, it appears that no new games have been discounted.

Read Full Story >>
cammers19951d ago

They were never obligated to have a sale.

jznrpg16h ago

Nobody is obligated to have a sale but that doesn’t mean it can’t be disappointing.