Just Charge $100 for Games Already, Gaming Industry

With costs for post-launch DLC on the rise and more and more games having season passes attached to them it's clear that the industry wants consumers to be paying more for their games. Maybe it's time they just do away with the season passes and charge for them.

The Stoned Gamer's Dave Walsh takes a look at the industry's love affair with milking money out of gamers.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Thatguy-3101746d ago

See most people won't put up with that. I rather pay 60$ and be given the choice if the post launch DlC is worth the extra bucks.

LOGICWINS1746d ago

$60 is still too much IMO. 30 to 40 bucks is the sweet spot.

AudioEppa1746d ago

I think the sweet spot for AAA to AA is between $25 and $40

Indie games should be no higher than $10

If the game industry move to these prices they would see more sales, the high price games and some of them barely hit 100,000 or 500,000 in sales.

thorstein1746d ago

NFL 2K5 was $19.99 at launch and is still the best NFL game since.

dvewlsh1746d ago


The thing is, publishers are already clearly balking at $60 for AAA games. They aren't going to drop prices on new titles like that any time soon. If they do, expect the games to be more bare bones and the DLC more important.

Army_of_Darkness1745d ago

Charge new games at $100 and I will be one year late to purchase them or when they are 60-80% off.

freshslicepizza1745d ago

they are too afraid to charge more than $60. console makers even have a tough time charging over $400 for the hardware. if you were to adjust by inflation from the nes days we are actually paying less now. meanwhile costs have gone up dramatically. then people wonder why they play it so safe, don't innovate much.

developers can take multiple years to make a game and then low and behold the dlc comes out right away. but it makes perfect sense, you keep the consumer as a customer longer by releasing dlc over time.

BeefCurtains1745d ago

They might never rise above $60. Because of the huge adoption rate for DLC, developers have found a treasure cove right in the gamers wallet.

I bet instead of higher game costs, we start seeing less and less content in the standard game. DLC and microtransactions will be needed more and more to unlock the full game. That's how they keep the game at $60, and make more money than ever.

MysticStrummer1745d ago

"30 to 40 bucks is the sweet spot."

You might as well say free is the sweet spot. In general, more complex hardware means more complex game production which means bigger teams and bigger budgets which means higher game prices. I'm surprised games are still 60 bucks (NA) this generation. If they stay the same next generation I think it will be because more and more people buy digital, and there will be a much bigger push for that to happen.

BG115791745d ago

Even if we pay 100$, we will still have DLC.
The more, the greedier, it's simplest of economist laws...

PSN_ZeroOnyx1745d ago (Edited 1745d ago )

On SNES most AAA games were $80 including FFII, FFIII, Donkey Kong, Batman, Spiderman etc... And I Still bought them new day one.

Neo-Geo games were $200 new, hince one huge reason the platform stayed niche and disappeared.

BG115791744d ago

PSN_ZeroOnyx You can't compare the price tag of those times based on the support, because cartridges had in board hardware tech in them. It was like buying piece of hardware each time you bought a game. You cannot compare the cost of manufacture of a cartridge and a CD/DVD/Bluray. It's one of the reasons why companies opted for this instead of the expensive cartridges...
You should probably not use the old generation to justify todays prices over 60$...

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1744d ago
Takwin1745d ago

I will not pay $100 for a game at any point in the next 10 years.

If games go that high, I will wait a year for the complete edition for half off.

Or buy them used on eBay.

If consoles only go this way, I will shift all of my gaming purchases to Steam and Steam sales. Or Greenmangaming with their constant coupons that make everything on Steam 20-30% off.

Or I will take my purchases to G2A or CDKeys when needed (and I have never been burned by either site).

yellowgerbil1745d ago

I would much rather not invest 100$. If the game sucks it is a much smaller loss, whereas if the game is amazing you get all these extra missions whatnot after the fact that you can buy.
Fallout will be the first and probably only game I will be getting the season pass for, because I KNOW I want it.
Then there is the issue with dev times, do all the dlc in the disc means 1 year more of waiting, hell Bethesda doesn't even know WHAT their dlc will be yet. 7 years is enough, I don't want to wait another for them to get that stuff figured out.

Crazay1745d ago

In Canada we're paying 75+ per game and I'm getting obscenely frustrated by that. To hell with $100 games.

DanteVFenris6661745d ago (Edited 1745d ago )

Our dollar is down or Americas is up. Whichever one it is that is why.

Demobot1745d ago

@Dante - Regardless its still a hard pill to swallow. If this keeps up then this will be my last gen of gaming.

KyRo1745d ago

You'd have to be seriously deluded to think by charging more for games that publishers wouldn't still carry on with season passes and micro transactions. Games here in the UK are already more expensive than last generation in most shops.

If anything I'd want to see a publisher to have the balls to releases a AAA game but for less than what they normally price it at and see if sales go up Or remain the same.

MadBadger1745d ago

I know exactly what you mean, but I just want to play devils advocate for a minute here.

Games today are actually cheaper than previous generations, and I don't mean Xbox 360 and PS2, but rather back to the SNES and Megadrive days. Mechwarrior cost me £59.99 on the SNES about 20 years ago, and adjusted for inflation that's way above what we pay now, and hell, even not adjusted for inflation it is still more than most of us pay. So in the grand scheme of things games are actually cheaper than they used to be and (obviously) that is due to adoption rate.

And I an't remember where the article was, but the pricing the game cheaper thing has been tried and has failed, as then the perception is "why is this so cheap? Must be lower quality", which is actually a pretty standard problem across more than just video game, perceived value.

Anyway, I actually do agree with you but wanted to highlight these points.

JudgmentJay1745d ago

If you live in Norway which I do, that's sadly already what you have to pay for a new game..

Kingdomcome2471745d ago (Edited 1745d ago )

In no way is this a good idea. Most games, dlc included, still don't hit the $100 price point. Software sales would drop dramatically. It may seem like a good way to give devs/pubs incentive to release a meatier product up front, and to stop gouging us on dlc/cut content, but we all know that they would still do the same thing at that price point. It's for the most part a matter of greed, and greed doesn't stop reaching for more, it knows no bounds. The publishers would never be satisfied. At least now the customer has a say as to whether or not they're willing to be taken advantage of and gouged.

1745d ago
+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1744d ago
1746d ago Replies(3)
Relientk771746d ago

If games become $100 then I'll just wait for price drops and sales. Not buying them day one then

ZaWarudo1746d ago

No. $60 is already too much and i rarely buy a game at full price because of that.

isarai1745d ago

I really hate this myth that game development has gotten more expensive, from my experience it really hasn't, it's just that the biggest title are bigger than ever and so is the push for marketing, but anything lower than AAA is the same if not cheaper, hell you can literally develop full games for free now with some of the best engines in the industry. Yes graphics and scale have ramped up exponentially but so has the tools to create them. Even at $60 games seem to be making profit just fine including AAA titles

uth111745d ago

You can't make a game anybody would buy for free, and its only "free" if your time isn't worth any money

isarai1742d ago

The majority of minecraft and half of Journey's development time was done without pay. Money at this point for an independent game is really only for middleware (which you can create on your own with enough programing skills) and to pay people for working, but if they're willing to work for free it's not necessary (say it's a bunch of friends just trying to make something awesome)

Saying games cost money is like saying making a good movie cost money, it really only depends on how skilled and resourceful you are, you can tell a good story with enough skill with nothing more than a camera phone and some time just like you can create a fun game with enough knowledge and determination (it's certainly harder as everything will need to made from scratch when you got no budget)but it's certainly doable. Hell tetris was made as nothing more than a guys way to test PCs using nothing more than his programming skills, didn't cost shit.

dvewlsh1745d ago

Eh, marketing is a part of development at this point.

A game like Witcher 3 wasn't super expensive in comparison, but the marketing costs were a ton. Destiny wasn't uber-expensive to make, but the marketing was insane.

That's what it takes to make AAA games now, might as well lump it in as it is indeed a part of the cost of making that game.