Barlog: I Prefer an Initial Increase in Next-Gen Game Prices Over Cash-Grab Microtransactions

God of War director Cory Balrog has taken to Twitter to comment on the rumored looming next-gen game prices increase.

[BlackIceJoe]

I prefer neither. Plus why do game developers think they have a right to increase the price of games?

I don't see Blu-Ray movies increasing in price. I've seen it for years that game developers think it is fine to keep raising the price and let me tell you it isn't alright.

I remember when games were 50, then 60 and now they think they're entitled to 70, no they are not. Plus I guarantee you if they start selling games for 70, these thieves will still sell microtransactions.

The one thing these developers that think raising the price is fine, need to understand people will be more picky about what games to buy. I can easily see people being less likely to try an experimental game over some thing they know they'll enjoy.

Plus people will be buying more open world RPGs than ever before, because the games like Elder Scrolls can easily last you over a thousand hours of gameplay, so no one will buy a five hour game for 70 dollars.

Also with the Coronavirus, people already are having to make hard choices on what to buy and I can easily see a higher price point keep people from buying a PS5 or Xbox Series X any time soon, so adding more expensive games to buy is a really stupid move, on the game industries part.

[ColdSin]

Detailed games (which everybody enjoys these days and go for) require bigger budgets. Bigger budgets require bigger fundings. Bigger fundings require costlier prices. If the cycle is not completed, game development for detailed games is unsustainable. Sony's ex exec have already discussed this a while ago and his solution was less detailed games (instead of increased pricing).

[morganfell]

There really is nothing we can do about it. Gamers aren't going to take a stand. I won't even pretend as come this fall when the games launch I will be forking over my money.

[FlavorLav01]

Not necessarily less detail, shorter quality experiences. Instead of 40-60+ hour games, Shawn Layden mentioned having more 12-25hr games w/ high replayability but with shorter development periods of 3-4yrs max instead of 5-6 year periods. That way we’d get more games out during the generations. I happen to agree with him, I get exhausted playing one game for 100s of hrs. I like the variety and if the game is good I’ll play it many times over still!

[anonymousfan]

@morganfell I'll probably have to pay 100$ or more per game here in 🇨🇦 and I agree... I'll probably swallow the pill and buy games still... But you can bet I'll be picky as hell and I'll buy physical just to resell any disappointing game.

[rainslacker]

Perhaps you can offer up some details and citation on what the average AAA game production budget is.

Seems instead of just parroting what the publishers are saying, who have their own motivations, we should be asking to hear what the average game production budgets are nowadays. I've heard them say that game prices have gone up for well on 15+ years now. What I haven't heard is how much they've gone up. What I have heard is how much revenue they're bringing in, and how many copies they're selling. Nothing suggests that many of these games aren't making money.

Investors do want to make more, and a higher price may be what's required to make that happen....that whole, "SP games are difficult" thing Spencer was talking about. But, I'd rather publishers not just bullsh*t the community, and be upfront about their motivations. People will still want the games.

[indysurfn]

Wow this board sounds JUST LIKE IT DID when EA started talking about how Micro transactions are the future...Resistance is futile....just give up and except it........oh wait is this EA....AGAIN! Dont be so quick to give up...a dn repeat corporate talking points WORD FOR WORD because you read an article. Think about this BOTH Microsoft and Sony have promisssed that. Games are suppose to be EASIER to develop coming next gen....and faster to get up and running. on all platforms....EA tried $70 dollars 7 years ago, and LOST. Stop drinking the flouride

[RememberThe357]

I don't really give a sht what developers think about pricing. I'll spend what I think the value of the game is. If I have to wait for that price than so be it.

[Marquinho]

Publishers that still do microtransactions will still do with or without a price increase.

[Yppupdam]

Sure... profits from the gaming industry still eclipse the movie and music industry combined. but, they are hurting....and need more money......well, You can empty your wallet into those super profitable publishers coffers, I'm sure they appreciate your sacrifice...with higher prices and even more micro-transactions.

[agent4532]

Most games today lack free unlockables, free videogame content and modes (you can buy a single player mode and the like). Interestingly, the gameplay mechanics have not changed since the PS2 era.

[garos82]

they are getting cheaper than ever to make mate. Pay attention to more efficient technologies out there. Most of the budgets in game making goes into marketing anyways so spare with the bigger budget nonsense

[cooperdnizzle]

They said nothing about detail decreases, the opposite in fact.. They did say making games shorter but packing more of a punch with more detail and animation etc etc. I’m an adult now so I’m okay with. Also fine with super long rpgs for certain experiences.

I think games should stay right where they are at. It’s simple business. Fine ways to cut cost else where before trying a price hike. I’ve also read plenty of developers and creators stating that this gen should take less man power to develop because of the speed you can load in assets, change on the fly and load and get into your game. Also debugging will take far less time not to mention the fact that they are still using the same architectural system.

[Obscure_Observer]

Plus I guarantee you if they start selling games for 70, these thieves will still sell microtransactions.

Indeed.

[kayoss]

Yes they will. But is it their fault that the consumer spend money on microtransactions? If there are willing buyers out there, theres will be someone making it to sell it to those buyers. So blame the consumers not the developers. Im against microtransactions, but its up to me to make sure i dont support this type of practices.
Its easy to lay blame on others because it hard to believe that youre at fault.

[Silly gameAr]

Yeah, all of those Microtransactions in God of War was horrible.

[Rachel_Alucard]

There's always going to be willing buyers because if even one whale decides to spend thousands on currency, he already cancelled out thousands and thousands of people who said no. The profit margins are ridiculous so it's impossible to just completely stop.

[RgR]

@kayoss

Yes it is their fault because game design can be manipulative and some succumb to that manipulation.

MTX use phsychological triggers to incentivize players. Add on top game design that pushes the player in that direction and yes it is 100% the devs fault.

[rainslacker]

Must be that time of the year where I actually agree with you for once.

People will pay the higher prices, and people that buy MT will still do so. Publishers aren't going to forgo one revenue stream just because they are getting more upfront. They'll just add on more to what they make up front.

Without fail, publishers have proven they aren't interested in just giving a good product at a fair price. They'll try to maximize potential revenue, and give lesser products to those who don't spend as much.

Generally speaking of course. Some publishers aren't that bad, and obviously not all games have MT.

[cooperdnizzle]

Kayoss. That’s just like saying don’t blame the drug dealer it’s the people who buy it. Well if it wasn’t offered in the first place, and it is pretty much illegal and unethical and some greedy business suit didn’t want more money at whatever cost, we wouldn’t have them in the first place.... It’s manly kids who buy these things and uneducated parents who let it happen.

I hate when people take the side of Corp greed, and support destroying my hobby and many others. Gaming since I was 4 years old. I’ll keep fighting for my favorite past time. Also they have done things like this in the past and the game industry almost went belly up. Maybe you want that but I’m good. I’ll take fair practice and honest business. Watch get Greedy in any business and watch it go belly up.

[kayoss]

Did you compared movie blu rays to video games disks? You know what the difference is right? Most movies make their money from theater releases before they are released on discs. Video games dont have that luxury. Developers have every right to raise the price of games because games are getting more expensive to make. We want games with great graphics and that cost money. So youre willing to demand stuff but dont want to pay for it? You also need to take inflation into consideration. for the past 10 years, everything went up in prices, games hasnt.
Remember, not all studios and developer have microtransactions and those studios are suffering because games are getting more expensive to make. Take God of War for instance, it was rumored to cost up to $44 million to make.

[RgR]

Just selling 1million copies covers those costs and more.

Game costs have not gone up. Production costs go up willingly. With it comes the possibility of higher earnings.

[Posterboy39]

Why ppl keep saying prices of video games never went up they did go up from 39.99 to 59.99 from ps2 to ps3

[thejigisup]

I remember when a gallon of milk was 1.32 in 1970 I just paid 3.89. I should stop buying milk bc the milk barons are greedy.

[Tapani]

Haha... Sadly, milk is not a long-term investment! Neither are games, to be honest.

[rainslacker]

I can usually get a gallon of milk for less than $2. Granted, it's sold that cheap as a loss leader product at Wal-Mart, but still.

In any case, the cost of game production hasn't risen significantly since last gen. The market has increased by huge numbers. It's easier to make a profit on a game nowadays than it was at the start of last gen. It's not as simple as looking at inflation, nor even production cost increases, because there are a lot of factors which go into pricing games....and the biggest factor is publishers wanting to maximize the return on their investment.

[kayoss]

@rainslacker,
Yes what youre saying is partially true, however. Youre forgetting one big factor. releasing a game, especially a new IP is a risk. You dont know if you can recoup your money back on a game. Youre looking at marketing expense, publisher expense, licensing fee, etc... so the "cost" of making a game is not always black and white. Every developers knows that releasing a game is a gamble. Thats why when a game fails, its a major blow to the studio.

[Yppupdam]

Your what they call a sucker, But, I'm glad you exist, because you can take the full price hit and I will just sit back and grab games used, at a discount or even wait till the GOTY with all the dlc and add ons drop for cheap. I'm patient, and I am not so fooled to believe what some greedy publisher that can make anywhere from 500mil to a cool billion on a game with the way games are priced now and can still cry and get suckers to carry water for them.

[kayoss]

@yppup
Im a sucker? Let me ask you this, you own your own busy or do you work for someone? You know when you work for someone, youre "Carrying their water for them" right? i own my own business and dental practice. But like you, i dont buy games when its full price. But i still wont go against developers raising the prices on games. I know how inflation work because i own my own business. Yes, corporation make millions and maybe billions. But you need to consider what studios youre referring to. Not all studios are Multi million dollar studios, not all studios can afford to make AAA games and charge their consumer $30 per game. If you think inflation is an excuse to raise prices, you need to go educate yourself in economics. Good luck to you if you ever own a business.

[Gameseeker_Frampt]

@BlackIceJoe

"I don't see Blu-Ray movies increasing in price" Have you actually looked at the prices for 4k Blu-ray movies compared to Blu-ray? How about the fact that Blu-ray movies cost more than DVDs?

Gamers have already spoken with their wallets and have shown that cost plays very little in the decision to buy a new game. Almost every new retail game in the last 12 months that cost less than $60 (due to lower production values and less advertising) sold only a fraction of $60 games.

[edwardmde]

Exactly right. Exact same format, yet the latest Star Wars movie in the UK is £12.50 on Amazon. The 4K version is £25. It’s easy to understand why.

[Batnut00]

“Plus why do game developers think they have a right to increase the price of games? “
Because they make the games, And Blu-Rays and games are not even remotely the same thing, the movie is already there while developers pour years into bringing that shit to life. Now obviously screw MTX of course, but the entitlement in this post is shitty.

[Yppupdam]

You used the magic word and invalidated you point. "entitled" is NOT what gamers are, THEY ARE CUSTOMERS, You have to EARN a customers business. You don't earn a customers business buy selling them low quality products, charging too much for a product or calling the customer "entitled" when they don't like some aspect of the product that you are trying to sell them. Granted, you are not the Publisher or developer (as far as I know) but, you sure are carrying water for them.

[Germaximus]

What? Bluray movies launched at $30 while DVDs launched at $20.

[Shadowsteal]

Also inflation is a factor. $60 in 2006 is valued at $76~ today. So a price hike to $70 is more than warranted.

[Minute Man 721]

Wages barely moved, that's the real problem

[Tapani]

Maybe you remember games were 50 US dollars in the 80s and 90s, but I remember many new games (not all) were also equivalent to 80 Euros (100 USD at that time) in some scandinavian countries, not too far from that in Germany, France and UK. Not to mention the games that weren't even available in the region, imported games could cost even more (we didn't get all games in Europe in the 90s.) And if you think I'm complaining, ask people who live in South America/Middle East/Africa how much games cost there, those guys have it really rough, and believe they sell games in those markets a lot as well!

Also, there were seldom discounts for new games within six months from release. If you calculate in inflation, games are generally cheaper than ever before, and the prices have just been going down, while the costs have gone up. I support 70 USD/Euro games (they are already 8500yen = 70€ / $75 in Japan anyway) to keep the industry's hard workers happy.

Personally, I've taken the route of discounts, I play games a year or two late to save half of the costs of playing. Meanwhile I tune my consoles and PCs to make them as silent as possible, and play my backlog. Way too many good, cheap games out there nowadays!

[DVAcme]

That's a disingenuous comparison. Compared to other entertainment industries, the gaming industry makes huge leaps in technology and manpower needs, expecting a raise in price to never happen is naive. The $60 price standard has been around for practically two decades already, which is practically unheard of for any other consumer product, and if anything, gaming is the most cost-effective entertainment product available. Games drop in price incredibly rapidly, with bargain prices showing up within months of a game's release, while every other entertainment product's price staying constant and never giving the same value for money and time. A $5 to $10 raise in game price may not be something we as consumers want (let's face it, we want NOTHING to go up in price), but it's not something unreasonable. It's just a matter of voting with our dollar and only committing to products that are worth it. If a game offers a full experience with no bullshit monetization, $70 is not an unreasonable price. However, games like, say, Anthem or Battlefront 2 are overpriced at ANY price, considering they're giving us a substandard game with predatory monetization.

[Profchaos]

Why do Devs think they have a right to increase games well the increase is from the publisher but I amount it to this.

I've worked hard to build this product I should be entitled to ask for a price and the market dictates the price in most cases. If no body buys my product I've asked for to much but if people are willing to buy it still then it's an acceptable price point.

There's been an argument that games don't cost more to make and yeah it's kind of holding water the biggest development costs for titles looks to still be for PS3 era games however the amount of released titles has been on a significant downward trend from all studios even ea released less games this generation which means less revenue as games take longer to Dev.

If it holds true that people don't want to buy games at a higher price there will be a correction in response but it's not up to the gaming public it's up to the industry and publishers.

Were already seeing special edition games retail.fir significantly higher amounts with minimal special in the special edition case in point rdr2 unlocked some content and gold bars costs take 2 nothing but added $50 to each sale. At least in AUD.

If rockstar release GTA 6 and ask for $100 I think it will still sell astronomical numbers because of its quality but if goat simulator asks for $100 it will sell a copy or two to little Timmy's grandma's doing Xmas shopping.

If you don't like it no amount of forum posting or Twitter outrage will change it you need to vote with your wallet and if others don't care and buy games anyway your vote is cancelled out.

I know the industry is already aware that people are financially struggling Sony has publicly stated it expects to sell less ps5 units in launch over ps4.

[WelkinCole]

Its not simple because different games requires different level of investment. Sports games for example while it may be cheaper to make every year we don't know about the licen cost etc.

AAA story driven games could cost more with more detail graphics and animation etc Personally I would not mind paying more for more AAA story driven games that gives me all the bell and whistles.

However yearly games I don't want to pay more however this is where the free market comes in. Vote with your wallet.

To be fair I have not bought more than 3 FIFA a gen for this reason.

If its an absolute must to raise game prices for publisher like Sony to give me AAA exclusive games like GOW2, Next face melting ND game that keep pushing boundaries in gaming then so be it. Its a price I am willing to pay for.

[homeruz2]

Demand and supply dawg. If none of us but the games at full launch prices, you'll quickly see price drops

[Yppupdam]

Let the Fools with money to burn and lame excuses of "supporting" the developer pay full price. I may be a gamer but, I am a consumer first and foremost, I work for my money, and I am obligated to spend as little as I can for good and services as possible. Not wanting to pay full price on a product or service because you think it is too much is not being "entitled" like some of these lunatics in this thread like to call anyone that doesn't agree with this arbitrary price hike on a non essential product.

[Flewid638]

"why do game developers think they have a right to increase the price of games?"

Because they are literally the ones making them. lmao.

[Yppupdam]

You are absolutely right, they could charge whatever they want for their products, but, the product will only sell for what the market will bear, For example, Would you still buy the games these publishers are selling if they decided to double the price of a game? 120.00 US if that is OK, then maybe 140.00 would be ok as well? maybe be you have the money to burn, and you would be happy to spend that money on the 50 or 60% chance of maybe getting a great game?

[Harkins1721]

Buy games on sale. You never have to pay full price

[Yppupdam]

10-4, Always buy at a discount and NEVER pre-order! and I would go as far as only buying physical discs, at least you can recoup some of your money back if you don't intend to keep the game. You can be a gamer as well as a smart consumer. Seeing how almost every gamer has a backlog, we need to start using that to our advantage, and avoid succumbing to instant gratification.

[andy85]

Why don't they have a right? Games we're up to $70 in the early 90s and look how small scale they were. They didn't take 4 years and they didn't have development teams of hundreds of people. We have it good in my opinion to be just about ticking back to those prices. And let's remember that's digital, physical will always be cheaper to game.

[hulk_bash1987]

Gamers are such an entitled bunch. At the end of the day, if game prices increase and you dont agree vote with your wallets. Or do what alot of people do, myself included, and wait for price drops. I will be more selective with my day one purchases next gen which im completely fine with.

[Yppupdam]

Yeah, how dare we be smart consumers! that is contrary to being a gamer! BLAH!
Gaming is the only industry that wanting to pay as little as possible for a product gets you branded as "entitled". and the only industry that has a cadre of "fans" that will carry water for a company, free of charge.
Well, screw that! I NEVER (and WILL NEVER) pay full price, It is not some sort of misguided "entitlement" that urges me to do that but, my Obligation as a consumer. You make it sound like The Dev and Publisher are "entitled" to my money and that I HAVE to pay the full price or I'm...what? not a real gamer...not supporting the developers? or the annual multi billion dollar profit Publishers? Nah, I will be a good consumer first and a gamer after that, personally, I think that the Devs and publishers are filled with tons of misguided entitlement when it comes to selling their products. they have to EARN my business, Not the other way around!

[hulk_bash1987]

@yppupdam
Yes you're entitled, if you believe game prices should never change. The reality of inflation is prices will increase. Goods and services will go up as the costs of making and marketing go up. Do I like it? Of course not, i never said I did. When did i say if youre not a "real gamer" if you dont buy games day one? Or that Developers are entitled to your money? My comment stated that if you dont support the idea of increased prices on games, then vote with your wallet. Or wait for a price reduction. Be a more frugal gamer if thats your prerogative. That doesnt make you more or less a gamer.

[garos82]

they should be entitled, they are the ones with the spending power that have elevated the gaming industry to where it is.

[Yppupdam]

It's not entitlement, it's consumer obligation. Frankly, I don't really care what the publishers sell their games for, but, I am not such a fool to think that they are raising their prices because they are hurting, you would have to be a complete fool to think that, The gaming industry eclipses the movie and music industry in profits year after year COMBINED! but somehow they cannot make ends meet? how stupid must they think their customers are? You cannot brag about profits and then complain about needing to increase prices. At the end of the day, I'll do what a good consumer does and get my games at a discounted price WAY below whatever the "industry" decides to charge, and I'll let the suckers that think paying full price is part of the "fun" of gaming or whatever. You can eat the increase.

[rainslacker]

I'd prefer neither.

I'd take higher initial prices over cash grab MT.

Higher game prices will not stop cash grab MT, so the idea that raising game prices means that cash grab MT won't be a thing, or minimized, is just a justification to get the prices higher without as much push back from the consumer.

If publshers have proved anything over the past 15 years, its that they have no problem trying to find ways to fleece the customer.

But, then you get games like Horizon, and GOW, from Sony studios, where their budgets are actually relatively low compared to regular game production prices. Horizon cost $40 million, and GOW was said to be about $60 million. That doesn't include marketing. Those production costs are lower than the average AAA game production cost, and proves that awesome games don't have to cost an arm and a leg to produce like publishers keep saying they do.

Smarter productions, not more expensive is the way the industry has been going for some time now, and current production costs haven't risen significantly, if at all, compared to what they were during last gen. The talk about it now costing more to produce is just another way they're trying to justify higher prices.

[bangoskank]

Because the better a game looks, the more it's going to cost to make. If you want next gen you're going to have to pay for it.

[Yppupdam]

Never pre-order and wait till the price is cheap enough....and NEVER buy digital. Let the suckers with cash to burn take the hit. I cannot wait to hear all the pathetic shills on Youtube and here call anybody that doesn't want to pay the new expensive price "entitled" and "not willing to support developers" by eating the new, high price. Well, they are NOT "entitled" to my hard earned cash If I find their pricing too high. The will not get the price they want from me...or anybody that has a modicum of smart consumer acumen.

[Flewid638]

Games are a hobby. Hobbies cost money. What you can or cant afford isnt the responsibility of the developer selling the game.

[Mr_Writer85]

"I don't see Blu-Ray movies increasing in price"

But cinema ticket prices have, which is how movies make the bulk of their money.

Home release is just a little bit extra.

Games have roughly been the same launch price for decades.

But with increased development costs, and the gamers demand more and more from their games, increase of price was always going to happen.

Thankfully sales are frequent. And unless it's a Nintendo game, if you wait you can get the game cheaper.

Either that, or we move closer to the GAAS like game pass model, where you pay a monthly fee.

[MightyHealthy]

4k movies cost more

[yomfweeee]

Why do game developers think they have a right to increase the price of games? What? They can try to sell their games for whatever the hell they want.

[Sonyslave3]

And what going to stop devs from doing both, hell you got games with 70 or 100 dollars edition still with microtransaction.

[Ricegum]

Nothing will stop them if people support it. I'm not defending them but can you really blame developers for taking advantage of these idiots that throw money at them?

[jambola]

yeah
i mean why wouldn't they put it in?

[Tacoboto]

You can't blame the developers when most of the time it's at the publisher's dictation.

Boxed gaming software has stayed the same price since 2005. We've gone from DVDs to Blu Rays and now games will ship on multiple Blu Rays or possibly a UHD Blu Ray.

Movies cost more in their higher resolution formats. Uncharted 1 was a $60 launch title. TLOU2 is a $60 generation-closer title. The development costs between the two none of us will probably ever know. But yet, they both have the base MSRP.

If we go back to 2005, we'll also remember Microsoft's directive that initial 360 first party games would stay $50. I don't know when that ended, but I expect this is going to be another thing for them. Once those two years of cross-gen titles are up and out, next-gen exclusives will make the price hike.

[robtion]

I agree they won't stop.

Can you blame them for being greedy and lacking integrity though? Yes, yes you can.

[iQuasar]

^This.

[Skuletor]

Micro-transactions are a cash cow that publishers won't abandon, whether the games are $60, $70 or even $80+

[morganfell]

They won't abandon it. They will just put it on hold for the first year then start easing it back in.

[StifflerK]

Fun corporate facts:
CEO Bobby Kotick made +$28 million just in bonuses last year in line with previous years- irrespective of the not so good performance of the company.
800 employees where laid off during that time so Bobby could get his bonus.
Activision received over $200 million in tax credits ( that's your tax payer money btw)
Activision were reported to have moved over 5 billion euros into to offshore companies a few years back (apprx 2016/17 it's probably a lot more by now.)

Bare that in mind the next time MT's, Season pass/dlc , releasing unfinished products, price hikes are mentioned in the media.

It's similar to the way in which some countries operate taxes - the system is set up to protect the interests of politicians and their corporate buddies at the expense of everyone else. (CEOs + higher ups compared to the underpaid / overworked staff who actually make the games.)

Big game companies make more than enough money to make videogames - they just need to stop corporate parasites leeching off of it, and invest that money back in the companies, their staff and products.
There is no justification for price hikes and predatory monetisation from major publishers.

[LoveSpuds]

This is exactly why I strongly disagree with the price hikes.

You cannot tell me there are no profits to be made when CEO's and board members are making tens of millions a year, it doesn't stack up. It wouldnt be so bad if the extra money went to the people making the damn games, but it won't, it will go to the offshore accounts of these tax dodging vultures.

If you want to discuss increasing the price of indie games, then I can get on board with that all day long, but in the AAA sector, they can fuck off. I buy probably 12 - 15 games a year at launch, I will start waiting for sales before I ever consider paying 70 quid for a piece of entertainment.

[kayoss]

well this is like every multibillion dollar company. CEO's get bonuses in such. You look at the airlines, they are now in trouble, why? because they prioritize their CEO's over the company overall. This is why they need bailout. But you can not punish all studios, because not all studio have this vultures type practices.

[Yppupdam]

Props, man. Your one of the few smart ones. It is amazing how mad people get on here when you say you don't (won't) pay full price for any game, They down vote you and call you "entitled" because you have the utter gall of being a good consumer.

[RgR]

Finally some sense.
Thank you

[Minute Man 721]

From the way Activision started in the 80s (leaving Atari/WB due to mistreatment by ceo/upper management) to doing sh!t like this is disgraceful

[LoveSpuds]

Exactly squire, exactly.

[Hakuoro]

Hmm, I don't know if I am going to buy a console at launch if this is the way things are going to go.

[Cmv38]

The issue is, there will be both. If the options were only microtransactions or only a price increase, we can debate which is better. But let's be honest, there will be a price hike and mt.

[SinisterKieran]

if there is a problem, its on the developers side. games should not be costing more than £50. your studio is either too big or paying people too much. lets say..for instance you sell 1,000,000 copies...and thats like..standard sales. games sell way more than that. thats £50,000,000. now i hear games like death stranding sold 2,600,000 because of its total player count. which is £160,000,000...and thats me saying if the average game costs £50...when i think i got it for £59,99. and as successful as that sounds. its nothing compared to rockstars sales and the sales of the crap ea craps out each year.
i think thats disgusting that they expect more than that.
then of course you think about the shit which they pull from the game and sell back to you as DLC and make preorder bonuses.

[anast]

NBA2K is the first one to do it and the game is the definition of cash grab.

[Patricko]

And people really believe that price increase will eliminate microtransactions from games?

[SpeedDemon]

The author probably still leaves milk and cookies out for Santa too.

[rainslacker]

I don't. I'm surprised the increase being talked about is only $10. Publishers just aren't trustworthy. For instance, they can't even give the actual production costs for games to back up their statements that games are becoming more expensive to make. The only production budgets I've heard stated this gen were two from Sony, and they were exceptionally low for two AAA games of high caliber design. Dunno if other publishers are not as efficient, and I'm sure they aren't to be honest, but I didn't just accept their claims last gen when they tried to say the same thing, and I don't see why I should accept it now....particularly since I have seen the reports that give average game development prices through various dev forums and resources available to anyone in the industry.

I say whenever we see a publisher say something about game costs going up, we ask them the question. "How much has it increased?"

Seems like such a simple thing to ask since that is their entire premise for saying they need to increase sale prices.

[SegaSaturn669]

I remember paying 115 bucks for Chrono Trigger on SNES

[LoveSpuds]

That is entirely different squire, prices were dictated by the production costs of the cartridges back then.

[Hakuoro]

The MSRP of nearly all Super Nintendo licensed games was 49.99 and that's what they all cost where I lived.

If you were paying more than that in America the retailer was marking up prices.

[buffig]

I remember asking my parent for R-Type on the master system in 1987. That cost £30, as did most games. Adjusted for inflation, that equals £72 in today's money. Why do people think gaming should be inflation proof? When games have started to cost 100s of millions pounds and years to develop. I disagree totally with micro-transactions, but I think we need to be realistic

[LoveSpuds]

Explain to me how CEO's and board members are making tens of millions each a year despite games not making a profit.

If margins were that slight we wouldn't be seeing the dozens of games that come out each month, you are talking about the biggest entertainment sector in the world, billions upon billions. You are buying the bullshit that Kotic and Co are selling you bruv.

[Profchaos]

How do you think GTA v is the most profitable entertainment product ever. Micro transactions they make an absolute killing off of them

[buffig]

I'm talking about inflation rates. Don't know why you think I'm buying bullshit?

[rainslacker]

Not all products are subject to inflation. The direct comparison to how much something would be in the same relative dollar amount based on a large scale economic metric just isn't pertinent to the discussion.

Other more important factors would be, huge increase in the size of the potential and actual market which gives a quantity of scale that can keep prices down. Development prices remaining relatively constant for the past 15 years and additional revenue streams to supplement the cost(MT/DLC). Increased distribution methods which reduce the cost to manufacture(digital sales).

I'm fine with being realistic. I think we should know all the facts before just assuming the publishers are telling us the truth, because they haven't proven they're reliable for that. Would it be so hard for them to tell us how much they've gone up? I've never seen them say that. Why aren't you asking them that question before being realistic? All the publishers do is rely on hyperbole, which is what they do every time they want to push something the consumer isn't going to like onto said consumer.

[Gameseeker_Frampt]

"Not all products are subject to inflation"

Except here there is a clear case of inflation in relation to the amount of man-hours needed to make a video game. Super Mario Bros took 8 people to make - can you imagine any AAA game today being made with just 8 people? Media Molecule has 50 people and it took them 7 years to make Dreams - time that was funded by the Uncharteds, God of Wars, and other Sony games being made by studios with hundreds of employees.

If gamers want cheaper games, then they need to start lowering their expectations for the graphics and size of games. Everything costs money yet we expect games that now take 4 years to develop to cost the same as they did 10 years ago when they took just 2 years to develop.

[rainslacker]

Except that the cost of producing games hasn't risen at the same rate as inflation, and the market for games has risen significantly faster than inflation has risen, hence, the market isn't subject to inflation, at least not in the same way.

When you look at the production budgets of Sony's games, at least the one's they've disclosed, they are not as high as we tend to think AAA games should be. So, they must be doing something right to keep costs down, because that lower production costs certainly isn't reflected in the quality of their games. If anything, they're one of the few publishers who shows a consistent increase in quality as time goes by, and they don't resort to shady MT on a regular basis.

[Gameseeker_Frampt]

It seems that not only are you putting video game sales into some sort of magical bubble where inflation doesn't affect them but you are also completely ignoring the ballooning of studio size. Games definitely cost more to make now than they did 10 years ago and that is especially true when moving between console generations where entirely new game engines need to be developed. Uncharted 2 cost $20 million to make and that was when Naughty Dog didn't have a studio of almost 500 employees. Do you think that $20 million would even cover the marketing budget of The Last of Us Part 2?

Also, games developed by Sony (as well as Microsoft and Nintendo) are the worst examples to use when discussing the cost of game development. The ultimate goal of games made by console manufactures is not to turn a profit but to sell consoles. To get a better look at the sustainability of the current costs of game development, look at everyone else. THQ went bankrupt in 2012. This week WB no longer wants to publish games and is looking to sell off its studios. Konami has all but left the industry. SEGA, Capcom, EA, Ubisoft, Activision, and Take 2 are publishing fewer games now than ever before and almost all of them are just sequels to established IPs. These are all results of the ever decreasing profit margins in video games and the fact that there is almost no room for error in development.

[rainslacker]

I'm not ignoring anything, or putting anything into a bubble. In fact, people saying that game prices are rising, without citing anything else are the ones putting things in bubbles.

Studio sizes have increased? Says who? you mean compared to the 200 people that were making last gen games? How many 200 person in house productions were there this gen? Much of game development is outsourced nowadays, and most studio staff is contract work, which is actually cheaper in the long run.

Why wouldn't one consider market size when determining sale price? If you can sell more, you don't need to charge as much per person to make a return on investment. The rise in the market, coupled with additional avenues for revenue has risen substantially since last gen. More than doubled, and game publishers are posting record profits. Not every game is a success, and some games do indeed have bloated budgets, but that isn't going to change with $70 price tags, nor is it going to do away with MT.

"games developed by Sony (as well as Microsoft and Nintendo) are the worst examples to use when discussing the cost of game development."

Then why did you mention them? Why can Sony make a game on the same level, if not surpassing many publishers on a routine basis for the cost of a high end PS2 game? I cite their development cost, because they've found a way to make these big games, much cheaper than you hear from Ubisoft, EA, or Activision, who seem to constantly lament the cost of making games.

[cooperdnizzle]

Most games are still super profitable. Why not just heck the price of any and everything just because

[Pricey]

Initial increase. What you mean they will bring them down eventually?

[fonger08]

I do not understand for the life of me how/why this difficult to understand. If production costs increase, then the price will too. If games aren’t worth the $10 hike, then the market will correct itself. Micro transactions aren’t going anywhere, they’re a margin rich way to provide revenue, I personally dislike them and refrain from any and all MC purchases. If games remain at $60 and production costs still increase, then you will get smaller games, fewer games, and far less innovation to play it safe.

[Imalwaysright]

Either way, the bulk of the money wouldn't go to his pockets or the pockets of any dev in the world. It would go to the pockets of already filthy rich shareholders and CEOs.

[moriarty1889]

price hike wont stop them from putting mtxs in games.......they are greedy and want as much money as they can get.

[Prubar]

Gaming is a luxury not a necessity. I personally have no issue with game prices going up because the cost of development have gone up, inflation and the amount of people it takes to make games have gone up. Actually it’s never been cheaper to play games what with Game Pass, PS+, steam sales and so on. Back in the day I remember buying Turok 2 for N64 brand new at Walmart for 112$. Bunch entitled whiners.

[LoveSpuds]

Or, it could be that gamers were being milked for decades and now we are reaching some sort of equilibrium. Take a look at the bonuses being paid to the CEO's and share holders of all these companies. If you honestly thing any extra profit will reach the dev teams you are utterly deluded squire.

As for your N64, games prices were dictated by the production costs of the carts, this is a flawed argument.

Honestly, when you have consumers asking for a price hike then you know the spin and lies from corporate cocksuckers has done the trick.

[Prubar]

“Take a look at the bonuses being paid to the CEO's and share holders of all these companies”.
Yea that applies to very few companies who are already at the top and nor do I agree with it. But that’s a small percentage compared to companies like THQ, ENSEMBLE STUDIOS, Telltale, Bizarre, Silicon Knights, Acclaim and so on who are all shut down. Allot of game developers are one flop away from being closed and gamers want them all to race to the bottom. Jesus they even complain when a game gets released on XBLGold and PS+ if they already own it or it’s not what they wanted.

[rainslacker]

Really? How much have game production costs gone up? I keep seeing this, but I haven't seen one reference by either the publishers, or the people who say that, how much they've gone up, and over what period of time they've gone up.

Perhaps you could offer up that little detail to help us make a more informed opinion on this matter.

[chiefJohn117]

Nope, cosmetic or stuff you can earn free I have 0 issue with. I'll take that over $10 more for my game.

[MadLad]

We're going to get both though.

[MrVux000]

I mean they are free to increase those game prices...just as i am free to buy those games second-hand instead.

[Germaximus]

I like Cory but it's a stupid answer cuz a price increase will not stop microtransactions ever. I'm not against a price increase. It makes sense. But that reasoning is just naive.

[zugdar]

I really don't think they will ease up MTX. I would love if they did but no desk executive is going to let a revenue source disappear.

[timotim]

The problem with that theory Barlog, is that games going to $70 wont stop MTs. MTs will continue to exist and then we will be stuck paying $10 more for base games. NO DEAL! But if it does...Game Pass and sales is your friend.

[jambola]

problem is it's not either or
it will be both
games could double price and there would still be microtransactions

[ActualWhiteMan]

Get your lube, because were going to get both.

[Monkeycan8]

If I knew for a fact paying an extra $10 would mean no Micro-transactions in games anymore I would be fine with it in a heartbeat. But we all know this isn't true.

[dan323]

Yeah, how about... NEITHER!

[Elda]

I don't get why folks that are gamers didn't see an increase of pricing on video games incoming. Video games have been $60 for 2 generations now (14 years) that $60 price tag was not going to last forever. Either you support the hobby or leave it alone. I'll support most games that I'm eager to play everything else I'll wait until it's on sale. MTs I never bought into just dlc for extra campaign content.

[FlavorLav01]

I don’t mind the price adjustment, but now is the time to scrutinize our purchases more than ever. If I think a game deserves that kind of investment I’ll spend it, if I know it has MTs or lots of DLC coming then I’ll wait for complete editions or steep sales. Nobody is forcing us to go and spend day 1 prices or to purchase every single game. Gaming is a hobby not a utility, no since in being entitled on the price of art. IMO of course. Also, inflation is a real thing, and I happen to enjoy large budget AAA titles, there’s no doubt they are becoming more expensive to develop. To which end, I recommend always spending what you think a game is worth to you.

[G1L]

There's one thing i dont quite get here. We've been paying €69,99 here in Europe for years now....

[PSX-94]

Indeed but that's because the Euro is worth more than the dollar.

70 dollar games in the U.S. would end up being about 77 dollars which is closer to 80 dollars meaning that 80 dollars converted into Euros is about 70 Euros or so.

To contrast videogames in the U.S. are about 67 dollars right now which is about 60 Euros.

[G1L]

Alright man, thanks for the insight!

[PSX-94]

Loved my copy of God of War '18 but Cory is wrong on this issue, corporate fatcats don't need even more money by sacrificing players by raising the price of next gen games.

Sony you better not pull an XBone and betray the Players for the sake of short term profit.

[dnAWE]

The game industry even at 60$ per game are still earning more than the film and music industry combined... Although some companies may be struggling financially, most are still turning a massive profit.

Last of Us Part 2 costs between 100-150 million + 100 million in marketing and guess what.... they're doing OK.

[JEECE]

I'd love to see a dev come out and treat this as a commitment: "our games will be $70 but will not include MTs." Honestly I think that was actually the message being sold, people would get behind it.

[RgR]

how about keep the price and MTX situation the same. I've grown accustomed to shift through the shit. No need to raise any prices.

But of course a director of a game studio would love more money.

Pretty darn sure the extra money will go straight to the higher ups and the grunts will not see much of a difference if any.

Game industry costs have not increased. That is a myth. Obviously if you hire 10,000 developers you'll have to pay them all and therefore have a costly outcome. How about taking your time with each game and making quality instead of rushing iterations out the door.

I'm speaking in general terms...I love god of war.

[Father__Merrin]

I'd prefer microtransactions as long as they don't upset game balancing or cosmetics etc no body is forcing you to buy them as long as you can grind your way to unlock them it's ok.n

[Crueltylizer]

We already pay about $81 in Denmark for games so if prices are to go up this will make it really hard for anyone here to buy games the way we use to.

[Harkins1721]

They can raise games to 100. Just buy them on sale. You will always have the people that want the game now. And that's okay. I have a huge backlog so I'm in no rush and will buy games when on sale. Unless it's a game and Dev that I truly support. Like GoW.

[P_Bomb]

With FTP Fortnite and dinosaur GTAV pulling in a few hundred million a month, I don’t see MT’s going away.

[sonarus]

Lol what sucks is we will get the worst of both worlds

[Darkborn]

We're paying the pre mo cap and pre voice acted (like hundreds of voice actors instead of 5 or so) price. That alone requires a much larger budget. It's pretty simple guys. Plus there's a thing called inflation that happens year round.

[OneLove]

Microtrans arnt going anywhere though. Too much money being made and people are supporting it. Look at GTA.

[georeo]

God damn man. Thanks 2k... now you got ideas floating around.

[JokerBoy422]

Yup and it wont matter cuz we'll end up with both.

[drizzom]

Why?

So they can put cash-grab microtransactions on top of it?

[zarbor]

That's like saying I prefer to be raped rather than being sodomized. What an idiot.

[AK91]

So do I but the problem is publishers and devs are going to do both.

[Demon37]

Nope, not paying anymore for games. We have to make a stand at some point.

[Edito]

Fully agree with Cory, that is why i'm ok with the price increase even though MT and cash grabbing tactics will go along side the new price.

[Droppedez]

If prices go up I'll never buy a game at launch, will wait for a discount. These rumors are making PC and sailing the high seas more appealing, yar.

[mudakoshaka]

The answer is simple...do not buy a next-gen console if the price is $70 for a game! This is the only language they will understand. I have been buying every new console for the past 25 years, including the expensive PS3. But if they raise the game prices then I will not be buying a new console in protest.

There are no new games announced that makes me want to get a next-gen console so badly. I swear, the Sackboy game is the only one that excites me. Black Spider-Man does not impress me. They are just rehashing Spider-Man (which is like 2 years old) to fit in today's politically correct and BLM world. That is why the PS5 reveal was delayed in June, so they could show off Black Latino Spider-Man to the pc leftist media, and Sony seems like they will end racism forever...yaaay Sony!

I would recommend you all to upgrade your computer instead of spending money on a machine that will be obsolete in 2-3 years when compared to a computer.

[Auron]

Yeah but too bad both will exist.

[garos82]

when your costs to make games gets cheaper, id rather have neither. Keep it as cheap as possible and my games library will only go up. Also i dont know if youve noticed, the gaming industry has never been more profitable than ever before and we kinda find ourselves in economic turmoil so lets pack it in for now with price increases

[neomahi]

Initial game sales may decrease. I'm typically a first adopter of games, I buy Day 1. But increase cost in games, if I'm thinking this way them I'm certain I won't be the only. They're forcing me to wait for price drops on games. I can't afford what they're going to be asking so, game sales will drop, lifetime sales of a game will do worse because people will wait for price drops. Instead of making $60/game it'll be more like $30-40, or Gamestop will capitalize more on used game sales that ever in history. Exclusive games on consoles won't be a prevalent either, developers have to make money and gamers won't buy games at $70. Sorry. Fatal mistake.

[Imortus_san]

I prefer you do a better job at the next game and not recicle enemies by changing color like it was a PS1 game.
Not only you had the same easy boss 5 times with a color change, the Valkiries looked the same, and the area
enemies were the same with color change crap.

[DFresh]

No.
I prefer neither.
If game prices get too high then I’ll be way more selective and wait for discounts.

[BlackDoomAx]

You'll get both

[Tyrant 8 RDFL]

I prefer free to play games with the option to buy MT's that have zero influence in winning. I have no problems spending on a free to play game if the game is very satisfying to play. To me this shows me if they deserve my money or not.

[cooperdnizzle]

We’ll get both. Yay! Also kinda weird with cross buy or smart delivery system. Puts a huge dent in m$ strategy. Em I not aloud to buy the last gen version and it automatically takes advantage of the new hardware at no extra cost. That’s why I like Sony’s philosophy and always have. Simple marketing and honest business practice for the most part.

[DaleCooper]

Seriously, if you need to rely on a price increase or microtransactions to make money on your game, then you're doing it wrong. I refuse to pay 70 for a game. I can and will wait for sales, thanks.

[Insanemaniak1]

When annual games could just be DLC packs any increase is a money grab