$70 games are good for developers, but they’re getting harder and harder to swallow as a consumer

Xbox joins the publishers charging $70 for new, triple-A game – and that’s good. Until you consider there’s a cost of living crisis.

[isarai]

🤣 you really think the devs are seeing literally any benefit to that price hike? How naive

[crazyCoconuts]

so how does a company that makes a new game and sells it either physical or on, say, the Xbox/PS store get paid?

[ModsDoBetter]

Mate, developers are paid a set and agreed amount by the publisher as outlined in the contract.

Some contracts may have performance bonuses based on review scores. The only cog in the machine benefitting from this are the publishers.

[Tacoboto]

Publisher agreements differ game to game especially with regards to bonuses and royalties. Some tie it to sales numbers, some tie it to sustained player count, infamously some were and still are tied to the Metacritic rating.

And devs will get whatever their negotiated cut is after... The publisher, marketing, platform holder & retailer fees, etc get their money.

IIRC, People Can Fly lamented how they didn't get bonuses from Square for Outriders and were not provided the data that Square themselves used internally to tell them that they didn't hit the mark.

[crazyCoconuts]

Yes the individual developer doesn't directly get paid more, I get that. But the company they work for i believe gets a % cut of gross sales and a 16% increase in price should equate to that much of a bigger cut for the company I would imagine... and these companies can continue to employ developers making games to the extent they are profitable in this endeavor. So sure, and individual developer wouldn't see the impact directly, but indirectly I think they will.

[Army_of_Darkness]

@crazyc

This is no different from me working for Mars. They increase the price of their products, even sell a couple millions more this year, but none of this additional money goes to the employees. It's the upper management that reek the benefits of a price increase.

[crazyCoconuts]

@army, i respect your opinion, but i don't think that's the way it works, especially for skilled labor like developers. When there's money being made in software/game development, more companies will want to do it, and since the labor pool of developers is relatively fixed at any point in time, the demand goes up with fixed supply so our rates go up - in other words we make more money. In times where companies are not making money, they start laying off increasing supply and our rates go down. I see this first hand...

[VariantAEC]

So many disagrees from clueless fools that clearly know absolutely nothing about this. That said I even disagree with your second post in this thread as publishers either already organized a deal with their devs so that the developer itself gets a sizable cut of their games sales (meaning devs effectively DO get paid directly based on sales).

Regardless your other comment was also agreeable; as a company does better, often times so to do their associates/employees. I don't know why people disagree with that... they must all conveniently work for the worst employers ever!

[Christopher]

It's an indirect benefit. Publishers making more money will be more willing to budget more towards games with a $70 price tag versus only $60.

[TiredGamer]

This. A higher price point equates to lower volume risk, all things being equal. A game can technically sell about 20% fewer copies at $70 and still break-even/be considered a moderate success over one selling at $60. It's not a perfect formula, but as long as demand doesn't drop by more than 20%, there's a net positive.

Publishers need incentive to invest in games. More niche/experimental titles carry more financial risk. If said financial risk exceeds the potential gain threshold, publishers will avoid it.

As much as it sucks having to pay more, publishers are always having to play the odds of profitability. A higher price point builds in more cushion for mediocre/disappointing sales. We as consumers have to pick our poison.

[isarai]

I bet you believe in "Trickle Down Economics" too?

[Christopher]

***I bet you believe in "Trickle Down Economics" too?***

Resources increase in cost over time regardless of the act of profit distribution. This accounts for that. This is basic budget forecasting. They are increasing profit potential but maintaining profit margins, which means better products that sell versus continual lower resourced products that won't compete as well with others who up resource capabilities.

[SurgicalMenace]

Wow. Are employees seeing the direct benefits of their employers? Yes, as each person is paid a salary. With your level of nativity of how employment works, I'd be surprised if you had a job at all.

[WeAreLegion]

It sounds like YOU don't have a job. Employees don't get raises based on the company's performance. The executives get bonuses. Companies don't even match cost of living increases now.

[SurgicalMenace]

@WeAreLegion

Depends on who you work for. I name my price as I am a specialist, and the benefit there is I get 24% of the projected growth of the project, no need to be concerned with rising costs. I've been done with jobs since I wanted to experience true freedom, sir.

[VariantAEC]

@WeAreLegion
Are you kidding me!?
I work for a massive corporation and when they do well we little guys also see increases in pay. What hurts us more than anything is when states choose to increase minimum wage which increases cost of living far faster than the generally slower inflation rate (which also doesn't apply in this particular point in time due to rampant government spending during the pandemic which effected basically every nation on Earth save for North Korea which was already broke and unable to spend more, not that that nation's government would spend more to help their people anyeay).

[1nsomniac]

How naive!?

I find it really odd that developers can openly tell you time and time again. That they can recoup the ENTIRE project cost from start to finish, over several years, including salaries. Over just 24 hours of the game being on sale.

So go on, please tell me how naive everybody else is except yourself….?

People are so stupid. Facts are there. They literally tell you from their own mouths. Yet you people just refuse to listen and instead fight for these corporations with some form of ridiculously childish mindless loyalty. It really is sad.

[VariantAEC]

So... No royalties and licensing agreements then?

Do you really think publishers pay only once for any games sold on their platforms?

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

Outrageous - sure others have increased their price of their games, but Microsoft could obviously afford to not do this

Also they chose December during a busy shopping period to announce this… Microsoft under Phil Spencer is so out of touch with gamers

[lonewolf10]

At least they waited until after Xmas to increase unlike most publishers and the price hikes by MSoft were announced for 2023 a while back. I'm not sure Phil is the one out of touch here.

[SonyStyled]

They waited until after Christmas to cancel the games advertised in their “Best lineup in Xbox history” holiday sales campaign

[mike32UK]

It wouldn't really make a difference anyway as they have no games coming before Christmas 😂

[EvertonFC]

That is not the point

[The3faces]

Sony is a billion dollar corporation. They could afford not to raise prices as well.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

True
https://n4g.com/news/250103...
https://n4g.com/news/250103...

[SurgicalMenace]

Why would they lose money for the convenience of the consumer? Costs increase, price increase. Fair🤷🏾‍♂️

[CorndogBurglar]

There's not a single company that wouldn't care about keeping their bottom line intact lol. It's not reasonable to ask any company to never raise prices even though they are seeing a rise in prices on their end.

[TiredGamer]

Prices have to increase at some point in the timeline. Games are not a commodity. If not now, sometime in the future, but as the cost of living has increased everywhere else, games would/will eventually need to follow suit.

[Asplundh]

Umm... The article in the links you posted are about Sony increasing the price of the PS5 in certain regions, its not about them charging $70 for games.

[GoodGuy09]

Oh yes, unless it's a game I really want and have to get my hands on, I just wait for a sale. Gow Ragnarok so far is the only $70 game I've bought lol. Even when games were at $60, I always waited for sales.
One thing to know is that EA and UBI games go on sales real quick so if you're a fan of them, do hold off. Nintendo rarely ever does, Playstation has been a bit hesitant this gen but they did do good sales during the black friday week. Mcsft, you can just get gamepass.

[FIELDMARSHALL_P]

What you said I don't have to be first to play a game.

[EvertonFC]

Going to a supermarket, cinema or theme park is harder to swallow these days, I get so much value for money with games imo anyway.

[dumahim]

Seriously. I spent $160 last time at the grocery store for pretty much the same stuff that was like $100 just a couple years ago. People are sweating over a $10 hike for a video game?

[EvertonFC]

Exactly, gaming has never been so cheap imo. I think some gamers today dont have the means to have gaming as a hobby but feel pressured from friends, social media etc.

[SurgicalMenace]

Exactly, all this constant whinning wouldn't be going on if they could comfortably afford it. It is starting to sound like people aren't working as much as they need to afford their hobbies.

[Traecy]

It's ridiculous. They're in the wrong hobby to complain about a $10 increase of big budget video games.

[EvertonFC]

Agreed, I also listened to a podcast the other day and they mentioned they'd already heard rumblings before this gen has ended within the industry the price of games will increase further to £80.
Gonna be fun reading comments when that happens lol.

[TheLigX]

Imagine defending corporations putting more costs on consumers... How do those boots taste buddy?

[AmUnRa]

When Sony did it they got a slew of trash over them by raising the price with $10.
Now that MS does it there is a certained fanboy group try to sugargoat it ore are saying the FPG from MS on GamePass cous they will be on GamePass day one, i play them on GamePass for "free".
You will be in for a rude awakening in the coming year.

[dumahim]

@AmUnRa

Try looking at my post history. I've never had a problem with the $10 price increase. Prices are going up everywhere. Somehow gaming is supposed to be immune to it? Also, I don't even have GP.

[VariantAEC]

@TheLigX
How many games would you have without those corporations?
Hmm...

[Thundercat77]

To understand this, we have to separe things here.

People have no problem paying for a high quality product (look at iPhones or Samsung Galaxies). The problem lies charging for products that are not high quality.

Sony's first party studios are high quality games. Just see the reviews, awards and millions they sell. People are ok paying for that high quality.

The problem is that Xbox first party games are not in that standard and don't have that high quality as officially stated by Phil Spencer itself.

[Petebloodyonion]

So by your logic seeing a Disney movie or buying one should cost 30% more compared to the rest since they are better in terms of quality with a bigger production cost?

Also, there's a difference between making a bad product and not liking MS.
Last I checked Forza is still considered the top racing product, Flight Simulator, Gears5, Grounded, Gears tactics, Ori, etc.
Please name the several games that are not up to standard, and that offer a broken experience.

[VariantAEC]

MSFS was broken on launch and still doesn't offer offline modes which is baffling as they still lock "Offline Map Data" that you downloaded to your PC hard drives behind... being ONLINE!
I have the game and the ownership license that forces me to boot the game online. After that I can play offline so long as I don't log out of my PC or turn it off. I still cannot use offline map data when offline though... weird. I also didn't pay the normal $60 for just the base game I paid $90 for the "Deluxe" version.

Forza Motorsport was never not broken (too many issues to discuss here), Forza Horizon has always had "teething" issues especially on PC with FH5 being the least offensive of thr lot. Yeah Playground Games actually gets better with each release, probably the highest quality studio MS have at the moment and still they couldn't figure out how to get motion blur to apply to stuff properly on launch day, I was there. Even so it doesn’t measure up to the quality of Driveclub visually even when targeting next gen and having a PC release that pushes beyond Xbox Series X's capabilities now including official RT support during gameplay (v. 3.527.960.0)!

Gears 5 was good, but Gears 4 wasn't so much, but I only played the trials early on.

In the end there have only been two games I would consider acceptable on PC from MS first parties at launch Gears 5 and FH5... Ori is a small game if they messed that up on PC or Xbox I would be confused.

[Kurt Russell]

All this does really is make sure I check reviews and make an informed purchase. I won't be impulse buying games at £70, they need to be released and proven before I do is all.

[Seafort]

No game is worth $70 or whatever the price is in each country especially these days when publishers would rather release a buggy game and patch after the fact.

Gaming is a luxury hobby. If you don't need the game right now then wait for a sale.

A game is only worth what the customer is willing to pay.

[Elda]

Why is this an issue? It's hilarious! AAA video games started being $60 when the XB360 launched in 2005 & on the PS3 in 2006. That's basically 17 years,did folks think after 17 years the price wouldn't increase? The price of anything & everything eventually goes up including video games. If one can't afford the hobby to support these developers for their artistic hard work then one should find another hobby they can afford. For any game that I'm interested in I have no problem going to my nearest Gamestop & purchasing at retail price on day one when released,I don't have to wait for a sale because I want the game in my hands asap...but that's just me.

[Imalwaysright]

2006? In 2006 Sony's gaming division profits were $75 million. In 2019, the year before Sony decided to rise price of PS5 games their gaming division profits were $4.1 billion and no, this is not a typo. It was 4.1 billion Dollars and this amount for one single year is more than the profits Sony had with the entirety of the PS2 generation when games were apparently far more inexpensive to make. Having this in consideration what's hilarious to me is seeing so called consumers defending these decisions from multi-billion dollar corporations. It's comedic gold https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[shinoff2183]

Why single out Sony. Isn't ms a trillion dollar company Lil guy

[Imalwaysright]

shinoff2183

For two reasons. The 1st is that Sony raised prices before the current inflation crisis when their gaming division was more profitable than ever so it was an exercise of pure goddamn greed. MS raised prices after the current inflation crisis has begun so although I don't particularly like that they did it, it is somewhat more understandable for me as a consumer.

The second reason was to piss off idiots like you.

[JEECE]

The reason people don't think about this is that so much of the games community today started playing games on either the 360 or PS4, so in their minds "gaming" started 10-15 years ago, and the $60 price point is something that is etched in stone that had never increased. It doesn't help that many of these new people don't even try to formulate their own opinions, but simply just parrot the rants of similarly uninformed YouTubers.

[shinoff2183]

Bingo jeece

[EvertonFC]

Well said

[EvertonFC]

People have been reacting like nothing ever goes up in price lol, alot of people are gonna have life shock lessons pmsl.
Amazes me how so many don't understand how business works which let's be real is day1 of business school.
I can guarantee all the ones who are hating on the price hike would do the same if they owned a shop and if they didn't they lose there business, house and family.

[Popsicle]

Agreed. We were paying $50 for games in the 80s and half the time the purchase decision was based on the box art. Often times I would get the game home and it was terrible.

Also, remember paying $74.99 at Toys R Us for Street Fighter 2 at launch at launch in the 90s. AAA experience at the time and the most expensive game in the store.

You get so much more value with your dollar for games today. It’s incredible.

[shinoff2183]

I think they've been 60 a little longer. Maybe I'm off on my time. But your right. People won't listen though. Pretend anger

[Imalwaysright]

No, they're good for shareholders.

[anast]

What gets hard to swallow is the level of mediocrity that is allowed in gaming. I'll gladly pay $70 - $100 for an exceptional product without micros. The problem is that exceptional talent is rare and only a very few studios could actually deliver this promise. Most studios put out jank products packaged as exceptional.

[shinoff2183]

If a dev makes a bad game don't buy it. I won't pay 70 I barely ever paid 60. I just wait for price drop.

[anast]

Do you buy bad games on sale? I don't get it.

[Pixelift]

$60, even $70.... is so little money for a game we will play for hours upon hours. Putting simply 5 hours into any $70 game makes it a better value than going to watch a movie for just 2 hours.

[Crows90]

Good for the higher ups. Devs don't get anything in return. Bad for consumers. Bad for gaming since its explosion in popularity and increase in sales across the board.

No reason to increase the price any more since they put in MTX ..and special editions...and season passes...and dlc content.

No justifiable reason for the increase.

[Pixelift]

Bad for cheap ass gamers. Yes.

[Crows90]

Only in the sense of having to wait longer for it to go down to a more palatable price point.

[MadLad]

Unless I legitimately NEED the game that is releasing, I typically wait for a sale and rarely pay more than $40 a game. Usually less.

[senorfartcushion]

They’ve always been going up in price. I’ve not gotten the discourse around this supposed one-off price increase.

In my country new PS2 games were around £25-30

Xbox 360 and PS3 games were £35-40

Xbox one and PS4 games were £45 - £55

Now they’re all between £60 and £70

They’ve always gone up.

I paid £25 for Budokai 2 on PS2
£35 for Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising
£55 for Cyberpunk 2077
£70 for Gran Turismo 7.
£55 for Evil West

And we know the only people benefitting from the hikes are execs and not devs.

[BrainSyphoned]

If only there were instant sales on pretty much everything below a 9.8

[adaminoregon]

I have never and i will never buy a 70 dollar game. I have the patience to wait for the price drops. Very few games are worth that price and the ones that are sell a lot and get cheap fast.

[GamingSinceForever]

Look I don’t want to see price increases like everyone else but this is the epitome of bitchin.

We buy games less than on e per month whereas we pay for food, gas, utilities, etc far more frequently and those are necessities.

Grow the Hell up.

[Taero]

Yeah, I've not bought a new game...for about a year now. Honestly I've felt no need, there are hundreds in the catalogue and eventually they'll be cheap/on the catalogue as well. By going up to $70 they've basically lost hundreds in sales. The extra $50 between them doesn't seem like a lot but psychologically it is.

[shinoff2183]

Games hahaven'went up in price in 20 25 plus years. Don't be mad it's not a slap in the face. It's been a long time coming

[SurgicalMenace]

Neo Geo had games at $240. 3DO had games up to $300. Saturn, SNES, N64 had games up to $100. Having all of those systems growing up with healthy libraries, I'd say $70 is pretty reasonable. I'd argue that $100 is not out of the question either. That's just me though.

[antikbaka]

less reason to buy full price then
or I can get my game in Turkey for less

[Guitardr85]

Why is no one talking about the inflationary history of the US dollar. Yes games used to cost less, but so did everything else. You can look at this two ways: 1) Games today cost 69.99 which, adjusted for inflation, would be around $38 in 2000...still cheaper than when games cost 49.99. Alternatively, you can look at inflation in the other direction 2) In 2000 new games cost 49.99 which adjusting for inflation, would be around $86 today...Still cheaper than the 69.99 we are paying now.

Over the long haul, it doesn't make sense for an industry to be locked into a price point from 20 to 30 years ago when the dollar buys sooo much less, MUCH more work goes into developing a game, AND the increased costs of things we all feel (labor, materials, time, etc). all cost much more for the developer just as they do for us.

Just food for thought....

[SPEAKxTHExTRUTH]

Welll obviously charging more money for a game is better for the people who make them but I’d like someone to show me a single this gen that’s justified charging $70. Any game that’s actually good this gen is most likely also on last gen and looks almost as good as current gen. Games haven’t gotten longer AI hasn’t gotten better and I don’t see 4k 60fps with Ray tracing in any AAA consoles games so why should I have to pay more for essentially the same product as last gen?

[Orchard]

Good for publishers you mean, and even then, only high up folk will see the benefits of this.

[TheLigX]

Publishers are fucking around this generation, and they're going to find out. I used to buy almost every game that really interested me. Now, at a $70 tag, I'm only getting top tier games at their launch price.

[TheEnigma313]

I don't buy them and I don't mind waiting.

[badboyz09]

were in an era where kids are watching other kids and grow men play games and giving them money😐$70 forget about it.

[ApocalypseShadow]

This isn't new. I've said this again and again without having to change my stance like some when the shoe is on the other foot.

If you can afford a game and it's awesome, get it. If it doesn't look like its worth it to buy at that price, wait for a sale. Always said this. Waiting is not going to change the game quality. But it'll allow you to accept what price you are willing to pay for it.

Playing games is one thing. Not understanding how to be a conscious consumer is another. It applies to every thing in life you'll buy. You don't have to buy that car, that house, that TV, that cellphone, that videogame at the price someone sets. It's perfectly fine to walk away until the seller has renegotiated that price. But if you want it, get it. But chances are, you're only paying for the idea that you need it right now. Most times, you don't. But supporting quality is okay too.

[shaenoide]

Good for developpers did they stop to crunch ?

[46player]

Games have been the same price for a long time now. What has changed is they go on sale after 3-6 months with prices getting progressively cheaper. So the price increase is no big deal IMO. If you really want a game at release, pay full price and if you can handle it, just wait until the price drops. No problem.

[Demetrius]

Honestly if a game is so dam short 6-12 hours they should least be 50 bucks but hell naw they won’t do that lmfao

[SonyStyled]

There’s been a couple titles that released the past few years at $40 from big publishers. There’s nothing wrong with 6-12 hr games at $50 if it’s a quality game. If it’s a good 6-12hr game what’s wrong with waiting for a sale if it’s too much?

[Dwarrior]

Other than expansions for my favorite mmo, I cannot recall the last time I paid full price for a game. Easily a decade. At 48 years old, I just don't have to have a game right at launch.

[ufo8mycat]

No big deal.

Higher asking price means the quality needs to be even better, otherwise it's just going to get torrent'ed..Simple really.

[frostypants]

The games cost more for the same reason the cost of living costs more. EVERYTHING is gonna cost more and non-essential luxuries like video games will if anything be hit harder. Suck it up because fundamental economics won't change no matter how much we might complain. Again...blame bad economic policy. All that "free money" we got over the last couple of years? Yeah...we're effectively paying for it now.

[fitofficial]

I don't pay it. Wait a month and it's $40 or less. There is zero point in buying games day of release now unless it's some mega event you've been waiting for like Elden Ring.

[CrimsonWing69]

Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t the majority go to the publisher? Doesn’t the publisher pay for the development cost?

I’m just talking out of my ass, but please someone explain to me where the money’s ultimately going?

Also, you can’t keep raising the price on games. At some point nobody is going to pay $200 for a damn game at launch. If that’s the case, then why the f*ck can’t we just stick to a single price and you publishers and developers figure out how to lower the cost of game development?

I don’t care that it’s just $10 more, this will be a nasty cancer until they find a threshold that not even supporters of this will be able to justify.

[HeliosHex]

Especially when released broken. Better to wait for games to be on sale and get the definitive edition.

[z2g]

yeah well... good thing for gamepass and day one releases.

i said this was all coming a long time ago - especially with all the negativity surrounding microtransactions, and everyone disagreed with me as per usual, but here we are.

seriously tho - this is where gamepass starts truly being a star by having day 1 releases.

Its a superficial, empty argument to say you don't "own" anything either. first of all you can "buy" the games thru gamepass if you truly want to and you'll even get a discount. but more importantly - you don't actually own the game itself... ever. you own a license to play the game for as long as they'll allow it... that goes for discs too believe it or not.

the days of collecting cartridges and discs are coming to a close whether we like it or not. our options are to change and adapt our perspectives or stop gaming at some point. this is not my opinion. this is the opinion of forecasters and trends in data coupled with the desires of the publishers and developers.

[WeAreLegion]

That's fine. We'll just wait

[WeAreLegion]

Well, crap. We still can't delete comments? Really?

[Ank666]

Lol it is too much no doubt but it’s not like it is too far more than the $60 we were paying last gen already.

[jznrpg]

10$ doesn’t make much of a difference to me . If it’s a longer game I have no problem paying 70$ . Shorter games (under 20 hours) I usually wait for a little while but not always .

[CorndogBurglar]

Honestly, there hasn't been a price hike since the Xbox 360 came out. It was about due for something like this and it wouldn't really bother me of it wasn't for the fact that the price hike happened yet 90% of games are still going to be sold unfinished or with tons of Microtransactions. Or both.

That's the real crime here.

[ANIALATOR136]

Greed

[ikarodemon]

I haven't bought AAA games in a long time, and I don't intend to buy them again. For the same price ($70) you get 3 smaller more creative and fun games made by small studios.

[Grievous]

Everything gets more expensive and it is only natural that games do as well. Games get more demanding in terms of manpower required and with the focus on less crunch this would lead to more costs and higher game prices. It's only normal. Gaming is a luxury after all and you don't need to own every game directly when it releases. You can always buy it later during a sale if you can't afford it.

[W34KN35S]

First impressions , I think this is just going to make people more picky with games. Others have mentioned that this change might provide breathing room for developers to try out new things , which is probably true but it won’t matter if people aren’t willing to buy them. From the consumer side , you will definitely see less games being bought and people will only buy games that they trust.