I don't believe that games should be automatically more expensive.

But, I do understand that different games have more upfront and ongoing costs to the developers and publishers so there should be a price range on games.

Cost of development, re-mastering, campaign/story length, multiplayer, and re-playability should go into the price. I am fine with the price ranging from $5 - $100 USD depending on the value proposition the game has. But, the current model is really flawed.

How about no

My income doesn't account for inflation. Why should my expenses account for inflation?

Why, so less people will buy them and the companies will make less money? Not to mention all the pirates out there who will claim a price hike justifies their thefts. It doesn't matter how much a game cost to make, how good it is or the value when comparing to other mediums, if people can't afford it, they won't buy it. With the high cost of living these days, games, which are not necessary to life are already pushing it for many people.

Games are expensive enough as it is what with season passes and other means to separate money from your wallet. Now we have $150 controllers from christs sake.

No, they are already expensive enough and they come unfinished with day one patches or a butt ton of DLC that should have been in the game, let alone season passes, micro-transactions, ect.

Fuck you. My best friend now indie dev but worked for years at R* North so has experience in AAA game development has told me for years games should be 40 bucks. AAA devs can do it they just don't want to.

😧

I live in New Zealand and even now we pay $100-130 for new games, you sir can go f**k yourself.

Uncharted 2 was £42.99 which was the limit I thought then Modern Warfare 2 came out for £44.99. I purchased with Game discount because I worked there so something like 20% off the price I got. Then I started recently noticing games for a total of £54.99 in Game stores. That's insane pricing for a disk that will most likely cost next to nothing in the coming future. No way will I ever pay a premium for any computer game. In fact even digital downloads I noticed some of the games cost more than the physical copy, how does that even work?!

I would pay up to $90 for a game....if it meant i would get all DLC that would be released with it.

the more we pay for games the better they will be in theory. Its true in theory, its basic economics. However paying more doesn't guarantee quality and content. Look at the recently released NMS, 60 price tag for a 10$ game, why? simple...corporate greed. You don't always get what you pay for. Especially with developers like ubisoft and hello games selling lies and gamers constantly buying them by the millions.

Its a simple solution, vote with your wallet, stop buying trash.

While it is a fact that if you account for inflation then games are cheaper, its disingenuous to suggest they should be more expensive. Those extreme prices you hear about back in the 80's to early 2000's were usually dictated by the medium you bought them on, namely expensive to manufacture carts.

The advent of disk based software has redused publishing costs massively and that cost is reduced further when you consider there are no manuals or big boxes in retail any longer.

I think they are probably still a little on the expensive side personally, for those on low incomes it is a real bummer trying to enjoy this pastime. I recall when I was stating out in my own home in a low paid job I could barely afford a new game every 2 months and it utterly sucked. These days I can buy whatever I like but in the winter when loads of games are released it still gets very expensive.

Missing a few facts.

1: Games are not the cheapest they have ever been. PS2 games were $10 cheaper in the U.S and $20 cheaper nearly everywhere else. $49.99 in both the U.S and Canada. Now $59.99 USD and $69.99 CAD. (That is a 20% increase in the U.S and a 40% increase in Canada) So accurate price inflation since 2000 has actually occured.

2: Games sell far more units now than they did during the SNES generation (when games actually were more expensive). They do not need to sell for as much per unit to make a profit now. Edit: Forgot to mention the carts/boards themselfs actually cost the devs around $10 a piece to manufacture back then. Disks cost pennies to produce.

3: Around 70% on average of a games reported "development" cost is actually marketing costs. (Which was maybe 5% during the SNES gen. Actual development costs have not changed nearly as much as most people think. Only the misleading ways that publishers report it) Publishers choose these excessive and overpriced marketing strategies, and gamers should not have to pay for it. GTAV which was supposedly the most expensive game ever made @ $265m, most likely only cost around 80-90m to develop (which still makes it by far the most expensive non MMO ever made. Star Citizen might end up beating it, although that was already payed for entirely by gamers). The other $175-185m was spent on marketing. The actual development cost of an average hollywood movie is higher than 99% of video games, and yet they still only cost $20 at retail.

4: As far as DLC is concerned, it has nothing to do with devs not making enough money from the initial sale. It typically has nothing to do with the developer at all. It is just a bunch of greedy suits at the publisher wanting more cash. I would be suprised if the developer gets even a 10% cut from DLC/Microtransactions. Notice that EA and Activision count for like 95% of all DLC and microtransaction content. Hardly any other devs/pubs, excluding ftp MMOs and small cellphone games, actually have that type of content. Coincidence? I think not.

When comparing two $60 games, perhaps we should consider one too cheap and one priced right. Also, breaking cost down per hour is way cheaper going to the movies . gaming is as cheap or expensivd as you wqnt it to be.

Good lord, no.
If you're working part time and you only make a couple hundred smackers per half-month, a $59.99 price tag is already a decent bite out of your check.

ESPECIALLY if you have other necessities to worry about.

The fact of the matter, is that $100 doesn't go as far as it used to back in the 70's or earlier.
We're already paying enough for games.

If devs want more profit out of their games, then maybe they should STOP BLOWING THEIR BUDGETS SKY HIGH by constantly focusing on realism and pixel counts.
The graphics whores can deal with a resurgence of games that are more heavily reliant on art styles to cover for graphical bells and whistles.
It'd free up resources, and budget dollars, to be used in more important areas anyways, like script, extra post-release content, music, VA, world size, etc.

I agree they should be more expensive. Look at how much more Dev time it takes to craft GTA V versus GTA 3. And we paid more for GTA 3 than GTA V!!

in Canada we pay $80 plus tax which bring it to over $90. please don't tell me about paying more.

i kinda agree that games should be more expensive....the problem is the industry isnt always fair or honest. if we could consistently get the kind of quality nintendo is known for id be open more expensive games...we are in the day 1 patch era and that sucks plus devs like ubisoft and EA ect can put out rushed or broken games with no real consequences....its hard for the industry to sell us on a price increase with the industries current climate.

They could be , but upping the price is going to have people making demands that whatever thought the developer had while taking a restroom break should also be included ........lol

Could argue the case if it wasn't for day 1 dlc and season passes

What else we should expect from Nintendo fanatics?

How is it that they did all that and forgot to account for the market... The reason games don't need to be more expensive is the market has grown tremendously since the days of Atari. Show me the graphs where the developers and publishers are making less money and then I'll believe that games should be more expensive.

The fact is the markets huge, good games rake in money ( and bad ones can too).

if you think like that then stay on console pc gamers dont follow that 60$ crap

Anyone interested in true inflation should look up Shadow Stats, or read the book "Inside VFX" which reveals just how cheap hollywood movies are to produce. Or to see how much value the US dollar has lost since 1980.

With that in mind, game development costs haven't really budged since PS3 and Xbox 360 hit the scene. New software like Substance and Zbrush have made art production a lot easier.

There's literally nothing to complain about with $60 games. Because that price cuts in half after 6 months to a year. I don't understand this instant gratification culture that's been happening lately, where we need the game as soon as it release. Yeah, NMS is $60, but it'll be $30 or $20 by the start of December or January. Fk, a prostitute is more expensive these days. We have it really good compared to the past, we just take it for granted.

yeah like 100$$$ why not, yeah do it do it nowwww, the amount of stupidity of humanity it's over 9000

Hardware and pretty graphics made gaming expensive and time consuming to develop.
We are all paying for it in cost with DLC, season passes and micro transactions but also in lack of innovation in terms of gameplay and even gaming variety.
All these games need millions of sales to be profitable and most try to be the next whatever its selling at the moment.
Most people crap on No Mans Sky but I'm actually enjoying playing something different (thou they need to improve on the game), just stopped to play Nioh, loving that japanese theme.
Waiting on VR to make me experience something new. I'm getting bored of gaming nowadays...

I kinda see what the author means.
Higher base price and no microtransactions and DLC

Here is the problem.

Where I live, new games cost 60 euro (67 dollars) and sometimes 70 euro (78 dollars).
My sister still has her old Sega Mega Drive (or Genesis) and those converted around 50 to 60 euro.

Here in Europe, game prices have stayed mostly the same ... unless you start adding that content they take out and sell as DLC.
Destiny was 70 euro + 35 euro for the season pass + 20 for the third DLC that wasn't included in the season pass
You also had the collectors edition which ran you 200 euro.
Full Destiny game = 125 euro (139 dollars)
Limited Edition = 255 euro (285 dollars)
For a single game!

Micro transactions are also in many big budget games now and while optional, they bring in a ton of cash. Microtransactions IMO are never okay in a game I already paid for. That means they migrate a system in the game to make the microtransactions a much faster way of getting things done.

People were thanking EA when they put microtransactions in Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare 2, never thinking that the system in place was designed with microtransactions in mind, take them out and add them later when people asked for it. Assassin's Creed currency also had microtransactions. Forza has microtransactions. Halo has microtransactions. Overwatch has microtransactions. Uncharted 4 has microtransactions.
Estimated reports of the revenue they make of these are 500.000 dollars, 780.000 to even 1.5 milion dollars. Don't you worry about the developers paycheck.And besides, if a company can't control it's own budget for a game, why should the consumer cover that for them? We pay for a game, not a company's financial status.

And lastly, if the industry over the years has shown you anything, it's that companies are only out for money. I guess that's logical since they are companies after all. What makes you think they would get rid of DLC, season passes, pre orders and microtransactions now? Even IF games had a higher base price?

The game industry today is a multi billion trillion industry, far bigger than back in the day. Believe me, these companies make their money, one way or the other.

(sorry for the long post, just wanted to get this off my chest)

Is the writer high or something? I disagree with his opinion, regardless.

I think games are priced just about right. I think it is fair that some releases are priced at $40 upon release bc of the amount of content. I am also happy to see prices drop after a while which certainly helps my entertainment budget.

What I don't care for is always having to download patches when the released game is a buggy piece of crap. I feel like this is a bunch of shit when you purchase some long sought after game day one and the gameplay sucks. I'd rather the developer takes a little extra time through a delay than release unfinished products.

Shhhhhhhh! They might hear you. Even worse, they might actually listen!!!

Because paying $89 with tax isn't enough right?

Hell no. New games where I live are $70-$80 already.

Well, you could make games more expensive, but then a lot of people would just wait unill they're on sale or not buy them at all, raising prices doesn't magically expands peoples wallets with it.

i remember buying tomb raider for ps1 for £44.49 at launch tomb raider at launch on ps3 was £39 on amazon

What about when developers reuse assets and such?

Wuchang is great. Nine Sols didn’t have a physical copy so I never played it but I’ve heard good things so I will check it out. I stopped playing sports games many years ago when before the card dlc’s or whatever they’re called.

Last comment… ):

Great month for others, but not me. Hate soccer and soulslikes. Maybe Nine Sols is good.

🫡 it was fun while it lasted, N4G.

FC26!

I hated that he died. The game was good but you never want to see a character you can relate or enjoy to die off like that. We wanted more Joel not less. Still a really good game but that part will always sit poorly with many

I really didn’t mind his fate. It was the way it was executed was the problem

Not gonna lie, I think they made a big mistake. I mean I like a big unimaginable shock moments as much as the next person. It was just too soon though. If you’re going to kill off the main character you need a solid back up that people love just as much to carry the weight of the loss. If you’re setting it up for a trilogy then he really should have died at the end of 2 or half way through 3.

Who cares, that was like 6 years ago.

I don't mind the story, I think it is interesting in its own. But I would much prefer it stays as a story between Joel and Ellie (And I don't hate Abby, but it just feels like a third wheel when I play the game, feel like it is not a story about her). Joel can live with the consequences in a different way than just get killed off, his emotional conflicts between him and Ellie, Abby and everyone else would have a lot of interesting stories to tell, not any less than just get killed off.

So we as players, who controlled Joel in the first game, can get immersed and feel the guilt with him, instead of getting angry that he got killed.

TLOU Part 2 was a great game, but the entire game made me mad

Personally I liked that they killed off Joel, his death scene was great. The story was good and how revenge drives a person. The last quarter of the game was dumb after Tommy told Ellie where Abby was located. She leaves the farm goes in an arduous trek killing many more people along the way. Finds Abby in a cage releases her they fight, Ellie gets two fingers bitten off, and suddenly she doesn’t want to fight and kill Abby anymore, lets her leave with a warning even though she was the one losing the fight. Why go the rough all of that hassle just to let the focus of your hatred just leave. Should have stwyed home with Diana and keep all her fingers intact. Still a great game with a good story and I liked Abby I saw no reason for all her hate.

They could have killed Tommy and made it a revenge story with Joel and Ellie going after Abbie.

ND was trying so hard to make me sympathize with Abbie and it just wasn't working. I just don't understand how you make a "revenge is bad story" while having me mow through hundreds of NPCs just to get to the main culprit and just...not finish the job. Druckman is a terrible story teller.