We live in a world of $50 Game of the Year nominees and $80 biggest publisher in the world video games. It reminds me of the 90s where people paid $80 or more for Final Fantasy III while other games were $30 to $40. Good games, at that.
There's a lot to discuss around the value of games. Cost to develop, quality of output, and perceived value. Perceived value is an extremely hard one to argue considering it's purely subjective in nature. From those happy to pay for seasonal skins, those who pre-order deluxe editions, those who pay a subscription fee, and those who wait for annual Steam sales. Because of this, it's impossibly to truly get at the true value of such things when they vary so greatly.
But what about development costs? How often does more time and money spent on a game result in better? Are annual released games that cost $200m to develop truly a sign of these costs? What is that money being spent on when players experience the same content and same bugs from one to the next? Should we pay prime dollar for costs that are slightly altering experiences compared to new IP developed for a fraction of the cost?
We've all heard about how more expensive development is getting, but how do we then get things like Baldur's Gate III and Expedition 33: Clair Obscur? How are certain studios able to produce high quality content with less funding? And why are those who spend more to develop the ones who push for higher prices without outputting similar levels of quality, let alone new content? Is it merely players paying for the faults of poor management and design choices?
What are your thoughts on the subject? Do you feel that the games that are getting price increases truly represent an increase in development costs or just another focus on increased profit margins?
"Albion Online, the free-to-play fantasy sandbox MMORPG developed by Sandbox Interactive will launch for Xbox Series X|S on 21 April 2026." - Sandbox Interactive.
Jason Dietz: "We reveal the past year's best and worst video game publishers (based on their 2025 releases) in the 16th edition of our annual Game Publisher Rankings."
I was just going to say this, their biggest and top rated game here is TLOU2 for PC….it’s embarrassing.
Even Ubisoft and EA are ahead
Kind of surprised Nintendo is pretty low aswell, their biggest game is also a rerelease with the Switch 2 version of TotK.
@christopher:” Take note, Sony, you're falling behind by a lot.”
.
Why single out Sony? Microsoft didn’t do any better than the year before 5th same as Sony 9th and they have acquired activision and other mayor titles that have boosted their score massively from a 9th and Sony a 4th the year before the acquisitions.
Sony does need to do better without a doubt and I do hope they do take note but not the note of buying publishers is the way to succeed.
1. Microsoft didn't get worse.
2. Sony got way worse.
3. Because Sony needs the criticism the most considering their publishing output this generation has been propped up by last gen ports and third-party developers for the most part.
1Victor,
I don't wanna speak for Christopher, but like most of us we recognize that Sony's output this Gen has been way below their own standards.
Also Sony did buy a fair amount of Devs, I know you will say they were not publishers, and don't compare in size, but they had their fair share of Aquisitions, including the very well established Bungie.
The overall point is with their stellar first party track record of the past, they should not be going down, they are singled out because they are some of the best videogame devs/publisher on the planet...no matter what reasons we attribute to the situation, they are moving in the wrong direction... period.
21st vs 5th lmao
“Why single out Sony”
🤣🤣🤣
Not even close, and Microsoft will beat Sony again in 2026, we already know this.
Big part of that has been the live service push resulting in cancellation or flop after flop but when they put out the games their fans want we get amazing stuff like astro bot
Leadership really screwed the pooch trend chasing
https://www.metacritic.com/...
https://www.metacritic.com/...
Well I apologize I was wrong about not doing worse but my statement of Microsoft getting a boost still stand 🤷🏿
lol you’re really trying to defend a company in 21st position?
What a downfall from the days of the PS4
But... but... the garbage-mongers always tell us that Square Enix is in trouble! 😂
Square doesn't help that it fear mongers itself with ridiculous 'goals' that they can't reach and then they proclaim failure if they don't reach it. They're quite freaking profitable and people act like they're dying.
Keep in mind that these "proclamations" are usually third-hand bad translations from somedude who was at the investor conference, posted on Twitter, and picked up by press and youtubers like they were gold, and then when the official translation comes out, they're much softer statements, but at that point, the damage is done.
to be very fair
being number one on these things does not indicate how "well" their games do selling wise.
Console Creatures writes, "The Mega Man Star Force Legacy Collection is packed with content and showcases the series' best moments with attention to detail and quality of life improvements to make this one heck of a packaged deal."
Depends on the game, I believe we as core gaming consumers now need to make more careful decisions on purchasing full priced games. Even with $60/$70 games I rarely bought day one. It needs to be a game I know for sure I would love to play and support the devs for. Are my friends playing it? Is it from a studio or IP I am a huge fan of? Is it well received from critics and the public? I always look at these first.
Otherwise I am completely fine with waiting for sales. And unfortunately Nintendo hardly ever does deep sales on their first party. I have plenty of games in my backlog.
Developers rely on hype and marketing to sell you day one, the reality is if you can have a shred of self control and resist the review hype and FOMO, you never have to pay full price.
It’s worth $80 to play day one if that’s what gets you going, otherwise, wait six months and buy 3 games that came out earlier in the year for the same $80
Only one or two games a year are actually worth it day 1. Some years it's more and some it's less. With all the micro transactions, tiers, live-service elements, cheap looking AI development, and bad art, $80 is a joke for most games. But if the games are quality, without being whale machine-level gating-casino-rentals, they would be worth it. $80 day 1 is more than a fair price for good art.
Remasters are a personal decision, as nothing about them justify the price-tag. On the other hand, remasters, like Demon Soul's, are worth it.
I'm not buying 'the development cost' excuse. There's a ton of money floating around not being used to make games.
Studios with smaller budgets that can develop high quality experiences are well managed and the talent is consistent from the top to the bottom.
People will still buy games for that, it will become the new norm and it will grow again, but no obsolutely not worth it, games are too monetised nowadays as well, i miss the old days of gaming
No game is going to be worth $80 at launch. I'm sorry. 69.99 was pushing it, but $79.99 for a base game? Gonna have to chip in on that $20 battle pass every 45 days too. I think my days of buying ANYTHING day one is over.