Sony PlayStation 5 OT - Play Has No Limits, update: financial report indicates no major first-party/exclusive PS5 releases prior to end of March 2025, PS5 in "latter half" of console cycle

[crispy4000]

 

2 hours ago, TwinIon said:

I don't know what makes you think the developers aren't ready for a new gen. There aren't many "fully next gen" games, but it doesn't matter when you launch, that's just the reality of generational transitions.

 

I bet most of the launch titles you can remember were "fully next gen" games.  It does matter if the goal is to illustrate why the hardware is so desirable.

Devs by and large haven't shown us they're ready.  Halo Infinite.  UE5's timeline.  REVIII's rumored production issues.  Cyperpunk's next-gen patch coming so far post-release.  The almost total lack of Japanese games at launch.  Etc.

There are a few exceptions, of course.  But by and large, I don't think the industry was ready to sell us on next-gen because of what we're seeing now.  They're trying to sell us on cross-gen as the main course.  And that is a departure from the past.

[crispy4000]

 

[Mercury33]

I took vacation time the week that PS5 comes out. If Target doesn’t ship it to me for launch day, I’m burning it down 

[Biggie]

9 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

I took vacation time the week that PS5 comes out. If Target doesn’t ship it to me for launch day, I’m burning it down 

[Guest]

I’m with @JPDunks4, I have a large library of games that will play their best on the new iteration of the consoles. That alone is worth the price tag for me, add in that the best version of new titles will also be there and I don’t see a reason to wait around.

[Remarkableriots]

6 hours ago, Dodger said:

I better get my consoles launch day, Target keeps charging and refunding my account over and over for both of them. If I would have known it was going to be like that I wouldn't have used my debit card. I'm just glad I have some money in there so it's not fucking me over every time they charge it. 

 

Launch plans for me are on PS5 Demons Souls and most likely the new Spiderman. I couldn't get into the other one but I'll give it a try. Then on XSX, I'll get the new AC and then I don't really know. Perhaps Watchdogs if it reviews well. Oh and Gears Tactics. I enjoyed Wasteland 3 so I'll at least give that a go. Will check out Destiny Beyond Light, and then some last gen games optimized or just with lower load times. 

 

I'm also all over playing Bloodborne again if that has reduced load times and hopefully a frame rate boost. 

 

I tell myself I'll hold off on Cyberpunk until the patch comes, but I'm a weak person and probably won't be able to hold off. 

I think it was Gamestop or Best Buy that charged me like that for a CE game years ago. Seems so dumb to do that.

[Remarkableriots]

7 hours ago, JPDunks4 said:

I think this generation by far for consoles, Launch Lineup matters least.  Thanks to both consoles backwards compatibility, you won't be stuck only playing "Launch Games".  I understand those that think, well then why'd I spend $500.  I've explained myself before, but you are spending that $500 to play the new releases at their best fidelity on console, as well as knowing that you are good to go for another 6-7 years of new releases.  Unless your plan is to wait a few years for a price drop or console revision, there is no benefit to to waiting til next year when HZD or Halo drops.  

 

I also do think Sony's launch lineup is pretty solid regardless.  The Souls games are very popular and Demon Souls looks very well done, and while I haven't played Spiderman, its obvously a very well loved Franchise now, so to have one at launch is obviously a huge win as well.  I can't say Sackboy get's me excited as I literally haven't played any 3d Platformers that I own, but it looks like a decent title.  GodFall could be a pleasant surprise for those that enjoy  looter hack'n slashers.  

 

Destruction All-Stars gets joked about because we know absolutely nothing about it, as far as I know.  It's a $70 price tag on a game that looks like it could possibly mimic a F2P sales model.  Is it Multiplayer only? Is there some kind of single player campaign story?  How many characters, vehicles, game modes?  It just looks a lot like a lot of the Multiplayer Only F2P games that keep getting released without knowing more about it.  If an article has come out about it and I haven't seen it then I could be wrong, but as far as I've seen, we know next to nothing about the game.

 

On top of all that, you also have the new releases dropping at or within a week of launch.  While I understand that Cyberpunk is dropping a week later and with only a BC version, but how is one of the top, most anticipated games of the last 5 years coming out a few days after launch, not counted as a launch title.  If Witcher 3 was playable at launch on XB1 and PS4, would that not have been considered a huge win for launch of those consoles?  Also have AC: Valhalla, and the new AC's are considered pretty top tier games overall these days.  CoD:Cold War looks like it'll be a vastly better game than CoD: Ghosts was at launch last gen.

 

Then to wrap it all up, I have so many friends that own PS4's, that only play Warzone everyday.  They are getting PS5's Day 1 to do what, play Warzone, everyday.  Don't even know what Demon Souls is.  With all these big GAAS like Apex, Warzone, Fortnite, Destiny, Avengers, Borderlands, and whatever else, a lot of people will be more than happy to keep grinding and playing those same games but at a better performance than they ever had on their PS4 or XB1's. 

 

So to me, the launch of both consoles and deciding to upgrade is easily one of the best and easiest decisions when compared to previous gens.  

I'm definitely looking forward to upgrading from a regular PS 4 so i can experience Pro upgrades in some games and PS 5 upgrades. The shortened load times alone for me would be worth it in some games. I agree with everything you said.

[Xbob42]

12 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

A "typical" Sony and Microsoft console launch lineup is basically garbage.  Middling is too kind.  Microsoft's not even crossing that low bar this year without a brand new 1st party game at launch.

The PS5 line-up is the first time since the original Xbox that either company has a launch list I'd consider 'reasonably good.'  You wouldn't even need to spend $70 on a 6 hour game, because you get one packed in with the system.  Plus, Spiderman MM is discounted.

If you took Destruction All-Stars out of the picture entirely, the PS5 would still have a 'reasonably good' launch line-up.  I have no idea what's with the fixation some of you have with it.  The only thing to discuss is how little there is to discuss.

 

I'm still disappointed by how few actual next-gen exclusives we're getting, across the board.  But I'd take Sony's PS5 line-up over another Killzone/Knack or Resistance/Genji kind of launch.  It's not even a question.

See, the issue here is you're judging launch lineup vs launch lineup. I don't play that game. I judge launch lineup vs literally any other part of the library, any time during the console's existence. I don't give special exceptions to bad or mediocre games just because it's launch time. The stars of the PS5 lineup are a remade PS3 game and an expansion to a PS4 game, also available on the PS4.

 

And Destruction All-Stars is being "fixated" on because I can guarantee in no universe is there a world where that game, no matter how "okay" it turns out, is worth $70. You can tell that's going to be the case because we're weeks from launch and they've shown basically nothing.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

See, the issue here is you're judging launch lineup vs launch lineup. I don't play that game. I judge launch lineup vs literally any other part of the library, any time during the console's existence. I don't give special exceptions to bad or mediocre games just because it's launch time. The stars of the PS5 lineup are a remade PS3 game and an expansion to a PS4 game, also available on the PS4.

This would be a reasonably good year end line-up for them in a normal year.  Notice I’m using the same language.  I think there’s a good number of games there that people won’t stop recommending.

 

But I don’t think you can totally divorce the console launch from the lineup either.  In some ways, we should be expecting more from them.  They have something more direct to prove to us about what the next gen consoles can do than normal year-end releases.  

 

That is only my opinion though.  Not everyone in this thread has those standards. 

 

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

And Destruction All-Stars is being "fixated" on because I can guarantee in no universe is there a world where that game, no matter how "okay" it turns out, is worth $70. You can tell that's going to be the case because we're weeks from launch and they've shown basically nothing.

We’ve been through this before.  You think retail releases today are too chopped up these days because of expansion DLC and mtx.  And that every extra (inflated) dollar you spend demands more value.

 

I say we should expect $70 games to be at least the same value as they were the last price hike two generations ago.  And I have few doubts, considering how stuffed retail releases are today.  I don’t expect that to change with a price increase.  I’d more expect that if there wasn’t.

 

The idea of the single-player only / multi-player focused full priced game was once very controversial.  Reasonable people now realize there’s a nuanced answer there.  Tell me, with your snap impressions of Destruction All-Stars (and the lack of footage), would you assume it’s worth $60?  I doubt it.  I don’t think an extra $10 is the real issue you have with it.

 

 

[Xbob42]

32 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

The idea of the single-player only / multi-player focused full priced game was once very controversial.  Reasonable people now realize there’s a nuanced answer there.  Tell me, with your snap impressions of Destruction All-Stars (and the lack of footage), would you assume it’s worth $60?  I doubt it.  I don’t think an extra $10 is the real issue you have with it.

I think Destruction All-Stars looks like a $30 budget game. A game existing does not warrant it being full-price. Indie games get this. Studios like Sony do not. The contrast becomes even more stark when I look at something like Game Pass. If Destruction All-Stars was just a thing that was included in a theoretical Sony version of Game Pass, I think it'd be a great add. As its own thing I have to fork over the same money (actually, MORE money) than something like Cyberpunk 2077? The math doesn't check out. I can accept a "it's less hours but it's really fun" argument if the game is supremely good, but again, we've seen nothing that impresses with this one.

 

As for the rest, if you think the launch lineup looks that good, more power to you. I don't really feel strongly enough about it to argue much more than that, because whatever, I know launch lineups are usually bad, but I never use that as an excuse for their badness. You know this console is coming for years, you can develop some cool shit to hit launch. I never understand why we get bad launches. Just release the console when it's got some cool games ready. Nintendo, for example, can often get at least one really good, unique launch game out. Super Mario Bros. (NES), Super Mario World (SNES), Mario 64 (N64), Luigi's Mansion (Gamecube, almost the worst launch title for a main Nintendo home console, but still a damn good game), Twilight Princess (Wii), New Super Mario Bros. U (The worst launch title IMO, but still a good Mario game), Breath of the Wild (Switch), maybe I'm just spoiled by Nintendo (their home efforts, they've been hit or miss with handhelds) but I really want at least one excellent game at launch. Sure, BotW and Twilight Princess were available on their previous-gen consoles as well, but they were still brand new games and were both better on the new hardware, they weren't expansions or upressed ports of years-old games.

Maybe that expectation is unrealistic, but it shouldn't have to be.

[JPDunks4]

7 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

As for the rest, if you think the launch lineup looks that good, more power to you. I don't really feel strongly enough about it to argue much more than that, because whatever, I know launch lineups are usually bad, but I never use that as an excuse for their badness. You know this console is coming for years, you can develop some cool shit to hit launch. I never understand why we get bad launches. Just release the console when it's got some cool games ready. Nintendo, for example, can often get at least one really good, unique launch game out. Super Mario Bros. (NES), Super Mario World (SNES), Mario 64 (N64), Luigi's Mansion (Gamecube, almost the worst launch title for a main Nintendo home console, but still a damn good game), Twilight Princess (Wii), New Super Mario Bros. U (The worst launch title IMO, but still a good Mario game), Breath of the Wild (Switch), maybe I'm just spoiled by Nintendo (their home efforts, they've been hit or miss with handhelds) but I really want at least one excellent game at launch. Sure, BotW and Twilight Princess were available on their previous-gen consoles as well, but they were still brand new games and were both better on the new hardware, they weren't expansions or upressed ports of years-old games.

Maybe that expectation is unrealistic, but it shouldn't have to be.

 

Sony just released LoU2 and Ghost of Tsushima in the past few months, both being some pretty huge, high quality, exclusive 1st party games.  They could have theoretically held one back a few months, made it PS5 only, add a few next gen flares, and call it a PS5 launch game.  Does that really benefit anyone though just to create some new artificially hyped up launch lineup?

[crispy4000]

18 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I think Destruction All-Stars looks like a $30 budget game. A game existing does not warrant it being full-price. Indie games get this. Studios like Sony do not. The contrast becomes even more stark when I look at something like Game Pass.

I guessed right then.  I think there should be plenty of room for a full priced multiplayer game of its sort. (See: Splatoon 2, fighting games, etc)  Even at a next-gen $70. 

 

The problem is Sony is feeding us nothing but breadcrumbs.  I don’t know if I should care, and I enjoy Twisted Metal and the like.  It’s a total failure in the marketing.  Or maybe just a bad game they’re hiding behind to pad.  Who knows.

 

18 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

You know this console is coming for years, you can develop some cool shit to hit launch. I never understand why we get bad launches. Just release the console when it's got some cool games ready. Nintendo, for example...  

 

Sony and Microsoft focus too much on each other to think that way, IMO.  Just look at how long we had to wait for the price.

[crispy4000]

4 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

 

Sony just released LoU2 and Ghost of Tsushima in the past few months, both being some pretty huge, high quality, exclusive 1st party games.  They could have theoretically held one back a few months, made it PS5 only, add a few next gen flares, and call it a PS5 launch game.  Does that really benefit anyone though just to create some new artificially hyped up launch lineup?

Holding back BoTW meant everything to the Switch.  Just saying.

[JPDunks4]

 

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

It meant everything to the Switch.  Just saying.

 

Did it?  Breathe of the Wild obviously was a huge release at launch, but if it released a few months earlier on Wii U, and then released again on Switch with a few "next gen" upgrades and played better than ever on Switch, you don't think it'd sell Switch consoles?

 

One of the reasons I'm still interested in a PS5 right now is the Ghost of Tsushima co-op mode and Raid coming soon.  It's extremely well done, and with the 60fps upgrade for PS5, that's more of a console seller for me than Demon Souls or Spidreman.

 

Also, Cyberpunk is coming out right around at launch and will play better on PS5 than PS4 thanks to load times alone.  Cyberpunk if it matches it's hype levels, could be a game on the scale of a Breathe of the Wild.  But because its a multiplat its dismissed for some reason.

[crispy4000]

17 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

Did it?  Breathe of the Wild obviously was a huge release at launch, but if it released a few months earlier on Wii U, and then released again on Switch with a few "next gen" upgrades and played better than ever on Switch, you don't think it'd sell Switch consoles?

It would have sold consoles, but not nearly as many.  The Switch wouldn’t have blown up so quickly.  It was able to ride that initial wave.

 

Nintendo did the same thing with Twlight Princess on the Wii.  It was the fire starter.

 

They absolutely made the right call.  It’s why no one should ever discount the influence of a killer app at launch.  Even if it’s a timed exclusive for a marginal window.

 

 

17 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

One of the reasons I'm still interested in a PS5 right now is the Ghost of Tsushima co-op mode and Raid coming soon.  It's extremely well done, and with the 60fps upgrade for PS5, that's more of a console seller for me than Demon Souls or Spidreman.

 

Also, Cyberpunk is coming out right around at launch and will play better on PS5 than PS4 thanks to load times alone.  Cyberpunk if it matches it's hype levels, could be a game on the scale of a Breathe of the Wild.  But because its a multiplat its dismissed for some reason.

Sony will probably sell more copies of Ghosts this way, but it’s not going to be the game pushing PS5’s.  If it was held back, sure.  But TLOU2 would have been the real heavy hitter to position like Zelda.

 

Cyperpunk is more like RDR2.  It’ll generate a ton of hype no matter what it’s on.  Or how long that next-gen patch gets delayed on consoles.

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

5 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I’m with @JPDunks4, I have a large library of games that will play their best on the new iteration of the consoles. That alone is worth the price tag for me, add in that the best version of new titles will also be there and I don’t see a reason to wait around.

Same here... I have a backlog of games that I'm waiting to play on the series X and a couple of others that I plan on REPLAYING on the Series X. No point in me waiting for either console when I have the means to get them now and was able to snage preorders for both. This is the first gen I actaully preordered consoles btw.

[ARZ]

Not getting a PS5 for some time, especially with Horizon and Spider-Man coming to PS4. But damn....if they held Ghost of Tsushima as a launch title for PS5 only - I probably would've punched an old lady to get my pre-order in

[SaysWho?]

Destruction AllStars will now launch in February as a PS+ game

 

 

[JPDunks4]

Didn't someone say it would probably be a PS+ title. 

 

Wonder if they'll adjust its retail price or leave it at $70.

[Keyser_Soze]

54 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

Didn't someone say it would probably be a PS+ title.

 

Yeah... it was you!

 

 

On 10/23/2020 at 9:19 AM, JPDunks4 said:

 

Rocket League was Free through PS+ when it first launched.

 

Maybe Destruction All Stars will be a PS+ Freebie for Launch too?

 

[crispy4000]

The delay explains why we haven't seen an extended cut yet.  As for PS+, that's a good thing for new PS5 owners.

I still don't think every new multiplayer IP should be a free hand out.  But if they want to position this game that way, it's fine, I guess?  We still have no idea if they're compensating for anything. 

 

[Xbob42]

Sounds like they read this thread. 

[crispy4000]

Who asked for a delay?

[Dodger]

I don't think anyone asked for a delay but I've seen a lot of people saying $70 really for that game and Sony must have saw it was like damn we better do something. 

[Xbob42]

31 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Who asked for a delay?

I mean, JP's not the only one who thought it should go on PS+, although I still don't consider PS+ a proper competitor to Game Pass, it makes a lot more sense than what they were attempting to do.

On 10/23/2020 at 7:46 PM, Xbob42 said:

I think Destruction All-Stars looks like a $30 budget game. A game existing does not warrant it being full-price. Indie games get this. Studios like Sony do not. The contrast becomes even more stark when I look at something like Game Pass. If Destruction All-Stars was just a thing that was included in a theoretical Sony version of Game Pass, I think it'd be a great add. As its own thing I have to fork over the same money (actually, MORE money) than something like Cyberpunk 2077? The math doesn't check out. I can accept a "it's less hours but it's really fun" argument if the game is supremely good, but again, we've seen nothing that impresses with this one.

I think it's a great add to PS+! Now I'll probably play it!

[crispy4000]

25 minutes ago, Dodger said:

I don't think anyone asked for a delay but I've seen a lot of people saying $70 really for that game and Sony must have saw it was like damn we better do something. 

 

Probably was more of a calculated decision than that.  We'll see most PS5-exclusives be $70 going forward in any case.

[crispy4000]

24 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I mean, JP's not the only one who thought it should go on PS+, although I still don't consider PS+ a proper competitor to Game Pass, it makes a lot more sense than what they were attempting to do.

 

The biggest reason it didn't make sense at $70 is that it isn't an established multiplayer property, or from a pedigreed developer.  The discussion would differ somewhat if it was a Twisted Metal revival instead.

[Xbob42]

15 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

The biggest reason it didn't make sense at $70 is that it isn't an established multiplayer property, or from a pedigreed developer.  The discussion would differ somewhat if it was a Twisted Metal revival instead.

I would laugh my fucking ass off at them trying to charge $70 for a Twisted Metal game, and I like Twisted Metal.

[crispy4000]

25 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I would laugh my fucking ass off at them trying to charge $70 for a Twisted Metal game, and I like Twisted Metal.

What about $70 for a fighting game?  $70 for an arcade sports game?  $70 for an RTS?

[Xbob42]

8 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

What about $70 for a fighting game?  $70 for an arcade sports game?  $70 for an RTS?

It depends on the series, the amount of content, the precedent set previously, etc. Games don't exist in a vacuum. Street Fighter 5 launched at $60 and was an unfinished pile of shit, so even premium franchises can launch at hilariously out-of-touch prices.

Your 4 hour "iii"ndie RTS is not going to get as much money out of me as a new Warcraft. But frankly, at $70, I'm gonna be raising my eyebrows at a lot more games. At some point it stops making sense for full price to be the norm for so many games. Like I said, we can talk about inflation or whatever, but the simple fact is for all intents and purposes, at least in America, wages are significantly lower than they were in the past. Sure, our dollars per hour is higher, but adjusted for inflation we make less. And game prices aren't the only thing creeping up. We simply don't have the expendable income (certainly not during a pandemic) for yet another price hike to make a ton of sense.

 

I think games will sell just fine, but I think waiting for sales or going used is going to be wildly more popular than it was last-gen, and deals like Game Pass will make $70 individual games seem even stranger. We already have a ton of people on this very forum, which I would say is probably pretty deep into gaming compared to the mainstream, waiting months to buy new games because even at $60, that shit adds up if you play more than one game every 5 months.

It's not just genre or brand, it's everything.

[TwinIon]

On 10/23/2020 at 11:09 AM, crispy4000 said:

 

I bet most of the launch titles you can remember were "fully next gen" games.  It does matter if the goal is to illustrate why the hardware is so desirable.

Devs by and large haven't shown us they're ready.  Halo Infinite.  UE5's timeline.  REVIII's rumored production issues.  Cyperpunk's next-gen patch coming so far post-release.  The almost total lack of Japanese games at launch.  Etc.

There are a few exceptions, of course.  But by and large, I don't think the industry was ready to sell us on next-gen because of what we're seeing now.  They're trying to sell us on cross-gen as the main course.  And that is a departure from the past.

 

The launch titles I remember, and have stood the test of time, were either the result of huge technological leaps or were ports. Mario 64 was a big deal because 3D, we simply don't those kind of jumps anymore. Soul Calibur was a port, though a very impressive one. Halo doesn't technically count as a port, but as a twin stick shooter that worked well on consoles, there was a technological novelty there. Breath of the Wild was a port, and not a very impressive one.

 

We simply don't have those kind of technological leaps anymore that require full time development on a new generation of hardware. I'd argue that is exactly why this same problem is one we've seen in the more recent past. We certainly saw it with this last generation, and I'd argue we saw it in the PS3/360 era as well.

 

Expecting launch games to be anything more than cross gen upgrades at this point is folly. The technology doesn't demand it and the market would punish it.

 

If you're simply arguing that you're personally disappointed with the launch games, not much to say there other than you probably should have set your expectations lower. If you're somehow arguing that Sony and MS missed their shot to prove that the Series X and PS5 are worthwhile upgrades or that a weak line up is otherwise detrimental to their ambitions, I think you're clearly and demonstrably wrong.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

It depends on the series, the amount of content, the precedent set previously, etc. Games don't exist in a vacuum. Street Fighter 5 launched at $60 and was an unfinished pile of shit, so even premium franchises can launch at hilariously out-of-touch prices.

Your 4 hour "iii"ndie RTS is not going to get as much money out of me as a new Warcraft. But frankly, at $70, I'm gonna be raising my eyebrows at a lot more games. At some point it stops making sense for "full price" to be the norm for so many games. Like I said, we can talk about inflation or whatever, but the simple fact is for all intents and purposes, at least in America, wages are significantly lower than they were in the past. Sure, our dollars per hour is higher, but adjusted for inflation we make less. And game prices aren't the only thing creeping up. We simply don't have the expendable income (certainly not during a pandemic) for yet another price hike to make a ton of sense.

 

I think games will sell just fine, but I think waiting for sales or going used is going to be wildly more popular than it was last-gen, and deals like Game Pass will make $70 individual games seem even stranger. We already have a ton of people on this very forum, which I would say is probably pretty deep into gaming compared to the mainstream, waiting months to buy new games because even at $60, that shit adds up if you play more than one game every 5 months.

It's not just genre or brand, it's everything.

I think there's a cyclical pattern here.  Genres lose popularity, people argue those 'types of games' shouldn't full priced, publishers may stop making them.  We start to see certain genres not worth the money, when in the past, most people happily paid full price and enjoyed the hell out of them.

Generational price hikes are a convenient excuse for those biases to be teased out.  And we all have them.

You can objectively say that some games have more content than others.  But for multiplayer-focused stuff especially, it's often more a question of whether its fun enough to play for 10+ hours.  I don't see much of a difference between car combat games, car sim games, fighting games, sports games, CoD multiplayer, RTSs, etc in that regard.  Only my personal preferences.

The only real wrench in the equation today is F2P.  It does change some value judgements.  But it doesn't exist in a vacuum either.  You need to look at what F2P games succeed and fail, in what monetization models, and that's before even comparing them to retail releases.

[crispy4000]

3 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

We simply don't have those kind of technological leaps anymore that require full time development on a new generation of hardware. I'd argue that is exactly why this same problem is one we've seen in the more recent past. We certainly saw it with this last generation, and I'd argue we saw it in the PS3/360 era as well.

 

Expecting launch games to be anything more than cross gen upgrades at this point is folly. The technology doesn't demand it and the market would punish it.

I'd say that between the SSD and Raytracing possibilities, we WILL have a big leap this generation.  The issue is that Sony and Microsoft didn't give most developers time to develop the tools to take advantage.  They care more about not being late to market.

There's a reason why NBA2K21 looks like one of the most impressive launch titles.  They prioritized the tech and didn't overshoot.  It shouldn't be too much to expect other companies to plan similarly.  Especially platform holders, who have an obligation to generate interest.

 

[JPDunks4]

15 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

It depends on the series, the amount of content, the precedent set previously, etc. Games don't exist in a vacuum. Street Fighter 5 launched at $60 and was an unfinished pile of shit, so even premium franchises can launch at hilariously out-of-touch prices.

Your 4 hour "iii"ndie RTS is not going to get as much money out of me as a new Warcraft. But frankly, at $70, I'm gonna be raising my eyebrows at a lot more games. At some point it stops making sense for full price to be the norm for so many games. Like I said, we can talk about inflation or whatever, but the simple fact is for all intents and purposes, at least in America, wages are significantly lower than they were in the past. Sure, our dollars per hour is higher, but adjusted for inflation we make less. And game prices aren't the only thing creeping up. We simply don't have the expendable income (certainly not during a pandemic) for yet another price hike to make a ton of sense.

 

I think games will sell just fine, but I think waiting for sales or going used is going to be wildly more popular than it was last-gen, and deals like Game Pass will make $70 individual games seem even stranger. We already have a ton of people on this very forum, which I would say is probably pretty deep into gaming compared to the mainstream, waiting months to buy new games because even at $60, that shit adds up if you play more than one game every 5 months.

It's not just genre or brand, it's everything.

 

When I do look at prices, it's not about genre necessarily, but about comparing the value of that one game to others.  Injustice and Mortal Kombat are fighting games, but both also have pretty well done campaigns now with well told stories.  So does that change the perception of value a little?  I also think the monetization the game uses will be looked at heavily on the asking price.

 

I have no idea how this game is monetized, but Pre-Ordering or ordering the "Premium" version I believe gave you some bonus currency.  That leads me to think Vbucks and microtransactions for Skins and other cosmetics, which naturally leads to me assuming it'll have Season Passes and other things similar to what Rocket League and Fortnite are doing.  You also need to look at what most other Multiplayer Only type titles are launching as with those models.  

 

Ubisoft, a huge publisher, launched Hyper Scape, a F2P BR.  Activision launched Warzone, a F2P BR.  EA has launched Apex Legends, a big F2P BR.  Then we have a lot of Arena Shooters like Valorant on PC, and recently Rogue Company (Charged for Early Access) but now F2P.  Most the games using that monetization method, are going F2P.  Halo Infinite Multiplayer is going to be F2P using that model. 

 

Now I could be wrong, and there might be no MTX in the game, and that currency might just all be earned in game and not be linked to Real Money at all, which would change things a bit.  It just seems that style of game lends itself to MTX so readily as we've seen with Rocket League and so many others like it. 

 

Fall Guys is a title that launched recently at $20 or $30 I think and has done extremely well.  I think the expectation set by so many other games in the genre is simply, $20-$40 if you are going to be leaning on MTX, F2P if its purely MTX or Battle Pass Driven.

[Keyser_Soze]

Regardless of price shitty games exist. Remember Left Alive? That game is STILL being sold for $59.99 and it was a huge bomb.

 

Until gamers stop trying to justify price increases publishers will continue to see how much they can charge. If every launch game bombed at $70 maybe they would rethink the price point.