General Gaming Game prices likely to raise by $10 next gen (Update: CoD)

[crispy4000]

 

[Brian]

Keeping my GameFly sub

[crispy4000]

Another CoD update:
 

Xbox One physical version will technically play on Series X, but with no upgrade path for next-gen graphics.

 

PS4 physical version won’t play on PS5, but will have an digital upgrade option.  Presumably at a cost.  PS5 version won’t play on PS4.

 

Series X version will play on both Xbox One and series X.

 

Both Xbox One and Series X box art advertises they can be played on both consoles.  But the next gen version has a few extra Series X demarcations on the box.

 

 

/clusterfuck

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

 

[Guest]

On 7/4/2020 at 10:36 PM, Xbob42 said:

Sure I do. Or rather, we do. Individually our $60s are definitely worth less, but simultaneously there are multitudes more of us buying games, so there's far more money to be made.

 

In any case, I think it's good consumer practice in general to make a stink whenever someone asks you for more without offering more, or offering anything that you actually want. The absolute worst outcome is that you still pay whatever dumbass extra money they're asking for, or if enough people make a stink, you save $10+tax on each full price purchase for another few years. There's no losing.

What if stagnant games prices make the business of gave development unsustainable? Or only such that the largest games and their respective devs/pubs can stay in the market?

 

Lower prices aren’t always the best thing for consumers.

[TheLeon]

Eh, I almost never buy games at $60 now. The few that I'm that excited for, I'll pay the extra $10 with little to no complaint. 

[XxEvil AshxX]

25 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

What if stagnant games prices make the business of gave development unsustainable? Or only such that the largest games and their respective devs/pubs can stay in the market?

 

Lower prices aren’t always the best thing for consumers.

 

Bobby Kotick made $30 million last year, while laying off developers. The only thing making their business unsustainable is them.

 

Smaller devs are already used to making ends meet. And the indies usually sell their games for less than $60 already. The only ones pushing for this are the AAA publishers.

[Dodger]

24 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

What if stagnant games prices make the business of gave development unsustainable? Or only such that the largest games and their respective devs/pubs can stay in the market?

 

Lower prices aren’t always the best thing for consumers.

 

Sure that can be the case some of the time. Maybe some smaller devs/publishers really need higher game prices to properly fund their projects while making a healthy enough profit to keep them going. But for Activision and COD, it's all about squeezing every last possible dollar out of their customers they possibly can. The $10 price difference isn't going to fund anything extra. You will get no benefit as a consumer, it's going straight to Activisions profit line. 

 

Maybe some other devs will benefit after seeing big publishers list games at $70 and will fill confident enough to do it themselves and maybe for those games that funds extra dev work for extra content for their games to be more feature rich, but that's not what's going on with Activision and 2k. For them it's just about getting more money from their games, which we already know won't be full stand alone $70 products. They will be littered with microstransactions, dlc packs and whatever else they can shove down our throats to try and make more money. 

[Guest]

It’s like you guys didn’t read the incredibly short text. Stagnant prices hurt small guys, big companies are fine due to the much increased size of the market.

 

Higher prices at the high end allow for higher prices at the low end too as the relative value remains steady between the two.

 

If you want an industry that is only massive corporations, ask for stagnant prices as they will be the only ones who can afford to make games.

[SoberChef]

Really wish Redbox still had games to rent, as that what I have done the last couple years with each iteration of CoD merely to experience the campaign over a weekend and return it.

[EternallDarkness]

Don't honestly care. These days it's the rare game I ever get day one, not to mention it seems even on new releases you wait two weeks and half the games are already on sale.

[XxEvil AshxX]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

It’s like you guys didn’t read the incredibly short text. Stagnant prices hurt small guys, big companies are fine due to the much increased size of the market.

 

Higher prices at the high end allow for higher prices at the low end too as the relative value remains steady between the two.

 

If you want an industry that is only massive corporations, ask for stagnant prices as they will be the only ones who can afford to make games.

 

I read it. What I am saying is that the small guys are already used to selling their games at sub-$60 prices. "Stagnant" prices are not going to hurt them.

 

 Big companies, however, won't be fine due to their CEO's bloated salaries. If these companies were really hurting that bad, it's weird that they can manage to save so much money for themselves. Upping the price of games isn't going to make the developers under them any more secure, it's just going to make the CEO's more money.

 

I get what you're saying, that a $20 game from a small dev can now be a $30 game, making the developer more money while still being that much cheaper than the AAA titles. But they can already sell their game at $30. If it's a game worth buying, people will buy it. Look at Stardew Valley. He could sell it for $30 and it will still sell just fine because it's a great game with great support. But because he's a small operation, he can afford to keep it at $20 or whatever and still make some serious bank.

 

It's not our fault the big publishers can't satisfy their greedy ass CEO's and shareholders.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

 

I read it. What I am saying is that the small guys are already used to selling their games at sub-$60 prices. "Stagnant" prices are not going to hurt them.

 

 Big companies, however, won't be fine due to their CEO's bloated salaries. If these companies were really hurting that bad, it's weird that they can manage to save so much money for themselves. Upping the price of games isn't going to make the developers under them any more secure, it's just going to make the CEO's more money.

 

I get what you're saying, that a $20 game from a small dev can now be a $30 game, making the developer more money while still being that much cheaper than the AAA titles. But they can already sell their game at $30. If it's a game worth buying, people will buy it. Look at Stardew Valley. He could sell it for $30 and it will still sell just fine because it's a great game with great support. But because he's a small operation, he can afford to keep it at $20 or whatever and still make some serious bank.

 

It's not our fault the big publishers can't satisfy their greedy ass CEO's and shareholders.

 

This is the same thing people thought in the 70s and 80s about movies, and slow and steady the small studios cimoyodnt keep up with the big guys and consolidation of the market has left us with only a handful of viable movie studios.

 

I think you misunderstand the economics involved. The top tier games definite the reasonable price of mid and lower tier games. The increase on the high end allows more room for those other games to go up as the relative value remains. Charging more while the big guys stand pat  is a competitive disadvantage for the small guys.

 

And if Stardew Valley guy could sell for $30 and make more but doesn’t, that’s bad for him AND other devs/pubs because it’s deflating prices below their market value. 

[Keyser_Soze]

I feel like more than anything it's a test to see if they can get away with it. If the games sell the same at that price then they'll keep going. If they flop at $70 perhaps they will go back to $60.

[Xbob42]

6 hours ago, sblfilms said:

What if stagnant games prices make the business of gave development unsustainable? Or only such that the largest games and their respective devs/pubs can stay in the market?

 

Lower prices aren’t always the best thing for consumers.

But smaller devs already tend to charge less for their games than AAA developers.

[Paperclyp]

I think it’s kind of a shitty thing to do right now. It’ll probably work out well for them. At this point the only people buying these machines are gonna be the real weirdos (like a lot of us, I guess). There’s almost literally nothing to play on them. I had been pretty sure about getting a PS5 around launch but it’s like... why. 
 

So anyway I’m sure the early adopters will pay whatever for the launch lineup games.

 

But the games that have said they’re gonna do it so far?? Fuck off. Your NBA 2Ks and your call of duties don’t need to do this with their stupid micro transaction stuff in addition.  

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

But smaller devs already tend to charge less for their games than AAA developers.

They charge what they believe the market will pay and the full price titles set the standard. Higher full price titles will allow higher prices for the small guys.

[Xbob42]

I dunno, small guys seem to be thriving just fine from what I can see. I'm certainly not going to advocate on me having to spend even more money on every video game in any scenario. How developers make money is 100% not my concern.

[skillzdadirecta]

Damn weren't game cartridges 70 bucks 30 years ago? You guys will live... and besides, this only affects the folks who buy a lot of games day one anyway and even then it's not that hard to find a deal. I'm sitting here right now trying to remember the last game I bought full price on day one and I tend to get most games I'm interested in on day one. 

[crispy4000]

22 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I dunno, small guys seem to be thriving just fine from what I can see. I'm certainly not going to advocate on me having to spend even more money on every video game in any scenario. How developers make money is 100% not my concern.

 

 

Guy also had an excellent GDC talk a few years back about how many indie games of genuine effort tend not to make enough money back on direct sales.

 

I think it’s fair to say it’s very tough to catch a break in the indie market.  The cream tends to rise to the top you might say, but it’s a very thin layer, and a hyper competitive landscape.

 

It’s the nature of the beast right now.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I dunno, small guys seem to be thriving just fine from what I can see. I'm certainly not going to advocate on me having to spend even more money on every video game in any scenario. How developers make money is 100% not my concern.

Sustainability of an industry you enjoy should concern you, and how they make money is directly connected. I think stagnant base prices is part of why we have the micro transaction hellscape of modern gaming.

 

4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Damn weren't game cartridges 70 bucks 30 years ago? You guys will live... and besides, this only affects the folks who buy a lot of games day one anyway and even then it's not that hard to find a deal. I'm sitting here right now trying to remember the last game I bought full price on day one and I tend to get most games I'm interested in on day one. 

 

I paid over $80 for a couple of N64 games back in the day.

[Xbob42]

That's a sad tale and all, but where do these people think more money would come from? Especially now, but even during "normal" times, at least in the U.S., wages are worse than stagnant; adjusted for the inflation the average person makes less than 20 years ago. AAA raising their prices so smaller games can also raise their prices isn't going to bring in a tidal wave of cash, it's just going to push certain games out of the budget of many, many people.

[crispy4000]

6 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Damn weren't game cartridges 70 bucks 30 years ago? You guys will live... and besides, this only affects the folks who buy a lot of games day one anyway and even then it's not that hard to find a deal. I'm sitting here right now trying to remember the last game I bought full price on day one and I tend to get most games I'm interested in on day one. 

It’s going to affect how low cuts go.  A lot of digital marketplaces today cut by %’s of standard pricing.

 

But it’s also inflation, the way I see it.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

That's a sad tale and all, but where do these people think more money would come from? Especially now, but even during "normal" times, at least in the U.S., wages are worse than stagnant; adjusted for the inflation the average person makes less than 20 years ago. 

That’s not correct. Real wages have just had snails pace growth since the 80s.

[crispy4000]

COVID has yet to illustrate a negative impact on game sales.  Signs seem to point to the opposite because everyone is being encouraged to stay indoors.  It’s something people are leaving room in their budget for... or just charging without much thought.

 

Hard to say what’s going to happen with the next gen consoles launching.  But the entry fee would be a greater problem than $69.99 for new releases.

[Paperclyp]

7 hours ago, sblfilms said:

They charge what they believe the market will pay and the full price titles set the standard. Higher full price titles will allow higher prices for the small guys.

It’s hard to get too excited about those indie devs when there are also hundreds of “little guys” on these dev teams who get overworked and stressed and then let go when the job is done. This increase in software cost isn’t going to go to the little guys, really. 

[Dodger]

16 hours ago, sblfilms said:

It’s like you guys didn’t read the incredibly short text. Stagnant prices hurt small guys, big companies are fine due to the much increased size of the market.

 

Higher prices at the high end allow for higher prices at the low end too as the relative value remains steady between the two.

 

If you want an industry that is only massive corporations, ask for stagnant prices as they will be the only ones who can afford to make games.

 

If some smaller companies need $70 game prices to make the games they want to make while making a healthy enough profit if they just came out and told us all that a lot of people would support it. If From Software came out and said we need to charge $70 for the next Dark Souls game to make it the full game we want it to be, me and many others would be fine with it. 

 

But people get a bad taste in their mouth when you charge full price for a game, and then still want extra money for expansion passes, microtransactions and whatever the fuck else. The problem is companies don't want to be open and honest and say we need x money to make the game we want, they try to sneak microtransactions and other shit in while still charging full price for a  game.

 

Shit look at kickstarters and other crowd funded sources, people will pay a lot more than $60-$70 for a game if you just come out and tell people what value you are offering to them. 

 

Activision isn't doing this to help out anyone other than Activision, so fuck them for doing it. I haven't played COD since the first Modern Warfare and it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. 

 

 

[chakoo]

11 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

 

Guy also had an excellent GDC talk a few years back about how many indie games of genuine effort tend not to make enough money back on direct sales.

 

I think it’s fair to say it’s very tough to catch a break in the indie market.  The cream tends to rise to the top you might say, but it’s a very thin layer, and a hyper competitive landscape.

 

It’s the nature of the beast right now.

This tweet was horse shit. 

 

He went on the store the day of release before the store update kicked in, was pissed he wasn't in the featured section of new releases and plain skipped over going to all new releases where his game was listed at the top. He also knew he was going to be listed/featured on playstation blog but didn't mention that in his rant about discoverability. Sure the search sucks but that is an issue of indexing which takes up to 12h-24h to fully kick in. If you search now you'll find it near the top. Now before you say it should already be indexed, Beloved Apple has the same fucking issue (*). Sony manages their own servers and for security reasons dev/test PSN is fully separated from public PSN and games are not pushed to Public PSN till the day before and has to get instanced across their server network which are distributed in many locations. 

 

(*) In apples case if you push a new app for app store review and it gets approved. Once you push it to be listed on the store it takes 1-3 days before it properly shows up in search. Your app could be composed of 5 words and even if you type out 4 of those words and nobody else has anything remotely close you still might not find your app until the type is an exact match and even then you still won't be the first item on the list. 

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Dodger said:

But people get a bad taste in their mouth when you charge full price for a game, and then still want extra money for expansion passes, microtransactions and whatever the fuck else. The problem is companies don't want to be open and honest and say we need x money to make the game we want, they try to sneak microtransactions and other shit in while still charging full price for a  game.

 

Shit look at kickstarters and other crowd funded sources, people will pay a lot more than $60-$70 for a game if you just come out and tell people what value you are offering to them. 

 

Activision isn't doing this to help out anyone other than Activision, so fuck them for doing it. I haven't played COD since the first Modern Warfare and it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. 

This was the current gen’s argument against keeping games at $60 instead of raising prices.  If they wanted to be upfront, they would have charged $70 at the start of this gen.  And hopefully done less mtx stunts.  Although I don’t think game length and value was worse for wear this gen than the last.

 

But going into next gen?  Inflation can only be looked past for so long.  It was either this or finding some new way to generate a cash cow beyond the tactics employed now.
 

Activision didn’t need this, obviously.  Neither did 2k.  But they knew the rest of the industry would push in this direction, with or without them.  Might as well go first.

[Alpha1Cowboy]

On 7/2/2020 at 1:32 PM, Kal-El814 said:

Game prices have remained stagnant for what... almost 20 years at this point? We’re long overdue for an increase. My ass paid $70 for FFIII and Chrono Trigger on the SNES.

True...I recall paying $70 for Shadows of the Empire on N64..and that was 1996-97.

 

Obviously I'd rather spend less than more money...but it's no big thing.    

[Dodger]

8 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

This was the current gen’s argument against keeping games at $60 instead of raising prices.  If they wanted to be upfront, they would have charged $70 at the start of this gen.  And hopefully done less mtx stunts.  Although I don’t think game length and value was worse for wear this gen than the last.

 

But going into next gen?  Inflation can only be looked past for so long.  It was either this or finding some new way to generate a cash cow beyond the tactics employed now.
 

Activision didn’t need this, obviously.  Neither did 2k.  But they knew the rest of the industry would push in this direction, with or without them.  Might as well go first.

 

 

The problem is they are going to start charging $70, and keep doing the same bullshit they've been doing with microtransactions and whatever else. None of that is going away just because they start charging more money up front for the game. 

[Brian]

The overwhelming majority buy 3-4 games a year. No one will care about the price hike.

 

The idea that the price hike will lessen mtx, let’s not be naive. They are in it to make money and give themselves massive bonuses. I would be ok with the price hike if it was going to the bottom rung employees but it won’t. These companies will continue to fuck their employees anyway they can.

[crispy4000]

50 minutes ago, Dodger said:

The problem is they are going to start charging $70, and keep doing the same bullshit they've been doing with microtransactions and whatever else. None of that is going away just because they start charging more money up front for the game. 

We went two generations at $60.  The bullshit is here to stay.  It’s still time for a price increase.

[crispy4000]

49 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

The idea that the price hike will lessen mtx, let’s not be naive. They are in it to make money and give themselves massive bonuses. I would be ok with the price hike if it was going to the bottom rung employees but it won’t. These companies will continue to fuck their employees anyway they can.

It won’t lessen mtx.  It won’t fix systemic industry issues.  It will fight inflation.

 

The idea that a price increase needs to justify itself as something more than that a generation late is odd to me.

[Keyser_Soze]

Pretty cool, Activision pay no taxes