• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

$70 pricing is coming to PC, starting with Square Enix next games

Bakkus

Member
It's fair
This doesn't take in to account how much cheaper it is to produce games now. Most people aren't even buying physical and those of us who still does don't even get a manual nowadays. Also, everything is now produced dirt cheap in China; Was that the case back in those days?
 

Ozzie666

Member
Gaming is becoming like Lego, to expensive for younger people. Gaming is going to become such a luxury, it will eat itself. Triple AAA companies will lose profits, need to keep over pricing games, number of sales will decline.

I still am curious to see what small budget titles and Nintendo in general do, if Nintendo can match this price, you bet they will. But should they? Having cheaper games and the Switch, would be a killer punch going forward.
 

Larxia

Member
Because higher taxes in Europe?
But even if taxes are higher, the value of the currency is higher too, and for 60$, they made it 60€, so why does 70$ translates to 80€ and not 70€? Even if it was based on price %, it really doesn't add up here, directly jumping to the next ten.
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
What kind of argument is that. So for everything that isn't a primary need, you shouldn't ever be allowed to think or say anything?
im not supporting these price increase, but its expected. Games are getting bigger, inflation and cost increase.

It affects everything.
 

Notabueno

Banned
It’s not unfair given how game prices haven’t even attempted to increase with inflation.
I rarely pay $60 but when I do it’s for a must-have. The extra $10 won’t stop me in those cases.

First of all, fuck any paid astroturfer or even worse, stooge syndrome rationalizers.

Second of all this is a stupid argument: the inflation is because Square-Enix makes more money out of the stock markets (which is the main drive of inflation) AND it also means people have less money in their gaming budget.
 
It's a 17% increase in the cost of a product at a time when the manufacturer makes significantly more money than they did when the price was first instated and potential customers actually have less purchasing power.

"It's $10" just shows how much of a clueless consumer drone you are.

First of all, fuck any paid astroturfer or even worse, stooge syndrome rationalizers.

Second of all this is a stupid argument: the inflation is because Square-Enix makes more money out of the stock markets (which is the main drive of inflation) AND it also means people have less money in their gaming budget.

It's gonna be OK guys. Everyone asked for and got a raise this year, put it to use.
 

MadPanda

Member
this just shows that either 30% or 12% store cut it means nothing to greedy companies as they want it to the max to satisfy their shareholders and constant growth, growth, growth.
 

Novacain

Member
Hmm, or - and this is a radical idea here, I keep doing what I'm doing, which is not paying $70 day 1 to beta test their single player games.

I'll just keep buying them 2-3 months out after they patch it up into a playable state and pay $40-50.

Guardians of the galaxy was 35% off within about 30 days from release and got a great sale to coincide with their RTX and performance patches.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Yeah, it's not like the audience is 10x more. Following the free market rule, games should be way cheaper, instead we get these "cartel deals" prices.
Gaming prices are either full price $60-70, maybe some games deemed as B tier or a Remaster at $50, and then a mish mash of odds and ends pricing when it comes to indie games at $30 or less where it can be anything.

Weird.

If you need to buy a toaster or toaster oven, you'll see anything from $20 to $120. A ton of models. Even for models considered similar class they can be +/-$5.

But in gaming, a big seller with tons of replay value and production value like COD will be full price, and then beside it a shit game like Aliens Colonial Marines would be the same price.
 

Mercador

Member
It's $93.49 CDN for the standard edition on Steam. The only time I have ever seen $100 games (not deluxe editions) goes back to the Genesis and N64 cartridge days where it could break $100. PS2 and Sword of Vermillion were $120 and N64 games topped out at $99.99. I dont think any N64 broke $100, but close enough.

Disc based games were steady at $60-80 since the PS1 days and only recently crept up to $90.

But now we're $6.51 away from breaking the century mark..... (and for a digital download too. At least cartridge roms cost a lot, battery back up added more, cost of printing boxes and inventory etc... Now were talking internet files with bandwidth costs of a nickel)
I remember paying 99,99$+tx for Final Fantasy III US (VI) on SNES.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Friendly reminder that $60 games in 2006 would cost $77 dollars today.
A $50 game in 1995 would cost $98 today. Yes, you read that right. Inflation is no joke.

Edit: Ninja'd
That might be true, but considering how much MTX money game makers get, that $70 game probably equals $90 US (I made up a number). Gaming company sales and profits have never been higher. It's just that MTX revenue isn't in the front end buy price.

Inflationary pricing is typically due to rising costs eating into profits, but due to MTX the profits are already there and expanding.

It would be like Amazon saying they got to raise prices due to higher costs hiring tons more people. Its true, their employee costs are going up. But their sales and profits have skyrocketed the past 10 years, so instead of losing money they now make giant products in the billions and increasing every year.
 
Last edited:

Mercador

Member
Warhammer III is probably my last PC purchase on launch day, after that, I'll go the Gamepass route I think. Too bad Xbox X is so difficult to find.
 
It’s not unfair given how game prices haven’t even attempted to increase with inflation.
I rarely pay $60 but when I do it’s for a must-have. The extra $10 won’t stop me in those cases.
I’d like to agree with you but the RRP in the UK is £70 which isn’t equal to $70. It’s definitely made me slightly more careful with my purchases. Unless I can find a discount code or pick a game up for less than £50 the it isn’t happening.

Id really like to see how much it costs to make these games and then the return on investment. I imagine that for big AAA games they earn that back pretty quick and then some.
 

TheGrat1

Member
60 is somewhat affordable, due to price sales. But 70$ is hard to do for sales.

If you have 70$ game, your sales would be $49.99, while at 60$ its $39.99.

You can buy it at 40$, but 50$ still not a sale, despite 20$ drop.
Okay, let us plug your numbers into the US inflation calculator.
A game that debuted at $60 in 2006. Assume it is on sale for $39.99 in 2007. In 2021 money that is.....drumroll please.....$49.92. You were not saving anything significant back then and the $70 standard will become more and more affordable as time goes on and inflation increases.

You are completely caught up in the nominal numbers and ignore the real value. What you seem to fail to realize is that if you bought a $60 game in 2006 it was less affordable than buying a $70 game in 2020. The price of new games has been going down relative to the amount of money in people's pockets since the mid-90s. Pure, cold, hard numbers.
That might be true, but considering how much MTX money game makers get, that $70 game probably equals $90 US (I made up a number). Gaming company sales and profits have never been higher. It's just that MTX revenue isn't in the front end buy price.

Inflationary pricing is typically due to rising costs eating into profits, but due to MTX the profits are already there and expanding.

It would be like Amazon saying they got to raise prices due to higher costs hiring tons more people. Its true, their employee costs are going up. But their sales and profits have skyrocketed the past 10 years, so instead of losing money they now make giant products in the billions and increasing every year.
There is no "might" about it. It is true. Even with MTX (which are optional, at least in any well designed game. And if it is not well designed why are you buying it?), dlc and digital distribution it does not change the fact that the initial up front cost for a new game today is less than it was 15 years ago and significantly less than it was 25 years ago, and yet I doubt people were bellyaching like this back then.

Listen guys, I genuinely wish new games cost a nickel, I really do. But I am not going to act like $70 is some massive injustice when reality tells me I was fine paying more in the past. It would be completely illogical. If the price is too high, do not buy. That is what I do.
Why does 60$ for games equal to 60€ (which already screws us a bit), but 70$ = 80€ ? What am I missing?
 

Bogeyman

Banned
Yea, that's not happening.

I earn very well, the price wouldn't remotely be an affordability issue. But its a matter of principle for me.

The (in my personal view) mediocre quality of the vast majority of modern games, combined with heaps of mtx everywhere, and absolutely no economic need whatsoever to charge those prices (profits in the industry are higher than ever before in history) means this just feels scammy to me.

Thing is, if I skip a game at launch, I won't be buying it when it "dips" to 60 bucks either. Then, I'd rather wait for some deep discount.
 

Kenpachii

Gold Member
It means people paid more up front in the past and yet look back at that pricing as fair. It means cognitive dissonance.

It's already explained over multiple times. It's getting tired to explain it again.

I will give you a few examples why it doesn't matter.

1) u can't resell your games which makes the value of those games already complete dog shit. If i buy a mario game from nintendo i can resell it the next month for 10 bucks less. which means i only spend 10 bucks for a game. With PC i can't sell my digital license which means games are far less word then when u got a physical copy. Because of this there is also no second handed market which again means those 4 people that want to play that game will need to buy all of them that game. With a physical game that's not the case.

2) digital is far more cheaper to deliver to your consumer then a physical license. All the costs are gone for you and investment risks and a ton of work that involves with it. It also eliminates any need to get any cut from any platform because u can just launch the game with a installer that people can download from your own site. Going to a 30% cut person, is just you wanting to get more attention and basically u should see it as marketing cost anyway which u would have to do anyway with physical copy's. Only now u profit out of it.

3) The reason why prices went down on PC, is because in general PC gamers pirated the living shit out of the games read the many gaben interviews about this subject to get a better understanding why that was and why his shop is a juggernaut success in a world where piracy was the norm. The reason why was because prices and the hoops to jump through to get your product in a working order was simple not acceptable so company's died out and got replaced by company's that offered stuff easy + so far that it was even free entirely. PC gamers pay a shit ton of money in microtransactions in league of legends for example or mmo's or whatever. They don't like to buy high prices upfront and will skip it.

4) if you have a game that u price for 80 bucks, u could have had more people that buy your game at 40 bucks. Ever wonder why for example games sell far better when they are discounted on PC? how horizon zero dawn is always in the top 10 of sales on a discount from 50 to 30, but never ever sits in the list when the price is 50?

Its not like digital licenses costs you extra cost to deliver to the client, because the only thing u need to give them is a key and that's about it.

Anybody simping for those company's because they need more money are fucking idiots that never though this shit through even remotely.

Go ask sony why there games cost 80 euro's digitally and 80 physically? ask them why the costs are the same? where they not talking 10 years ago about price reductions because its cheaper so everybody wins? how did that work out?

Also the cheaper cut on epic for example with a lower cut like 12% or something for developers so games could become more profitable and cheaper for consumers? how did that work out for the gamers?

Those company's are full of shit, and people buying in this dumb ass act of them are honestly complete idiots.
 
Last edited:

Bogeyman

Banned
Even with MTX (which are optional, at least in any well designed game. And if it is not well designed why are you buying it?),
That's a bit like asking "if you don't like property tax, why buy this house?" - Because you can't really choose to avoid it.

If you were to skip all games in which mtx have a negative effect on the game, you'll be left with a choice of.. One game a decade or so.
 
Last edited:
By the time I buy anything from square on pc it’s about a year or so later after patches and big price cuts. The games always have terrible pc ports or a bunch of bugs anyhow when it comes to them
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Gaming prices are either full price $60-70, maybe some games deemed as B tier or a Remaster at $50, and then a mish mash of odds and ends pricing when it comes to indie games at $30 or less where it can be anything.

Weird.

If you need to buy a toaster or toaster oven, you'll see anything from $20 to $120. A ton of models. Even for models considered similar class they can be +/-$5.

But in gaming, a big seller with tons of replay value and production value like COD will be full price, and then beside it a shit game like Aliens Colonial Marines would be the same price.
Exactly any so called Triple aaayy and full price even for a shit 4 hour game.
 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
I can't say I like it, but I'm okay with it. It's been a long time since gaming costs have gone up and this is more or less an inflation adjustment.

Plus, I'm old, finding time to play games is a much bigger thing for me than how I'm going to pay for them.
 

Durask

Member
It’s not unfair given how game prices haven’t even attempted to increase with inflation.
I rarely pay $60 but when I do it’s for a must-have. The extra $10 won’t stop me in those cases.

When Genesis and SNES came out, new games were $50 and often $60 for new titles.

This is what 1996? Adjusted for inflation this is $88 and $106.
Oh yeah and that Street Fighter Alpha 2 and Ultimate MK3 are $124 in today's money.

 

ReBurn

Gold Member
Friendly reminder that $60 games in 2006 would cost $77 dollars today.
A $50 game in 1995 would cost $98 today. Yes, you read that right. Inflation is no joke.

Edit: Ninja'd
Best selling games are also selling about twice as many copies as they did back then. The best selling PS1 game sold 10.8 million copies. The best selling PS4 game sold 19.5 million copies and probably for an MSRP of $10 more.

There are more variables than inflation at play. Economies of scale driven by global digital distribution infrastructure and the fact that there's so much more sales potential today have helped many of these companies maintain their margins despite pressure from inflation. It's not 1995 any more and the market is different now.
 
Best selling games are also selling about twice as many copies as they did back then. The best selling PS1 game sold 10.8 million copies. The best selling PS4 game sold 19.5 million copies and probably for an MSRP of $10 more.

There are more variables than inflation at play. Economies of scale driven by global digital distribution infrastructure and the fact that there's so much more sales potential today have helped many of these companies maintain their margins despite pressure from inflation. It's not 1995 any more and the market is different now.
We also have much more variety in pricing tiers today. This would give smaller companies even more incentive to aggressively price if the extra $10 is as big of a deal as some are making it out to be.
 
Top Bottom