EA planning $70 price point for PS4 games.

[Midwayman]

They'd be insane not to try for a price hike on a console transition. That's the easiest time to push a new baseline rate. Given games have been $60 for 8 years now, its not an unreasonable change. Who knows if it'll stick. I know I'll be waiting for sales on the vast majority of titles at that pricepoint. Only a couple titles are worth that kind of cash to me.

 

[Doppel]

Not surprised they want to raise them again. I would buy used unless the game is absurdly damn well reviewed. 70 is a huge amount of money for a game.

 

[Corporate Thug]

There isn't a single EA game I can't go without playing...and certainly none even close @ $70

 

[blurredvision]

LOL @ EBGames ads. The most expensive place to buy games at the time. I bought plenty of SNES & N64 games, not once did I pay over $49.99 and I got plenty of games at release.

EDIT:

Toys R Us was a bad offender back then too. I almost always got my games from Target because I could walk there.

I very much remember Wal-Mart offering the high-profile N64 releases for the first year or two for $70. That was back when I was still in high-school with no disposable income, just complete failure of begging my mom for a game that she would never buy because it was way too high.

 

[Wreckem]

THIS THIS THIS!

Please people stop talking about SNES and Genesis game prices. A Disk is a few cents today, a cartridge was probably close to $10 just for the plastic back in 1992. Also look at how cheap the SNES system was. $80! N64 $150!

I bet you paid close to $300 for your Xbox or PS3 when you got it unless you waited a long time.

Further I remember Call of Duty MW2 was $60 on PC when every game up to that point that I can remember on PC was $50 and the console was $60. After that one release every game was $60 on day one.

I dont even know why y'all focus on the form of the media. Thats not why costs are high. Costs are high because development costs are far more enourmous these days. The average cost of development for top titles was in the few million range, then it jumped to $10million and now its well over $20million with some hitting well over the $50million range.

In terms of huge increases in development costs, inflation and dollar devaluation, games aren't expensive at $70. In fact $50 in 2000 = ~$70 in 2013.

I doesn't help game development costs are at near record highs while game sales are seeing double digit decreases year over year. There are outlier success stories, but the majority of AAA titles haven't exactly faired well the past 2 or so years. It used to be 1million units sold was a huge success. Now 10 million units sold doesn't necessarily guarantee break even on some games.

There are alot of reasons why game development costs have skyrocketed. First, the graphical advancement requires far more artists than during the early 3D days. Second, they try and shoot for 18 month development cycles which is about half of what they used to shoot for, which again causes the need for more staff. It used to be dev teams would be 15-35 people, and at the very high end 50 people. Now 150 is about average, with some hitting 300 or more. Then add in the corprate bloat.

But to be fair to the corporate bloat, game developers by themselves have tended to be terrible at project management and business in general. Thats why the publishers have become as large as they have. There were alot of game developers who were inept at managment and ran their studios into the ground and were then forced to sell.

Price per unit at $70 isn't what people should be bitching about. What they should be bitching about is time value per dollar. With the exception of a handful of titles, the only "epic" games these days are sand boxers, which are relatively few. Everything else is painfully short compared to what games used to be.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Dev costs aren't high. Marketing costs are high. AAA titles spend as much if not more on marketing than they do making the games. And those same games are boasting record sales. So somewhere, someone is lying.

 

[Wreckem]

Dev costs aren't high. Marketing costs are high. AAA titles spend as much if not more on marketing than they do making the games. And those same games are boasting record sales. So somewhere, someone is lying.

Dev costs are much higher than they used to be. Yes, so is advertising but, dev costs themselves are much much higher. You can't legitimately say they aren't. My figures are FOR DEVELOPMENT ONLY, not for advertising and development. Those(development + advertising) are much higher for SOME games, but not the majority.

And only some AAA tiles are boasting record profits(sale records in terms of units sold is meaningless if it takes 10million to break even). Most aren't. There have been some epic flops over the past couple years.

The video game market has been taking a beating the likes it hasn't seen since the 1980s.

 

[mmntech]

Whether you want to admit it or not, games are cheaper now than they've ever been. The market can handle $70 games again, and it won't surprise me if it becomes the new AAA standard price.

I'm not sure I buy that argument. Games are cheaper yes but production costs have decreased substantially since the 16-bit era. It's a lot cheaper to stamp BDs than make cartridges. Digital distribution cuts production costs next to nill. I doubt dev costs are much higher than your average movie these days.

I remember a few years ago when the Canadian Dollar was at an all time low. Games used to regularly sell for $70 or $80. Man it stung. I only used to buy a couple games a year at that point.

The problem with EA is their investors expect continuous, sustained growth. Given their situation, the only way to do that is cut costs or raise prices. They've already reduced costs by thinning out their studios. Prices were inevitably next. As I said before though, I'm not so sure gamers will readily accept it.

 

[Mopetar]

And people who complain about the rising prices of modern games fail to take into account inflation.

If we assume a 3% yearly inflation rate, which is pretty close to the U.S. average over the last decade, then after 5 years, a $60 game should cost $70 when adjusting for inflation. Even if it's only 2.5%, after 6 years, it still comes out to about $70.

The only problem is that a lot of gamers are fairly young and probably on minimum wage, which hasn't kept up with inflation, so from their perspective, games just keep getting more expensive. Even people with a decent job don't always have a wage that keeps up with inflation.

By the way, that shit's exponential, so the generation after will probably be $80, then $95, and then $115. After that it hits $140. Of course that assumes that the rate of inflation holds at around 3% yearly. There have been times when it's been much higher, upwards of around 9%. If that were to happen, the price increase over a generation would almost double.

 

[exdeath]

The video game market has been taking a beating the likes it hasn't seen since the 1980s.

Good, we need another crash. Big companies like EA and Activision are a plague and need to implode. We need to go back to dozens of smaller sustainable independant studios that can profit on new IPs that "only" sell 250k units. Without fear of titles being bought out, rushed prematurely for a shopping season and ruined, gutted and mainstreamed, and the IP squatted on in a black hole for eternity if it doesn't immediately sell 100 million preorders in the first 5 minutes.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I think what you guys are really missing is gaming is supposed to be entertainment, not an investment. Paying $400-600 for a console and $70-$100 for a game you are unable to sell to someone else when you're done with it is not something the market can handle. At that point you may as well get a desktop. You are forgetting that those games we used to play COULD be traded in, or traded with our friends so we didn't have to all buy a copy of the same game.

There's a HUGE difference in reasonable cost deflection when you can sell it, but as we all know..that's going away too.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Good, we need another crash. Big companies like EA and Activision are a plague and need to implode. We need to go back to dozens of smaller sustainable independant studios that can profit on new IPs that "only" sell 250k units. Without fear of titles being bought out, rushed prematurely for a shopping season and ruined, gutted and mainstreamed, and the IP squatted on in a black hole for eternity if it doesn't immediately sell 100 million preorders in the first 5 minutes.

Yes...honestly the way I see it, Microsoft has almost single handedly brought about this crap with the shooter box.

 

[Rakehellion]

I will never pay full price at $70.

 

[exdeath]

Yes...honestly the way I see it, Microsoft has almost single handedly brought about this crap with the shooter box.

Yup. PS2 was the last REALLY good console. The original Xbox really brought about the start of this drab stale "mature" mainstream casual shooter/sports/dance/guitar disposable cheap thrill culture nonsense. Ever since we've had nothing but self proclaimed mature bad asses with scowling helmets and 500 lb swords/guns.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yup. PS2 was the last REALLY good console. The original Xbox really brought about the start of this drab stale "mature" mainstream casual shooter/sports/dance/guitar culture nonsense. Ever since we've had nothing but self proclaimed mature bad asses with scowling helmets and 500 lb swords/guns.

Look at Sony exclusives. Action games, adventure games, unique stuff like little big planet and journey and only a couple shooters. Look at Nintendo exclusives. Adventure, RPG, action...no shooters. Microsoft exclusives? Two shooters and nothing else of note (maybe a small nod to forza).

Just my view of it anyway.

 

[Rakehellion]

And people who complain about the rising prices of modern games fail to take into account inflation.

If we assume a 3% yearly inflation rate, which is pretty close to the U.S. average over the last decade, then after 5 years, a $60 game should cost $70 when adjusting for inflation. Even if it's only 2.5%, after 6 years, it still comes out to about $70.

The only problem is that a lot of gamers are fairly young and probably on minimum wage, which hasn't kept up with inflation, so from their perspective, games just keep getting more expensive. Even people with a decent job don't always have a wage that keeps up with inflation.

By the way, that shit's exponential, so the generation after will probably be $80, then $95, and then $115. After that it hits $140. Of course that assumes that the rate of inflation holds at around 3% yearly. There have been times when it's been much higher, upwards of around 9%. If that were to happen, the price increase over a generation would almost double.

I remember when a cheeseburger cost a nickel!

But seriously, remember when you could actually buy something for a dollar?

I think I bought exactly one game (Demon's Souls) at the $60 price. Everything else, I waited for sales or bought used. Skyrim was one game I wanted to try, but it stayed full price for a year after its release. Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[exdeath]

Yeah I'm regretting getting my 360 first...

Granted there are only 12 or so RPGs even after 5+ years on the PS3, its still 12 more than 360...

 

[purbeast0]

Yeah I'm regretting getting my 360 first...

Granted there are only 12 or so RPGs even after 5+ years on the PS3, its still 12 more than 360...

if all you enjoy is rpg's then purchasing a 360 was a pretty bonehead decision in the first place. that is like buying a wii if you don't like nintendo games.

 

[American Gunner]

Yeah I'm regretting getting my 360 first...

Granted there are only 12 or so RPGs even after 5+ years on the PS3, its still 12 more than 360...

I don't know if you saw, but IGN had an article about how there are three new JRPG's coming to the PS3 this year. I know that's you thing.

 

[exdeath]

if all you enjoy is rpg's then purchasing a 360 was a pretty bonehead decision in the first place. that is like buying a wii if you don't like nintendo games.

I picked it up for Dead Rising and a few other exclusives at the time.

 

[exdeath]

I don't know if you saw, but IGN had an article about how there are three new JRPG's coming to the PS3 this year. I know that's you thing.

Oh believe me I have anything remotely RPG preordered already. Including Pandora's Tower on Wii.

 

[American Gunner]

Oh believe me I have anything remotely RPG preordered already. Including Pandora's Tower on Wii.

Well alright then, glad to tell you something you already know :awe:

 

[ElFenix]

I've seen people mention older game prices a bit, but they keep forgetting one major part of old game prices: the game medium. Cartridges were significantly more expensive to produce than optical media, and that was even more so if your game required more storage, which typically occurred with RPGs.

i didn't know that games had to be price set on a cost plus basis.

 

[Jeffg010]

To all the people saying how developmental costs have gone up much much more are lying.

To prove my point I point to kickstarter. This game Grim Dawn is being developed by some of same guys who did Titan Quest. They only pledged $280,000 not million of dollars like some of you say is needed. This is only one of many examples on kickstarter that prove you don't need 10 or 20 million.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/crateentertainment/grim-dawn

$70 is a joke and I won't be paying that price.

 

[exdeath]

The other $ 500 million is to hire famous voice actors to record a few cliche "I'm too bad ass for my gun" one liners apparently. God knows its not spent on story writers or level designers.