Budget Titles Dominate 2025's Top-Rated Games as AAA Prices Climb To $80 (bloomberg.com) 71
The highest-rated video games of 2025 are all budget-priced titles, with Metacritic top performers Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, Blue Prince, and Split Fiction costing just $50, $30, and $50 respectively. This comes as Microsoft announces certain Xbox titles will now cost $80, following Nintendo's similar price hike for Mario Kart on Switch 2.
Clair Obscur, developed by a small French studio, sold 1 million copies in its first week. Split Fiction, despite being published by EA, was created by a small Stockholm team and has reached 2 million sales. Blue Prince, a puzzle-roguelike largely created by a single developer in Los Angeles, is showing strong performance on Steam, Bloomberg reports.
All three games share key traits: they use commercially available engines, take creative risks that big-budget projects couldn't afford, and target specific player demographics rather than trying to appeal broadly. The contrast is striking -- Clair Obscur's developers celebrated reaching 1 million sales while EA declared Dragon Age: The Veilguard a failure with similar numbers, underscoring the economic realities of different development scales.
Clair Obscur, developed by a small French studio, sold 1 million copies in its first week. Split Fiction, despite being published by EA, was created by a small Stockholm team and has reached 2 million sales. Blue Prince, a puzzle-roguelike largely created by a single developer in Los Angeles, is showing strong performance on Steam, Bloomberg reports.
All three games share key traits: they use commercially available engines, take creative risks that big-budget projects couldn't afford, and target specific player demographics rather than trying to appeal broadly. The contrast is striking -- Clair Obscur's developers celebrated reaching 1 million sales while EA declared Dragon Age: The Veilguard a failure with similar numbers, underscoring the economic realities of different development scales.
Re: (Score:2)
AAA games are broadcast TV. They think they're somehow going to capture 5-10% of the market with every major release. Streaming services have proved that you can do better by doing limited budget high quality niche work. Streaming company executives may keep trying to return to a broadcast mindset with bigger and bigger projects but it works against them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In 1985, the NES cost about $200 and games cost about $50 on release.
The business model has always been that the console is the "sunk cost," and the real profits come from the walled garden of games.
This is nothing new.
Re: (Score:3)
Inflation adjusted from 1985 to 2025 the console cost would be $600 and the games $150(!)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, so games have gotten cheaper but American purchasing power has degraded even more.
Actually this applies to everything. Funny, that.
Re: (Score:2)
This has basically been the rule my whole life.
Re: (Score:1)
That's a good point.
Apart from a few luxuries like housing, purchasing power has not declined but rather stagnated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is admittedly a special situation. While housing isn't a fixed supply, housing is typically associated with real estate, which most certainly IS fixed supply.
As the population grows, there are more and more people wanting ownership of the same supply of parcels of land. It will go up, resulting in increased housing costs.
Eventually something will need to be done to mitigate this. What that is, I have no idea, but eventually its not going to be feasible for people to be spending 10 years worth of ann
Re: (Score:2)
Land Value Tax [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Presumably, the combination of having a birth rate below the replacement rate as well as a new anti-immigration policy should help somewhat on the demand side.
Perhaps bulldozing some national forests would help too.
Details (Score:2)
the console cost would be $600
...but said console is a Nintendo. A company that has always sold even the base console at a profit.
(Unlike what the parent was implying, they do not sell console at a loss).
That's also why the Switch 2 seems over priced: it costs close to a PS5 but have specs which are actually closer to a PS3.
The difference is that Sony sells their console at a loss, planning to recoup through selling games, whereas Nintendo very likely makes a good profit even if you never ever buy a game.
and the games $150(!)
...which had the excuse back the
Re: (Score:2)
(It's as if steam games were sold in boxes containing a CD whose entire puprose is to hold a Steam key).
They were! I bought Half-Life 2 that way.
Re: (Score:2)
"games were not $50"
The Guardian Legend retailed for $79 in 1988 at Toys R Us. I know because it was my birthday present and I got to pick ONE game no matter the cost - and that was the most expensive one at the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Distribution has become a lot cheaper and the ability to sell across multiple countries with minimal cost has become way easier, reducing overhead dramatically, and the audience reach has grown significantly.
We question the prices because if you sold a nintendo game and it made 1 million sales, at 50$ a pop, that 50 million at those prices back then was a lot, but sure, cost of chips, distribution, marketing was more expensive as well.
Now you make a nintendo game, and sell it for 50$ a pop to 6 million peop
Re: When a single game... (Score:2)
This is missing that all the early consoles had major price drops during their lives, and most of the sales happened after those price drops. Relatively few people paid the full original retail prices for the NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. Games varied somewhat more but older games tended to be a little cheaper too.
Meanwhile the last couple generations of consoles have stayed close to their launch prices, had a "Lite" version released, or have even gone *up* in price for various reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds about right. In 1986 (or was it 1987?), we bought the NES (incl. the Super Mario Bros. cartridge) for $79.99 retail (probably at Sears or JC Penney--some mall department store). In the fall of 1991, I bought the SNES at Circuit City for $199.99 retail--the clerks were still setting up their sales displays as I grabbed one and speed-walked to the checkout.
As far as games go, I remember purchasing in 1990 the original NES Final Fantasy at Toy's'R'Us for $69.99 retail--the most I'd ever spent
Re:When a single game... (Score:4, Interesting)
is 1/8th the cost of the console its running on, you know "Ultra Nightmare" level greed mode is engaged ;-D
So, I *half* agree with this.
The Sega Genesis MSRP was $199, and games were $60 a pop back in 1990, so it was a little less than 1/3 the cost back then. The PS1 improved things with their $50 game MSRP and $300 system cost in 1995, but the Nintendo 64 also had $60 games against its $200 system cost in 1997, so I would submit that the "game cost vs. system price" has improved if it's 1/8, rather than the 1/3 to 1/6 that it was back in the 90's...to be fair, that also included physical distribution and retailer cuts.
Now, I have no problem paying $100 for a game, if I'm paying $100 for a game. Money changes hands, game gets delivered, transaction complete. I've got no problem with that. Inflation-adjusted, those Genesis games cost about $140 in 2025 dollars, those PS1 games were about $100, and N64 games were about $117...so $100 for a game isn't unreasonable, and I'd be willing to pay it...IF, we went back to the concept of selling a game (yes, yes, the pedants will argue it was still license-to-use back then, but there was no analogue to having access to a game retroactively removed after payment in the same way Titanfall 1 players can't play the game today). Multiplayer/Live Service games are a different breed that weren't possible back then, granted, but single player games are still popular, and even many of them end up with the DLC/Battle Pass/Season Pass/Cosmetic Store/Lootbox post-purchase monetization. Famously, Crash Team Racing added the in-game purchases to the game AFTER releasing it without those things, two months after release week, to avoid return windows and reviews mentioning it.
So...I'm fine with free-to-play games that have in-game economies because that's where the money comes from. I think there should be limits on some of the more predatory things in games that aren't M-rated (we regulate advertising to children on TV, but not in games?), but in-game economies in F2P games, fine. $15/month for WoW? Fine; no reason a game can't be subscribed to, though I'd argue that there should be some clear limits to what's sold in-game for a subscription (cosmetics only, maybe). $100 for the game? No in-game payment mechanics. If levels, skins, characters, etc. are in the game, they can be used by the player somewhere as a part of the experience, full stop. If the publishers want $100 for a multiplayer game, they can either offer matchmaking as a part of XBL/PSN, or they can let players do their own dedicated game hosting if they want.
I've basically stopped buying games because of the have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too drama - $60-$80 for the base price, more if you want the Collector's Edition, then there's day-one DLC, battle passes, season passes, lootboxes, and a cosmetic store on top of it...and of course, the Fallout76 mechanic where one has to pay for their weapons to not-lose stats.
Yeah, I'll keep playing Mass Effect and Unreal Tournament 3 and Sol Survivor and CoD4 and Hades and the rest of my Steam library that I doubt I'll be able to actually play through in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wondering exactly why NES/Genesis "cartridge" games costed more. Is it because of the physical media? The chips themselves cost a bit more money than just a disc. Therefore the amount of profit you make from the IP + software of the game itself might not have been as much, once we subtract the cost of manufacturing the physical game itself. Nowadays, a lot of games are simply "digital", with no physical media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I have no problem paying $100 for a game, if I'm paying $100 for a game.
I do.
A big problem.
Because for that £60 I'm not even getting a full game. There will be some DLC just a few days down the track if not brazenly released on day 0. Because AAA games have been getting worse and worse with more being spent on advertising than development. Glaring bugs and faults on release because it had to coincide with the TV and print ads that went out.
Also as a PC gamer, I don't bend over wallet in hand and say "thank you sir may I have another" to anyone.
I've seen a few
Re: When a single game... (Score:2)
It could always be worse, like inkjet printers where your next set of cartridges costs as much as the printer.
1/8th of the console price is not all that bad if it's a game you'll be playing over and over. Like the good old multi-player games, before consoles had any kind of networking and couldn't connect to rhe cloud or depend on it. I spent many dozens of hours playing Mario tennis on N64 on a big CRT with colleagues. It was quite a while ago. The game just never got old.
Old games (Score:4, Insightful)
Years (Score:1)
I've been doing this for years. I think the last full price game I've bought is Unreal 2004, or maybe Morrowind GOTY edition. Since then, I picked up the special edition of Oblivion for half off initial retail, and ditto Skyrim. Though I acquired an XBox One for my son from a relative who didn't need it any more, I picked up a 360 with two dozen games from an estate sale for $50. My daughter loves the old Kinect games - she plays them with her friends all the time.
That being said I might spring for the new
Re: Years (Score:2)
It does look better, but there will be a fan version out later this year that you could play while waiting for the bug fixes (well, they will probably fix SOME of them) and a price drop. Never buy bugthesda shortly after release.
Thanks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> bugthesda
fwiw, the oblivion remake was outsourced.
Re: (Score:1)
AAA titles don't interest me, but I'm just now getting around to Super Mario Galaxy. Great game and a lot cheaper as a pack of 3 games for the Switch. Technically I bought it used for the Wii first but I never got around to it and I could never keep batteries charged for the Wii remotes consistently, where the new controllers use the same charging plug as everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I also look at is the quality of the game. If the studio goes on to a sequel while the old version is still full of bugs or plain code flaws, then I'm not tempted to buy it.
For example, I like city building games and have Simcity 1 to 4 and as a successor I am interested in Cities Skylines, but I've noticed fundamental flaws that won't be fixed now that they published CS II, which is also in a state of bugtesting by users.
I'd like to have the source code when a game is abandoned like this (no, just pro
Re: Old games (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/606/ [xkcd.com]
Re: Old games (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The existence of excellent cheap non-AAA titles is the reason you're playing old games? You're making even less sense than usual, and that's saying something.
Re: Old games (Score:2)
Delisted games (Score:2)
This is why i just stuck to playing games that are many years old.
Good luck buying a game several years after release when games get delisted from stores. This can happen when the game is an adaptation of another company's product identity to which the game's publisher only had a limited-term license (such as DuckTales Remastered) or the game's online matchmaking ended service (such as Overwatch and Titanfall and Concord) or the console's online store ended service (such as WiiWare games).
Re: Delisted games (Score:2)
If the game was good, then it will be available one way or another, even if not entirely legal (hint, hint).
Re: (Score:2)
And sometimes they are given away for free like on Epic, Steam, etc. I barely have time to play games these days. :(
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you haven't been paying attention lately, woke was the only thing holding up our entire economy.
please bring back the woke, my children are starving
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised you didn't spell it "wallah". Good job!
Re: AAA == Woke - and no one likes woke. (Score:3)
Citation needed as usual. All the games panned for being woke have other problems as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem playing a game which features "woke" aspects, as long as they have a natural place within the game.
The problem is, most games with "woke" elements have said elements shoehorned in.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the same problem with TV shows and content as well. It used to never be an issue in Canada. Some people were gay, trans, whatever, no one cared, people went about their lives. Then that wasn't good enough anymore.
I'll be watch a sci-fi show it's all 'Main plot! Bad guys doing bad things! Destroying the universe! Quickly, to our ships! Activate the plot armor, oh no, plot sensors! we didn't see it coming!" Then right in the middle of the arc, Bam, full episode of 'My s*xuality and how I feel as a pers
Re: (Score:2)
I read your post and thought to myself: "Star Trek: Discovery"
Surprisingly, my wife and I generally liked the show, but there were quite a few moments where we were confused. "That character is a girl, no, wait, a boy, no, wait, a girl again, no, wait, they are in transition, but from what to what?". This went on for several episodes (more than 10), and added nothing to the story, except confusion: why is the TV series focusing on these characters and for what purpose? We couldn't find any, other than the s
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you nailed it spot on. I was referencing Discovery, it was very jarring wtf moment, it was very out of place, and that they needed to make a big point of it, it was like it was a bigger deal than the universe ending events going on.
Having a different preference or behavior used to be unimportant and no one cared, and treated you like anyone else, that's not good enough these days.
Re: (Score:2)
While wokeness is certainly not the only reason AAA games are failing, it is absolutely a large contributing factor.
It could be that your world view is everything is a nail and needs a hammer. Let's take a few examples in 2024:
Concord:
Me: "It took Sony 8 years to make a clone of Overwatch that plays worse. The characters designs are bland, and it is like Sony did not learn anything from all the previously released hero shooters before putting out a mediocre game into a very crowded genre."
You: "Wokeness?"
Skull and Bones:
Me: "The game mechanics of this pirate game are clunky and game play is worse than Assasin's Creed
Re: (Score:2)
My overall point is that wokeness doesn't seem to have much, if any, positive impact on game sales, but may very well have at least some form of negative impact. Therefore, it would make sense for game developers to put less emphasis on wokeness and m
Re: (Score:2)
I guess a better question is "are there any games that are considered woke that have experienced massive commercial success?
The Star Wars universe is "woke", every successful Star Wars game is therefore an example. The Assassins Creed universe is "woke" (The evils of corporatism are a common theme for example) so every successful title in the series is an example.
My overall point is that wokeness doesn't seem to have much, if any, positive impact on game sales
That seems true as long as you pretend wokeness doesn't exist where it obviously does, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Wokeness has little to do with corporatism, other than the fact that both tend to be left-leaning ideologies. However, you'd be amazed at the number of anti-woke, anti-corporatists out there (many Bernie supporters fit that mold). Overall, many Dems from the 90s and early 2000s have maintained their anti-corporatist views while avoiding the quagmire of identity politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Wokeness has little to do with corporatism, other than the fact that both tend to be left-leaning ideologies.
Capitalism and racism were invented for exactly the same hard-right reasons.
Overall, many Dems from the 90s and early 2000s have maintained their anti-corporatist views
Check their voting records to see how false that is
Re: (Score:2)
What is the name of the inventor of racism and what year did he or she invent it? Did the person patent their invention?
I'm not sure what you're hinting at. What portion of my statement are you claiming to be false?
Re: (Score:2)
What portion of my statement are you claiming to be false?
Learn to read, and you can find out. I'm not explaining it again, I just reread what I wrote and it's in perfectly cromulent English.
Racism invented by Bernier and Linnaeus (Score:2)
What is the name of the inventor of racism and what year did he or she invent it?
Racism against people of sub-Saharan African descent was invented [wikipedia.org] in large part to rationalize the Atlantic slave trade. The distinction between white Europeans and black Africans was first described by François Bernier in Nouvelle division de la terre (1684). Carl Linnaeus codified it in Systema Naturae (1767), calling the African variety of humans "sly, lazy, negligent".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are definitely other flaws with these games such as you mentioned and more, but shock surprise, it's never woke content! Not possible! It can never be the reason!
We're all tired of it. All you're going to get now is people not bothering to explain to you what they don't like, you can just keep pushing your narrative, we'll just say, I'm not interested and not spending the money, and when you ask why we'll just say none of your business.
If someone doesn't like something, you can't argue with them to ma
Re: (Score:2)
There are definitely other flaws with these games such as you mentioned and more, but shock surprise, it's never woke content! Not possible! It can never be the reason!
No my point which you proved is these games failed because they must have been woke in your world. The fact that they were not very good games will never be the real problem. There needs to be a scapegoat in your world.
But please explain what was "woke" about Suicide Squad again? It had a female Harley Quinn? Or that in Skull and Bones you can create your own character that looks like you?
Re: (Score:2)
I gave up on gaming because of all the woke faggotry they shove in these games that you claim doesn't exist.
Please cite what was woke about Skull and Bones or Suicide Squad again? They were just mediocre to bad games. But unfortunately they were AAA so they had to sell a lot to make back their budgets.
In the first minute of the video you have some harpy bitch calling the main character old (i.e. cue old white man) and nagging the shit out of him at the diner.
Bahahaha. Is that your "wokeness"? A woman calling some male character, old? Dude, are you blind? That guy isn't "white". He's green as in he's an alien which means he might actually be old compared to humans.
Then at 90 seconds they have a boss babe come in and rob the diner.
By "boss babe" you forgot to mention the two criminals the "boss babe" had with her? And?
It's all woke bullshit designed to drive away a male audience
Bahahaha. Let me
Re: AAA == Woke - and no one likes woke. (Score:2)
You're right, in the sense that villains (at least most of them) should be male. This is how the world works.
$80 is reasonable, but not for us (Score:3)
If you look at inflation, $80 should be a bargain. But our wages haven't kept up with inflation for decades, and things are especially bad right now with unemployment rising steadily, so it isn't a bargain given our incomes.
If we could get paid properly, and by we I don't mean the especially privileged but rather the masses, then we'd be happy to buy $80 games. They still offer more than four times the entertainment of a $20 movie. But where is the money?
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at inflation, $80 should be a bargain. But our wages haven't kept up with inflation for decades, and things are especially bad right now with unemployment rising steadily, so it isn't a bargain given our incomes.
If we could get paid properly, and by we I don't mean the especially privileged but rather the masses, then we'd be happy to buy $80 games. They still offer more than four times the entertainment of a $20 movie. But where is the money?
I agree completely. Pretty sure I bought FF3 (VI) for the SNES for around $59.99 (on sale!) back in 1990. That would be $144 today according to standard inflation calculators. And FF3 is maybe 40 hours, max, before you completely run out of things to do. We have great cheap (and free!) games today. Heck, $144 would get you a discount GC for a year of GamePass Ultimate, which is well over 40 hours of entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Well find your favourite AAA title over here: https://howlongtobeat.com/ [howlongtobeat.com]
The average movie ticket costs about $14, and conveniently (for the math) the average movie length is 141 minutes long, so you pay basically $1 / 10min of entertainment, or $6/hour.
The average game takes 16hours to complete for just the main story. Picking the first AAA game in the list of popular games released in the past 6 months (Indian Jones) and you get 15.5 hours so that checks out. Assuming that it would cost $80, that is $5/hou
Reality (Score:2)
Personally I don't really care that much about what they're asking for the games new, because I almost never buy them right at release. Just about everything will be $15 or less (sometimes $5 or less) if you just wait on the price to drop that far. Might be a year or two out from release, but you can still play them.
VERY occasionally a game is worth the price at launch (eg, I bought Baldur's Gate 3 at launch and was happy with the purchase), but aside from those just wait some.
Missing titles (Score:1)
No Balatro in here? I haven't stopped hearing about Balatro since it released while I've seen absolutely no discussion of Split Fiction.
Meanwhile millions are playing Schedule I (Score:2)
sale (Score:2)
i only buy games on sale, granted, you'll have to wait, but you save a lot of money, steam sales or humble bundles are really great to get lots of games on the cheap. typically i never spend over €10 on my games.