The Industry's Rush To $80 Video Games Has Stalled - For Now 69
Major video game publishers have abandoned plans to sell new releases at $80 after initially signaling support for the elevated price point earlier this year, according to Bloomberg. Microsoft reversed course in late July, announcing The Outer Worlds 2 and other holiday titles including Call of Duty will sell for $70 instead of the previously planned $80.
Take-Two Interactive's Borderlands 4 and Sony's Ghost of Yotei were also priced at $70 after initial $80 expectations. Electronic Arts said it will not adjust prices for the near future, with the upcoming Battlefield 6 selling for $70. Production costs have grown tenfold over the past decade while sales have not increased proportionally.
Take-Two Interactive's Borderlands 4 and Sony's Ghost of Yotei were also priced at $70 after initial $80 expectations. Electronic Arts said it will not adjust prices for the near future, with the upcoming Battlefield 6 selling for $70. Production costs have grown tenfold over the past decade while sales have not increased proportionally.
It's for the beta.. (Score:3)
I think the problem is not so much the $70 vs $80, it's that this money is to buy a beta that might or might not be eventually fixed/polished etc.
Re: It's for the beta.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I would pay that much for a finished game on durable media like DVD, BR, rom cartridge (I guess if anyone wants to publish for my SNES, I'm buying because the console still runs)
Over the air updates have perverted development schedules to release in marketing timelines and backfill bugs later. The era where game development is about creating a carefully crafted experience, at least the games from the more respected studios, is over.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It's perverted how games got updates.
Because games got updated a lot. That game in the box might be version 1.0 on release day, but then there's a major bug, and they now have version 1.2 in the box 2 months later. Meanwhile you run into the bug, and then have to spend another $30 for the 1.2 update.
Or better yet, it often happens that you get 1.0 on release day, and they quietly release 1.2 with significant improvements. But they don't tell anyone, and if you want 1.2, you have to buy a whole n
Re: It's for the beta.. (Score:2)
Re: It's for the beta.. (Score:2)
That would be nice, but even if it happened games would still require patches because the systems they run on change. This is true even of consoles ever since Xbox.
Re: (Score:2)
"major bugs" is the key wording you missed. Fixing minor issues will always be a thing, having worked QA in the game industry once upon a time I'm well aware of the fact that's impossible to catch everything. A game only being truly playable 6 months after launch should not be a thing though. Knowing what I know from my pre college stint in game industry QA I can't imagine a lot of the worst bugs we see today were unknown on launch.
I know I'd be fine paying $80 to a reformed game industry that released AAA
Re: (Score:2)
All consoles, only require updates when they've managed to get an update notification for a given game. (That or an updated version blacklist.) Beyond that, they are required to support the older games. An updated blacklist installed by the required system update on another game might break that, but it's rare and tends to only happen for titles that can lead to an ACE (Arbitrary Code Execution) exploit.
There are some more specific examples, like the XBox 360 using hypervisors tied to
Re: (Score:2)
And other games didn't get updates that severely needed them, like The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind for the original XBox.
I guess it's a chicken and egg problem:
Which came first? Bethesda releasing buggy or incomplete games under marketing pressure, or frequent software updates?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the publisher. Some publishers deliver unfinished rubbish and fix it with over the air updates. Others deliver a perfectly polished game that is none the less made even better based on user feedback, or have new features added post update, or correct bugs that couldn't possibly be caught earlier (there's a lot of hardware edge cases out there).
There's plenty of things good about over the air updates.
Re: It's for the beta.. (Score:2)
Re: It's for the beta.. (Score:2)
Re: It's for the beta.. (Score:2)
A lot of people pay $50 for a game, and some games people will log hundreds of hours into them. It can be more economical than other forms of entertainment. Certainly better than movie tickets. But also better than a fee months of a streaming service. (assuming someone might watch Netflix heavily, say 15 hours a week for 3 months)
"Selling" (Score:3)
How many of the games do you actually "own"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies aren't making billions in profit for their shareholders? Cry me a fkin river.
Also, look at Crysis with all it's settings maxxed out and show me the huge list of games released in the last year that are comparable. There's entire youtube playlists comparing the quality of 15yo games to new releases and it's shocking how much is needed to be spent on hardware to get no better quality.
Just sayin (Score:2)
The words "Piracy" and "Stealing" are both ill-descriptive of "copyright infringement."
Neither the terms, nor the legal definitions, nor the economic impact, nor the moral analysis are the same.
Re: "Selling" (Score:2)
Only the ones I write myself. That's how copyright works. I don't own any books either, although I do have copies I can sell, I don't have the right to reproduce them.
Production costs (Score:1)
Production costs have grown tenfold over the past decade while sales have not increased proportionally.
This is this issue then, isn't it? Production costs have grown to more than what the market will bear.
There *are* still games being made at lower budgets, they're just indie games or AA games that don't have half a billion dollars to spend.
Perhaps the largest publishers could learn something there.
Re: (Score:1)
At least games like Expedition 33 are being made occasionally, they made a fantastic game (albeit with a disgusting lack of virtue signaling and progressive dogwhistles. Gross. like how dare they?) and retailed it for less than $50
Re: Production costs (Score:2)
Denial is a terrible drug (Score:3)
We will deny the economic problems until it is impossible to deny them. This unfortunetly means we will continue screwing this up and setting ourselves up for a very difficult recession.
First rule when you fibd yourself in a hole is to quit digging.
Instead, everyone is ordering more shovels.
You inply and interesting question. What place will luxury goods and services like overpriced videogames and premium online memberships have in next year's economy?
Re: Denial is a terrible drug (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Meanwhile in the real world. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/0... [cnbc.com]
Nonfarm payroll growth was slower than expected in July and the unemployment rate ticked higher, raising potential trouble signs for the U.S. labor market as President Donald Trump ramps up tariffs.
Job growth totaled a seasonally adjusted 73,000 for the month, above the June total of 14,000 but below even the meager Dow Jones estimate for a gain of 100,000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. June and May totals were revised sharply l
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, and?
I get that this is more about political sniveling and the primal need to find something, anything to cunt out about.. but c'mon
>unemployment is *STILL* within the full employment range
>jobs were added, just more slowly than originally forecast
Oh no, Trump is singlehandedly destroying the very fabric of the universe. The hyperbole you people resort to is just precious.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I was clearly told "Sleepy Joe" was holding back the economy and it would come roaring back to life under Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has been putting taxes on goods from other countries which makes them more expensive.
Meanwhile he's also been sending his goons after people working our farms making food more expensive.
His disastrous policies are making things more expensive while wages aren't going up at the same rate. Pretty basic stuff
Re: No shit. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for proving my point :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A fucking furry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deal, and in return you can never fly in a jet, use GPS (since those sats were launched via rockets), or anything derived from the electron microscope etc etc.
I'd mention how ridiculous your logic is, but you're a grown man who dresses up in a fur-suit for sexual gratification, it would be a waste of breath.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Trump (Score:2)
It's the Boomers' chickens coming home to roost. Between Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats, they voted for lower taxes, higher spending and funding it via the national equivalent of taking out loans on their kids' identity.
The pattern was consistent between Republican and Democrat admins and Congresses, which is why I tell every person I hear whining about "threats to democracy" that the greatest threat to our "democracy" is the actual behavior of o
Re: (Score:2)
Higher spending isn't necessarily bad, but the problem is the money was wasted on wars and tax cuts, not investments that would have helped the future.
Re: It's not Trump (Score:2)
Re: It's not Trump (Score:1)
What happened to the deficit under Clinton, who signed a welfare reform bill that made substantive changes?
Re: (Score:2)
Christians have consciously and unconsciously been wanting to die and they think it "holy" and "god ordained" for them to bring us all down with them. it is rooted in shared religious psychosis on a mass scale.
Are VideoGames more costly? (Score:3)
Video Games nowadays are harder and costlier to develop as ever before.
But the tools to do them have gotten cheaper and cheaper.
Besides, who asked for biger worlds, or more photorealism?
I was perfectly happy with Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. I left Arkham Knight and Robocop Rogue City 75% through because of the endless grind. Guess many of you will be happier with a smaller world and a tighter story.
Another thing, Game Studios nowadays do not have to manufacture (very expensive) cartridges, or (cheaper) CDs/DVDs, or boxes, or manuals, or pay to ship and distribute all that stuff. Just bits in the ether for marginal cost per extra unit sold.
What do you folk think?
Do games today (adjusted for inflation) bring more value per U$D, or less Valuer per U$D compared to games of yore?
May this be a good question for an "Ask Slashdot"?
Re: (Score:3)
Value is whatever someone feels it's worth. I personally don't pay very much for games anymore, but I'm also patient and don't keep up with the latest iteration of the exact same games all that often.
For me, there's little value in "new" games, especially since they are typically worse then older games in the same genre. Kids may not feel this way.
If you felt $60 games 20 years ago was an acceptable bargain, then really, you should be okay with $80 since that's actually LESS after you account for inflation.
Re: Are VideoGames more costly? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Video Games nowadays are harder and costlier to develop as ever before. But the tools to do them have gotten cheaper and cheaper.
Besides, who asked for biger worlds, or more photorealism? I was perfectly happy with Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. I left Arkham Knight and Robocop Rogue City 75% through because of the endless grind. Guess many of you will be happier with a smaller world and a tighter story.
Another thing, Game Studios nowadays do not have to manufacture (very expensive) cartridges, or (cheaper) CDs/DVDs, or boxes, or manuals, or pay to ship and distribute all that stuff. Just bits in the ether for marginal cost per extra unit sold.
What do you folk think? Do games today (adjusted for inflation) bring more value per U$D, or less Valuer per U$D compared to games of yore?
May this be a good question for an "Ask Slashdot"?
I'm still trying to convince the developers with my buying habits that maybe "open world" isn't the game design for EVERY game. There has to still be some meat on the bones between railroad and open world. Because I haven't been impressed by an open world in two generations.
Re: (Score:2)
People want to explore and be rewarded for it. They don't want to have a gigantic list of checkboxes to fill in with big glowing neon signs that say "Come Here!" next to each one.
People also don't want to be blocked from doing something simply because the plot isn't there yet. If I find a way into some place (exploring) I'm not supposed to be yet, the solution shouldn't be an invisible wall or "but thou must." Let me have some
Re: (Score:2)
AI frame generation needs to go the way of the dodo. If you're telling me you can't keep the framerate stable at 60fps on modern hardware without resorting to an AI to fake the result, then you shouldn't be spending money on art assets that aren't actually being rendered most of the time. (Especially when some of those assets are themselves made by AI in all or in part. Or the asset is only on screen for a total of 45 seconds out of 60+ hour game.) If this means smaller worlds, fog, etc. So be it.
I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Video Games nowadays are harder and costlier to develop as ever before.
I think this is a complete bullshit line the industry is trying to get everyone to believe. And you acknowledge that yourself in the rest of your post. AAA titles with photo realistic graphics, large worlds, and an epic long story line are harder and costlier to develop, but if anything the current industry shows that independent studios with small teams and limited budgets can make truly amazing games.
It's a selling point. Everyone is desperate to make an open world game, that has a 100h main story quest,
Might seem like a lot, but... (Score:2)
The most expensive game I've ever bought at release is still Super Mario Bros. 3. I vaguely recall it being about fifty bucks, and the interwebs says that's about right. Adjusted for inflation, that'd be around $120ish today.
These days though, I'm fine with waiting for games to hit the virtual discount bin.
Re:Might seem like a lot, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
In the days of physical media, the retail price didn't reflect most people's actual cost. You'd buy a game for $50, play it, then sell it back to GameStop for $20. Actual cost to you: $30. Or if you weren't in a hurry, you'd wait for the first round of people to finish playing it and buy it used for $40. And then sell it back again for $20, for a net cost of only $20.
Digital sales have eliminated the used game market, so the retail price is what you really pay. Game makers need to understand they can't compare digital game prices to physical ones and think they're the same.
Re: (Score:2)
In the days of physical media, the retail price didn't reflect most people's actual cost. You'd buy a game for $50, play it, then sell it back to GameStop for $20.
I mean maybe YOU did. I never have. I remember when video games went on sale. Heck I remember when video games prices used to drop. Sure it was $50 but if you waited till it became a player's choice it was $20. For a while I used to try to get black label games for red label prices then I saw Burnout Paradise on sale and stopped caring. Great use for $20.
Re: (Score:2)
You may never have sold anything, but you've benefited from those that did.
Patience (Score:2)
Sometimes it takes me 15 years to finish a game. I bought The Witcher in 2009 for $27.99 and didn't finish it until 2024. Steam Cloud kept my saves over 4 different generations of gaming PCs.
Sometimes I wait so long that by the time I get around to buying the game, it's been remastered already.
However, I haven't played an EA game in a long time, so I'm probably not the target market here.
steam sales and gog.com (Score:2)
Honestly, my backlog of games (I'm a pc gamer exclusively, not console) is so full that I never pay full price anymore anyway. I just wait for Steam season sales, or better yet, I can often get them much later on gog.com for DRM free versions that are mine to download and actually fucking own.
Plus most of the time there are so many bugs, patches, blah blah blah that need to come out first, why pay $60, $70+ when I can get the fixed/complete game later for 50% or more off?
Re: (Score:2)
Plus most of the time there are so many bugs, patches, blah blah blah that need to come out first, why pay $60, $70+ when I can get the fixed/complete game later for 50% or more off?
Lots of games have bugs that literally never get fixed. Snowrunner has had an autosave stutter bug since day one which is still there. There is actually an open source patcher to fix the problem, and has been ages, and they STILL haven't fixed it, even though they could just copy the fix.
What I find compelling is waiting for all the DLCs to get released, because not long after that's done there is usually an all-in version which costs little more than the original base price. Although I broke this rule for
this is market forces at work (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, I honestly can't get salty at the companies or at the gamers. This is a textbook case of what economists call price discovery, which is a good thing.
$70 still to high for unfinished games using DLC (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Asian market has been milking Western gamers (Score:3)
It's a dirty little secret that Japanese versions of games could, until Trump came back in, be bought for substantial discounts if ordered from Asian companies like Play Asia. I bought almost every first party Nintendo title I own from them for prices $48 or less when American covers at places like Amazon or Gamestop were $60.
It's basically the same cart as the North American release. They have full English vocals and text, and often major European languages covered too.
But the base price is way lower, and these aren't bootlegs. These are legit, real cartridges.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, duh (Score:3)
Microsoft has already been selling $90+ games (Score:1)
To play a game day one it's not uncommon to pay $90+ for an Xbox game. It only goes down to a $70 price 3 days or a week later when it finally hits Game Pass and retail. It's been that way for a couple of years now.