Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Businesses Games

The Industry's Rush To $80 Video Games Has Stalled - For Now 69

Posted by msmash from the tomorrow's-problem dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Industry's Rush To $80 Video Games Has Stalled - For Now More

The Industry's Rush To $80 Video Games Has Stalled - For Now

Comments Filter:

  • It's for the beta.. (Score:3)

    by Ecuador ( 740021 ) on Friday August 01, 2025 @01:32PM (#65560492) Homepage

    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)

      by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Friday August 01, 2025 @01:45PM (#65560542) Homepage Journal

      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)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        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

        • You're missing the point. There shouldn't be "major bugs" at the time of initial release. That polish should be applied before launch.

          • 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)

              by skam240 ( 789197 )

              "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

            • Except they don't.

              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

        • 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?

      • 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.

  • "Selling" (Score:3)

    by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Friday August 01, 2025 @01:32PM (#65560494)

    How many of the games do you actually "own"?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Shakes Fist ( 10502847 )
      If "Buying" isn't "Owning" then "Piracy" isn't "Stealing".
      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.

      • 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.

    • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • 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

    • The production costs are mis-applied and that's why they're so high. Fuck solid gameplay mechanics, we need 60GB of trash textures for the floor. Like literal garbage.

  • Are VideoGames more costly? (Score:3)

    by williamyf ( 227051 ) on Friday August 01, 2025 @01:46PM (#65560548)

    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"?

    • 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.

    • Substantially less value. Re: doom, all of classic gaming (atari games were solo efforts, mostly yet still made a multi-billion dollar company)

    • 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.

      • A big issue with open world games made by many AAA studios is the handholding.

        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
        • nah I want guidance. give me a well directed game and it will feel open even if it isn't. The illusion of choice is more important than actual choice when it's done well.

          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.

    • 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,

  • 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)

      by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Friday August 01, 2025 @02:09PM (#65560644)

      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.

      • 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.

        • Part of the reason for the price drop was the used market being flooded with copies that were good enough when compared to the cost of new ones. Once the copy was sold, publishers had to compete against it to sell the next one, which will naturally drop the price of any "scarce" product / good.

          You may never have sold anything, but you've benefited from those that did.

  • 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.

  • 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?

    • 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)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Friday August 01, 2025 @01:57PM (#65560604)
    The gaming companies want to charge as much as the market will tolerate, so they try edging into "it's not a game, it's an iNveSTmEnT" territory. But, if they overshoot, a bunch of people say "nah, I'll play the other 18,000 games in my library and wait for the price to drop on this one". When that happens, the gaming companies can get burned - if they depress purchases at the height of the hype wave by too much, they wind up making less money overall.

    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)

    by Taelron ( 1046946 ) on Friday August 01, 2025 @02:02PM (#65560622)
    $70 is still to high for games that are released buggy and unfinished requiring you to spend more later on DLC to get the full game experience. I will just wait six to 12 months for the GOTY version that includes all of the DLC for less than the base price up front.
    • 70USD is expensive if there is a lot of more money to be placed in the game. The worst offender are the "surprise mechanics", what the people named as loot boxes. On top of that, games that are online focused may have a "battle pass" or "sessions" that has a paid tier and that is time bound. FOMO is a thing that drives sales (so you cannot wait for a GOTY version of Call of Duty). And to insult anybody else, there are preorder bonuses that may be fictional currency you can use to gamble or three day early a

  • 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.

    • yeah our Play Asia prices were cheaper in my area but I do have a few harder to find games from Asian carts. I thought I'd be more annoyed with them than I am the only issues i have are some of them don't recognize other people playing the same game because it has the Japanese title instead of the NA one.

  • Well, duh (Score:3)

    by paul_engr ( 6280294 ) on Friday August 01, 2025 @04:17PM (#65560998)
    None of the shit they produce today is worth $50. It's never finished. They should pay us to be beta testers

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close