Will Games Really Become More Expensive To Purchase Next Gen?

I thought I would ask you guys on this since I don't know where I stand on this right now. One of the first Next Gen Games, NBA 2K21 will be 70 US Dollars and maybe 85-90 in Canada. I actually wondered if you guys think that Next Gen Games are going to be more expensive to purchase. This has been talked about ever since the 360 and PS3 came into view as people thought games by now would become more expensive to purchase due to a number of reasons. There is one thing I do like about this, and it's very personal. It means if they are 85-90 dollars here in Canada I will be more selective on what I buy new. It makes me decide a bit harder and of course this lowers new game purchases for my backlog even more.

Although, I still don't know about wanting to pay 85 for an new game. I have a feeling most games will be 80 Canadian still and I think that 2K boosting the price is just some kind of marketing shtick or whatever. I remember that when PS3 came out before the inflation of Canadian dollars came up, some games were 70 at launch. So I feel most games will be the standard price and won't go back up UNLESS it's something like FIFA, PES or NBA games that come out yearly.

Will games be more expensive to purchase in the future? I don't really think so. Some games might go over the Full Price range, but I think it won't be ALL of them.

It's certainly possible. UK prices for new releases crept back to £45/50 for the average release., which at this point in the generation is the wrong direction.

I'd actually be surprised if they didn't going forward. $60 has been the standard MSRP for new games in the US since the start of the PS360 era, so the fact that it's stayed there for approximately 15 years is kind of surprising in retrospect. When accounting for inflation, $60 in 2006 is just over $76 in 2020, so from purely an economic perspective, it makes sense.

As to how to feel about it, however, I'm torn. On the one hand, I obviously don't want to pay more for games, that goes without saying. On the other hand, if a price increase means, say, that studios will treat their overworked employees better, or that reliance on microtransactions will decrease, or that less content will be locked behind DLC, then that *could* be a net positive. But who am I kidding, this is capitalism, and none of those things will happen.

Regardless, I've never been interested in NBA games and that's not about to change now, so if this is an anomaly, good riddance. Down with yearly games.

I'd actually be surprised if they didn't going forward. $60 has been the standard MSRP for new games in the US since the start of the PS360 era, so the fact that it's stayed there for approximately 15 years is kind of surprising in retrospect. When accounting for inflation, $60 in 2006 is just over $76 in 2020, so from purely an economic perspective, it makes sense.

As to how to feel about it, however, I'm torn. On the one hand, I obviously don't want to pay more for games, that goes without saying. On the other hand, if a price increase means, say, that studios will treat their overworked employees better, or that reliance on microtransactions will decrease, or that less content will be locked behind DLC, then that *could* be a net positive. But who am I kidding, this is capitalism, and none of those things will happen.

Regardless, I've never been interested in NBA games and that's not about to change now, so if this is an anomaly, good riddance. Down with yearly games.

Mockturtle is right. The price hike isn't about games being more expensive and publishers needing to make more money, not will it benefit anyone but executives and shareholders. Mark my words.

As Jim Sterling remarks, games ALREADY cost more than $60 when they have DLC and microtransactions. $60 is a "shell price" and no way should it increase. But again, it will, because capitalism is inherently bad.

Also, while the value of the dollar has gone down, the audience for games - especially AAA - has increased. So there's economy of scale. Develop a game once and it can be sold to more people every generation. We know these economics work out because publishers keep reporting high profits. It's not theory. The games industry is already making back it's money on most titles.

As for me, I almost never buy games piecemeal. Too expensive. When I do it is on sale, $20 or less.

Edit: Also, with considering pre-orders for games, DLC and collector's editions, publishers even recoup some development costs before release.

Depends on how hard they want to go the DLC/expansion pass route. If they increase the price that's just less people buying DLC and expansions. Kind of like how mobile games are often free just to make the bar to entry as low as possible. But as has been said, with inflation we were already paying that much years ago, it has just gotten cheaper over time if you don't consider DLC.

I very rarely buy games at full price any more because I know that with the amount of games I end up buying, I'd never be able to afford it.
I find it very hard to believe that people routinely spend £50-£70 on games which more often than not are also asking for microtransactions and DLC.

This is why I'm glad I still have my PS3 and PC right now and also why there's no chance in hell I'm buying The Last of Us Part 2.

I very rarely buy games at full price any more because I know that with the amount of games I end up buying, I'd never be able to afford it.
I find it very hard to believe that people routinely spend £50-£70 on games which more often than not are also asking for microtransactions and DLC.

This is why I'm glad I still have my PS3 and PC right now and also why there's no chance in hell I'm buying The Last of Us Part 2.

I'm always two generations beind for the same reasons. I've build my 3DS, Wii, Wii U and PS3 physical library with mostly sub-20-25$ games.

I'm also assuming that many people buying games at 70-80$ are usually play them within the month and then resale it for 50-60$.

I've been thinking about skipping this next gen, which is incredible for me to contemplate. I've never missed a gen. However, I'm less and less enamored with modern games. With flashcarts and emulation I have an incredible back catalogue to draw from that I greatly enjoy. Also with homebrew games I have new games for my old systems. I also dont want another box. If PS5 could guarantee compatibility with PS3 and PS4 I'd get it just for that so I could drop two consoles.

Increasing prices plus the rise of microtransactions and all that just pushes me further away.

I can definitely see the prices increasing. Maybe not quite all of them breaking that $60 standard (I’m thinking of the MediEvil and Spyro remasters). It wouldn’t be the first time that the price of the main equipment and increased the price of the “accessories”. I still hope it won’t though.

I've been thinking about skipping this next gen, which is incredible for me to contemplate. I've never missed a gen. However, I'm less and less enamored with modern games. With flashcarts and emulation I have an incredible back catalogue to draw from that I greatly enjoy. Also with homebrew games I have new games for my old systems. I also dont want another box. If PS5 could guarantee compatibility with PS3 and PS4 I'd get it just for that so I could drop two consoles.

Increasing prices plus the rise of microtransactions and all that just pushes me further away.

This is my thinking as well.
I'll buy a PS5 if it means I can put my PS3 or 4 away, otherwise I don't need another box.

Wouldn't surprise me if the prices raise to $70. If that's going to be the case then hopeful loot boxes and other scummy microtransactions will be less bad or not at all present in games. But I'd be shocked to hear NBA 2K21 for next gen wouldn't have microtransactions in it. Then again they might not have a choice since some governments are starting to take notice of how loot boxes are gambling. Seems like the UK is going to make new laws soon on classifying loot boxes as gambling. There's also been a few U.S. Governors raising that issue but I don't think they've gotten enough support yet. I think there's even a few European countries that have already banned loot boxes. So maybe the publishers see what's coming and are preparing for when they can no longer make money off of scummy microtransactions.

Going to echo a lot of the thoughts people have had stated here already (mockturtle in particular). From a purely pragmatic standpoint, it makes sense that game prices would only increase as time went on due to the rising cost of game development and inflation. However, in practice I have zero hope that any of the extra profit made off this price hike will go anywhere but the pockets of studio execs.

I bought tons of games on release when games were $50 and I made less money.

$60, only select titles.

$70? I guess I'll just rely on sales and subscription services.

To be honest I never knew games used to be cheaper than $60. Granted I didn’t really start buying games myself until the PS3 generation so that’s probably why. Personally I don’t like the idea of bumping up the price, but even if they did I probably still buy the new games that really interest me like I already do. I definitely think it may hurt them more than help though, seeing so many people are already hesitant to buy $60 already.

To be honest I never knew games used to be cheaper than $60. Granted I didn’t really start buying games myself until the PS3 generation so that’s probably why. Personally I don’t like the idea of bumping up the price, but even if they did I probably still buy the new games that really interest me like I already do. I definitely think it may hurt them more than help though, seeing so many people are already hesitant to buy $60 already.

I remember getting a few games back in the day that were really expensive. Like the first Street Fighter II and SNES. Or Turok 2 on N64. I remember very well that these two were very expensive, way above average at the time.

What I remember from when I was buying these games in the late 80s and early 90s was that the prices weren't the same. Now, most AAA games are released at a "standard" 59,99$ or 69,99$. I'm pretty sure that when I was younger, games were sold at many different prices, depending on the publisher or the title, or the franchise.

New release games have always been way too expensive here - these days you can pay anywhere between AU$80-AU$120 for a new release - especially on console. Fortunately because Steam doesn't do proper regional pricing (and just converts US$ to AU$, new releases on PC tend to be a bit cheaper than their console counterparts. Either way though, I always wait for sales these days, apart from very rare occasions, so I really don't mind either way.

I'm sure those that sell games will always try to balance their price with whatever they feel they can sell in large numbers. With games-as-a-service and DLC/microtransactions being common place these days, I would expect to see more of these "additional" costs appearing instead of a base price change. I just hope that none of it gets in the way of making good games, but this is a capitalist system and they do need to make the moneys.

Discount me all day though... it's incredible what you pick up on the cheap only a few months after release =)

I don't want to stick up for scumsucking megadeath corporations ran by billionaires who don't just want lots of money but want all ALL the money (© Jim Sterling, Son), but the initial price of games has been static for a long time, while development costs have increased immensely.

I was watching an online documentary about games consoles in the late '80s and early '90s, and was suprised to see that in the UK games cartidges for new releases cost £50+ even then - that's about $75 based on 1990 exchange rate for GBP to USD... but adjusting for inflation that's the equivalent of about £110 ($150) today! (I didn't know this as, even though I've been gaming since the mid '80s, I was purely computer-based and bought cheap tapes and disks - ZX Spectrum, Amiga, then PC... I didn't have a games console until I got a GameCube in 2004!)

Don't forget that you are not paying for the media that games are distributed on, but the development and production costs... and as games have got bigger and better production values, and generally gamers are more and more demanding with regards to photorealistic graphics and sound and animation and gameplay and licensed content, so price rises are inevitable.

Hopefully price rises might halt the insidiousness of live services, microtransactions, lootboxes and the like, which are alleged to make up for the static cost of games, but I doubt it with regards to the likes of 2K, EA, Ubisoft, Activision etc. I also doubt that they will start looking after their staff better, unless forced to by much-needed unionisation.

Me, I generally avoid their fare anyway, and stick to singleplayer games from mid-range producers and indie devs, as well as older stuff.

I don't want to stick up for scumsucking megadeath corporations ran by billionaires who don't just want lots of money but want all ALL the money (© Jim Sterling, Son), but the initial price of games has been static for a long time, while development costs have increased immensely.

I was watching an online documentary about games consoles in the late '80s and early '90s, and was suprised to see that in the UK games cartidges for new releases cost £50+ even then - that's about $75 based on 1990 exchange rate for GBP to USD... but adjusting for inflation that's the equivalent of about £110 ($150) today! (I didn't know this as, even though I've been gaming since the mid '80s, I was purely computer-based and bought cheap tapes and disks - ZX Spectrum, Amiga, then PC... I didn't have a games console until I got a GameCube in 2004!)

Don't forget that you are not paying for the media that games are distributed on, but the development and production costs... and as games have got bigger and better production values, and generally gamers are more and more demanding with regards to photorealistic graphics and sound and animation and gameplay and licensed content, so price rises are inevitable.

Hopefully price rises might halt the insidiousness of live services, microtransactions, lootboxes and the like, which are alleged to make up for the static cost of games, but I doubt it with regards to the likes of 2K, EA, Ubisoft, Activision etc. I also doubt that they will start looking after their staff better, unless forced to by much-needed unionisation.

Me, I generally avoid their fare anyway, and stick to singleplayer games from mid-range producers and indie devs, as well as older stuff.

But isnt that offset by the sheer amount of people that game now a days? I dont find the development costs argument to be feasible, these companies make billions every financial quarter sometimes with just a couple of releases. Games are expensive as shit to make, I know that much, but the budget doesnt approach the billion range. Plus with sales on platforms like PC/current gen consoles they have a long term income to look forward to.

$70(with tax in most places around my area it'd be around $77) is ridiculous, plain and simple. That's alot to ask for out of a group of people who are mostly middle class, $77 is like 2 or 3 weeks of groceries for myself. I think the more likely reason is the fact that 2K is scummy, I don't play the NBA games but I know its full of advertisements, micro transactions, DLC. Seems to me like they're just trying to be ambitious with making even more money, I hope it backfires.

I remember getting a few games back in the day that were really expensive. Like the first Street Fighter II and SNES. Or Turok 2 on N64. I remember very well that these two were very expensive, way above average at the time.

What I remember from when I was buying these games in the late 80s and early 90s was that the prices weren't the same. Now, most AAA games are released at a "standard" 59,99$ or 69,99$. I'm pretty sure that when I was younger, games were sold at many different prices, depending on the publisher or the title, or the franchise.

Anything on cartridge would have been priced according to the ROM size. Street Fighter was expensive because it needed a big ROM. Large ROMs were essentially only used for flagship titles because it was incredibly difficult to justify larger ROM chips for the average game because of the difficulty in balancing likely sales with the costs. It was easier for platform holders because they could offset many of the costs, but third parties had to pay the platform holders for both the larger chips, and the standard programming rate. And I'm sure the costs weren't just the raw extra rom cost, but an extra amount on the top.

If Sega had released Sonic 3 in the intended from (i.e. including the Sonic and Knuckles content) it would have cost a ridiculous amount as it would have been a 32mbit cart (afaik only Super SFII is larger on MD, most games were 4-8)

Third party N64 games in the UK were £10 more than the first party games.

Anything on cartridge would have been priced according to the ROM size. Street Fighter was expensive because it needed a big ROM. Large ROMs were essentially only used for flagship titles because it was incredibly difficult to justify larger ROM chips for the average game because of the difficulty in balancing likely sales with the costs. It was easier for platform holders because they could offset many of the costs, but third parties had to pay the platform holders for both the larger chips, and the standard programming rate. And I'm sure the costs weren't just the raw extra rom cost, but an extra amount on the top.

If Sega had released Sonic 3 in the intended from (i.e. including the Sonic and Knuckles content) it would have cost a ridiculous amount as it would have been a 32mbit cart (afaik only Super SFII is larger on MD, most games were 4-8)

Third party N64 games in the UK were £10 more than the first party games.

I think SF2 on SNES was 20 Mb and 24 Mb on Genesis/MD. I don't think this was that big as many SNES games were bigger than 20 Mbits. Super Metroid was 24 Mb, so was FF6. A few games made it in the 32 Mb territory, and one or two games made it to 48 I think.

But yeah, memory was expensive back then. I still remember when we upgrade my PC's RAM from 4 to 8 MB of RAM. That addition 4 MB was a LOT of money for my parents to spend on something like this. This was like 1993 or 1994 I think. I was the only kid I knew of at my school that had 8 MB of RAM... Back then it did an HUGE different on performance.

I think SF2 on SNES was 20 Mb and 24 Mb on Genesis/MD. I don't think this was that big as many SNES games were bigger than 20 Mbits. Super Metroid was 24 Mb, so was FF6. A few games made it in the 32 Mb territory, and one or two games made it to 48 I think.

But yeah, memory was expensive back then. I still remember when we upgrade my PC's RAM from 4 to 8 MB of RAM. That addition 4 MB was a LOT of money for my parents to spend on something like this. This was like 1993 or 1994 I think. I was the only kid I knew of at my school that had 8 MB of RAM... Back then it did an HUGE different on performance.

The official UK Nintendo magazine advert says SM is 24mb, but 32mb is certainly reported online. RPG's generally have larger carts anyway, and their prices in japan at least always reflected that (SFC rpg's game could easily cost the same as a premium priced japanese computer format game on 9 disks). Although you are also getting more game for that price

Australians are already paying $69 usd for current gen new releases

Digital is the same price. They charge these prices because they can, that's pretty much it.

But isnt that offset by the sheer amount of people that game now a days? I dont find the development costs argument to be feasible, these companies make billions every financial quarter sometimes with just a couple of releases. Games are expensive as shit to make, I know that much, but the budget doesnt approach the billion range. Plus with sales on platforms like PC/current gen consoles they have a long term income to look forward to.

$70(with tax in most places around my area it'd be around $77) is ridiculous, plain and simple. That's alot to ask for out of a group of people who are mostly middle class, $77 is like 2 or 3 weeks of groceries for myself. I think the more likely reason is the fact that 2K is scummy, I don't play the NBA games but I know its full of advertisements, micro transactions, DLC. Seems to me like they're just trying to be ambitious with making even more money, I hope it backfires.

Yes, you're right. As publicly-traded companies, most publishers release the evidence to support this. Look at the shareholder meetings, the annual reports. None of what you're saying is conjecture - it's fact.

But isnt that offset by the sheer amount of people that game now a days? I dont find the development costs argument to be feasible, these companies make billions every financial quarter sometimes with just a couple of releases. Games are expensive as shit to make, I know that much, but the budget doesnt approach the billion range. Plus with sales on platforms like PC/current gen consoles they have a long term income to look forward to.

$70(with tax in most places around my area it'd be around $77) is ridiculous, plain and simple. That's alot to ask for out of a group of people who are mostly middle class, $77 is like 2 or 3 weeks of groceries for myself. I think the more likely reason is the fact that 2K is scummy, I don't play the NBA games but I know its full of advertisements, micro transactions, DLC. Seems to me like they're just trying to be ambitious with making even more money, I hope it backfires.

Oh yes, I didn’t think of that, gaming being more widespread today. And also, console cartridges would cost far more to produce than disks and tapes, which is why they were so much more expensive back in the day.

I hereby retract any rationale given for the wallet-gouging antics of scumsucking megadeath corporations. So 2K can stuff their nonsense where the sun don’t shine. Hell, I’m not even going to add NBA 2K20 to my account even though it’s free this month as part of my PlayStation Plus subscription. That’ll show them.