Publishers Consider Price Increase for Next-Gen Games General Gaming

[Steve]

Following the news that NBA 2K21 will be priced at $69.99 on the next consoles, $10 more expensive than it is on the current devices.

Other game publishers are considering raising the price of games for PS5 and Xbox Series X, says games research firm IDG Consulting.

The cost of development has increased between 200% and 300% while game prices have remained the same.

Speaking with GamesIndustry.biz, IDG President and CEO Yoshio Osaki says that game pricing has remained flat since 2005, whereas TV and movie pricing has increased significantly.

"The last time that next-gen launch software pricing went up was in 2005 and 2006, when it went from $49.99 to $59.99 at the start of the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation," he says.

"During that time, the costs and prices in other affiliated verticals have gone up."

Osaki says that next-gen console game production costs have increased by 200% to 300%, depending on the IP, studio and genre, but the prices have remained at $59.99. Meanwhile, cinema ticket prices have risen 39%, Netflix subscription costs have gone up 100%, and Cable TV packages have risen by 105%.

"Even with the increase to $69.99 for next-gen, that price increase from 2005 to 2020 next-gen is only up 17%, far lower than the other comparisons. While the cost of development and publishing have gone up, and pricing in other entertainment verticals has also gone up substantially, next-gen software pricing has not reflected these increases. $59.99 to $69.99 does not even cover these other cost increases completely, but does move it more in the proper direction."

He continues: "IDG works with all major game publishers, and our channel checks indicate that other publishers are also exploring moving their next-gen pricing up on certain franchises, for the same reasons outlined above.

"Not every game should garner the $69.99 price point on next-gen, but flagship AAAs such as NBA 2K merit this pricing more than others."

 

[David76]

I know games are expensive, but it is getting to the point where something has to give in terms of pricing. If an extra ten quid is what is needed to ensure developers have that extra bit of extra time and money to develop games without crunch, that might have to happen? AAA games are just growing more and more complex and time-consuming to make. Obviously digital and physical games should be priced appropriately, though - getting to that point slowly but surely. If it's just publishers being greedy and adding an extra tenner that's completely different, but mental in some ways that game prices haven't really budged in decades while budgets have skyrocketed.

BUT I also think we need to get to a point in that same space where not everything has to be a big £60-70 thing either. After FF7 Remake and TLOU2, I'm firmly on the camp of thinking big-name developers need to step back from the big, sprawling, expansive AAA releases sometimes and focus on smaller, more focused projects that don't require such huge amounts of time. Things like Lost Legacy or Miles Morales are a good start IMO, and would be keen to see more developers try smaller projects than spend years and years on massive 30-40 hour games. Would be refreshing to see more £40 games with a focus on quality over quantity.

 

[Son Of Jack]

It always goes back to Street Fighter 2 Turbo on the SNES for me. I paid £79.99 which is well over £120 in today's money and didn't feel ripped off. The price of games hasn't kept pace with the price of inflation and all the whole development costs have been growing and growing.

 

[Steve]

It always goes back to Street Fighter 2 Turbo on the SNES for me. I paid £79.99 which is well over £120 in today's money and didn't feel ripped off. The price of games hasn't kept pace with the price of inflation and all the whole development costs have been growing and growing.

Jesus, yeah. I paid £70 for the original Street Fighter 2 on SNES in Virgin Megastore. It came in a tin box for some reason. Must have been a special edition. That's probably how I justified it.

 

[Franco Pinion]

Game prices were wild back in the day. I know some development costs are pulled back these days by economies of scale since gaming is obliviously more popular than ever, but really every time I hear a crunch horror story I just don't feel the current model is sustainable into the future. And the thing is, sales are so prevalent these days anyone can always hold back for a few weeks and pick up the game at a healthy discount anyway (or a massive discount if they wait a few extra months).

So yeah, in short: no to corporate greed, but yes to a pricing model that allows big games to be made sustainably. Bring back different price tiers too - having smaller games would also mean better games IMO

 

[Tom]

At the end of the day when you consider games that lasted a couple of hours cost £60 punt in the early 90s, prices are generally amazingly low now. That said, sports games and the like that also fleece the players on a yearly basis are a joke.

 

[Bandit]

I've two games in my cupboard with their price tag still on £49.99 for Sensible Soccer on SNES in 1992. £49.99 for Zelda on N64 in 1998.

That's £100 in today's money.

I was reading an interview with the guy who made Sensible Soccer he said they got a £90k advance from the publisher and they sold about 2 million copies (if you include the follow-up World of Sensible Soccer between 1992 and 1998). They had a 50/50 split in profits too.

At that time piracy was about 10-1. So they reckon about 20 million people played it.

It's crazy to think about how bad piracy was and how good for the industry DRM has been. The anti DRM crowd forget this.

 

[Geezer]

I don't mind paying more for a game, a price review is long overdue but they can't be charging more but still selling the game with minimal content on release then releasing DLC left, right and centre which should have been included in the base game int he first place.