Are video games too expensive these days?

[Deluziion90]

All hobbies cost money it's just where you want to put your money

My student years I would easily waste 40€ on a evening

As of today I just like to relax and game. Pay for one game 50-60€ and I have fun for days and something even weeks(looking at you Witcher 3)

 

Lately pricing for DLC and all the extra bullshit is kinda going crazy though. For example Shadow of War has so many different options and even microtransactions :/

 

[Sundr0wn_]

I almost never buy games at release or full price. Mostly digital and on sale, rarely physical sales. It's too expensive for me otherwise, especially since i often complete multiple games a month.

But that's cause i make below minimum wage in my country.

 

DLC i never buy at full price!

For example spent 50 bucks in total for Star Wars Battlefront and the season pass (which is still more than i usualy pay for a single game).

Edited October 31, 2017 by thekiffer21

[SnowxSakura]

4 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

In Canada yes, but that's because our dollar is worthless. If our dollar weren't, then $60USD is fine for me. That's reasonable. But $80CAD is just a nightmare.

And I hate the price creep on digital games. Gone are the days of $10 games with $15 being premium. Even $15 games and $20 premium is flying out the window. $20 standard soon yay. Really sucks when the games are like 3 hours long or less. :/ Even if it's good, that's not a great value proposition for me. [going with USD prices for ease... and nostalgia for when CAD was on par and prices were the same... *sigh*]

lol, I guessed the year right before actually checking [at least for Genesis image]. Go me.

$69.99 [Hang Time is what I used] is $110 today according to this site. Crazy.

The Canadian ads were even worse for the snes and genesis, I don't even want to imagine what that's like with inflation

[sh4d0wzcs]

Us Aussies get ripped off. Sometimes the stores have physical copies for $69, most of the time its in excess of $80 as for digital on the ps store? Try $99 base game and most deluxe go for $130-160. 

 

I just tend to buy then the Aussie psn store has deals on (not the deal of the week, they're not really even a deal)

[slaaack1]

Just dont buy games on release (or at least not many games, I guess if one is really hyped for a game one can buy it on releaseday).
Ive seen so many games lately which are on sale after a month... Plus, many games are buggy when they are released so you "safe some nerves" AND money if you dont buy games when they are released. 

 

Games are affordable when they are 1-2 months old.

I know its hard for these guys who want to achieve the plat asap but if you dont want to you should handle buying games that way imho.

[eigen-space]

When my parents were buying the games, I don't think anything was ever purchased for more than $10. We'd go to pawn shops or second-hand stores for games. The exception might have been if it was a special game for a birthday or Christmas. Same thing for when I first started earning a paycheck-- nothing was ever purchased new.

 

That being said, I don't think that games are too expensive for the amount of time I spend with them. I get at least 40 hours out of most of my games, and the majority of them get at least 100 hours of play. Spending $40-60 for a game (now that I have the expendable income) is definitely not a lot for something that I get that much time out of. Even for some games that did not give me that much play, I was glad to have purchased them because they were good games. Perhaps if the game quality was terrible or didn't provide a lot of entertainment, I'd be upset, but most games are very good even if you do need a patch or two to fix some bugs.

And speaking of bugs.... @slaaack1.... your signature makes me so mad lol.

[AtroxBR]

Considering here in Brazil the minimum wage is R$ 937,00 and most of the AAA games these days cost R$ 250,00, i would say yes. ?

[theSpirae]

Depends. Sure, console games 30 years ago were expensive, but PC games weren't doing that bad. Now you have these crazy deluxe editions, season passes, etc., you end up paying $100+ for a game. But that's an exception. Now games go on sale so fast, and especially on PC, you have Humble Bundles and other similar options to get awesome games for a few bucks.

I don't preorder anymore (damn you Mass Effect 3) and I rarely pay full price for games. My backlog is so huge I don't mind waiting to get new Wolfenstein for -50%/70% pretty soon.

[German_Atheist]

I very rarely buy games at launch these days. One of the main reasons are the absurd prices. Yesterday I visited my local game store. The new Assassin's Creed, as all new games,  cost 64,99 € (75,65 $ / 57,15 £). This is five bucks higher than usual. Sure, you can always find cheaper offers online, but I try to support my local dealers whenever possible (bought Skyrim Legendary Edition on PS3 for 14,99 €). However, I sure don't have to mention Sony's ridiculous digital prices. GTA V is still at 69,99 € - I paid 34,99 € for a sealed copy on eBay. On the other hand, online deals can be very attractive. A few years ago I got Ni No Kuni for just 4,99 € on PS Store. You'll be hard pressed to get the game physically for that price. But yeah, I feel that games are much more expensive than, like, 20 years ago. Inflation and DLCs are the main reasons. Your best bet is to wait for a GotY edition whenever possible.

[Charizarzar]

Not too expensive because given the time spent developing, staff wages etc I think the price is justifiable. But I can't afford to buy that many games on launch even if I want to. The only games I buy on launch are the GTA. Elder Scrolls, Fallout and Battlefront series. And I think another GTA is long on the horizon.  

[JOJOVchronicles]

the answer is no.

 

 20 years ago ps1 game cost $50/game. if u count inflation, u should paid 50% more in with present money.

 

ie: for a $59.99 game, u should pay $89.99 now if still compare the game pricing in 1997.

[starcrunch061]

15 hours ago, JOJOVchronicles said:

the answer is no.

 

 20 years ago ps1 game cost $50/game. if u count inflation, u should paid 50% more in with present money.

 

ie: for a $59.99 game, u should pay $89.99 now if still compare the game pricing in 1997.

 

Technological improvements should lower both capital costs and worker hours. Using inflation like this is nonsensical. 

 

However, I do agree that games are not too expensive. In fact, I think they are quite economical as a hobby. Even for a 10 hour game (which isn't exactly a marathon), that's $6 an hour, which is hardly high cost. Obviously, some games have filler that shouldn't be counted in this way, but for the most part, I think games offer around 15-20 good hours of gameplay, and that's positively a steal at $60. 

 

On 5/27/2017 at 9:42 PM, rdhight said:

 

Yes. I look at a digital game and think, "If I'm giving up my ability to loan or sell this, I should get something in return. This game should be cheaper digitally than on disc."

 

The industry looks at that digital game and says, "Hey look, no disc! No disc switching! Isn't it great? Your game will be ready to go at all times! That's worth a few extra bucks, right?"

 

Maybe someday an all-digital future will come and bring us all massive price cuts, but the current line of thinking has to change first. A lot.

 

You know, back when companies were trying to sell digital delivery of media (including games), they too talked up the great price cuts we would see. But unfortunately, the gamer community is a relatively weak consumer group who tends to take what they're given, so that idea died on the vine (incidentally, with music, where the sum of the parts on an album hardly add to the whole, digital delivery has provided discounts, since singles are so easily distributed for so low a price).

 

I remember when games stopped putting in manuals and the like, claiming something other than the simple fact that it would cut their costs. Gamers then started attacking their own who wanted to see these manuals. It's just the way of it.

Edited November 3, 2017 by starcrunch061

[Lawless_Llama]

Honestly, I'm fine handing out the money for the games if I am going to get my money's worth, which is why I always do research before purchasing a new game because I don't want to start a game and then leave it after playing it for about an hour. I'd rather purchase games I know I will play through at least. 

 

Course investing in PS Plus has also given me some rather great titles, even if some months offer up stuff I wouldn't normally consider purchasing ever. Just increases my repertoire of titles I have played!

[QuentinCle95]

It takes a lot of money and labour to make video games. Companies want (and sometimes deserve) profit. Consumers are willing to pay 60$, companies are willing to sell for 60$. Everyone wins. That said, it's strange to me that every new game considered AAA has the same price point. The Order 1886 ( a less than 10 hour experience with not much to offer) and Persona 5 ( a 100 hour plus experience with loads of fun & intrigue to offer) were sold at the same price at launch and that's kind of baffling to me. Games should be priced individually. That said, that would kind of require some objective scale of length and quality of a game before it even comes into the market, which is just not realistic. 

I'm perfectly willing to pay 60$ for games I'm excited for , sometimes even when they're not very long. And if I'm not willing to pay that price for a game, I don't, others don't and the company suffers, so technically I never pay too much for a game. 

There's something to be said about the new market for 20-40 dollar "AA" games like Hellblade, though. If these games can give experiences that are proportionally "good" or "long", then they too could have a valuable place in the market, and if they continue to be better than some full-priced games, who knows, maybe the competition will drive AAA developers to either step up their game or lower their own prices. 

[Swotam]

I personally don't think the current $60 USD price (which is different elsewhere, for example in Canada it's $80) is unreasonable, especially when you consider that the price of games hasn't gone up for ages. Yes, there's arguments about technological advancements making the cost of production cheaper, but at the same time the expectations of what a developer is expected to deliver these days has changed quite a bit as well. Creating games costs a lot of money, creating high quality AAA games with mocap cutscenes and quality story/dialogue costs a lot more, so the fact that we can still get a game for $60 in 2017 when we were paying $60 for a game in 2006 (or $80) seems fair to me.

 

That said, I think we're going to see more content chopped up into DLC or microtransactions in order to subsidize the current price point. If games stay at $60 and some people complain about the fact that buying "everything" costs them $100, it's probably better than raising the price of a new game to $100 and having everyone complain?

 

Dunno, either way the current price seems reasonable to me in contrast to what you get (most of the time), and the fact that it hasn't changed for years is sort of impressive, especially when the cost of almost everything else seems to be going through the roof.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Swotam
more words

[Extratenzy]

yeah i can agree... My name is mayo is for $1.49!! that's sooo fucking expensive! i'd rather give all this money to charity or something!

Edited November 3, 2017 by SniperEliteDido

[starcrunch061]

57 minutes ago, QuentinCle95 said:

It takes a lot of money and labour to make video games. Companies want (and sometimes deserve) profit. Consumers are willing to pay 60$, companies are willing to sell for 60$. Everyone wins. That said, it's strange to me that every new game considered AAA has the same price point. The Order 1886 ( a less than 10 hour experience with not much to offer) and Persona 5 ( a 100 hour plus experience with loads of fun & intrigue to offer) were sold at the same price at launch and that's kind of baffling to me. Games should be priced individually. That said, that would kind of require some objective scale of length and quality of a game before it even comes into the market, which is just not realistic. 

I'm perfectly willing to pay 60$ for games I'm excited for , sometimes even when they're not very long. And if I'm not willing to pay that price for a game, I don't, others don't and the company suffers, so technically I never pay too much for a game. 

There's something to be said about the new market for 20-40 dollar "AA" games like Hellblade, though. If these games can give experiences that are proportionally "good" or "long", then they too could have a valuable place in the market, and if they continue to be better than some full-priced games, who knows, maybe the competition will drive AAA developers to either step up their game or lower their own prices. 

 

I feel like there is a very exploitable market here for bigger publishers. I've raged for years now that Square (and other Japanese companies that make RPGs) haven't thrown their hat into RPGs with lower-budget graphics. RPGs can get away with this without much harm due to their nature, but it's been companies like NIS that have really exploited it, and not larger ones. I mean, I'm pretty sure that there are now 1.1 million iterations of the Atelier series, and Neptunia can't be far behind.

[Jamescush147]

I spent 70 dollars for Final Fantasy 3 back in the day.

 

So nope.

[Tesla_Rules]

I don't believe so.  Everything has gone up in price, so I think the game prices are fair.  Besides, they are far superior to some of the games from years past - better gameplay, graphics, storyline.  Unless there is a fantastic preorder bonus and I just have to have that game, I normally buy them a few months after they are released, and the prices sometimes drop a bit.

[FreddySM14]

I think $50- 60 for physical copy of games still reasonable ?

Dlc and microtransaction are silly no doubt.?

Also how come digital game have the same price with physical copy is beyond me. ?

And the price only drop when it on sale.. smh. 

[Maxie_M0us3]

Everything is definitely too expensive, judging how Canadians pay their games $10-20 more than Americans, even more for consoles! The same equivalent in Sweden too.

 

It always outrage me how our $60 AAA games are simply a “shell” of a game, all the rest is via season passes or microtransactions. For what in the end? Getting a complete game (GOTY, Complete editions) a year later and cheaper game (most of the time) while everyone could wait later.

[AJ_Radio]

50 minutes ago, Maxie Mouse said:

Everything is definitely too expensive, judging how Canadians pay their games $10-20 more than Americans, even more for consoles! The same equivalent in Sweden too.

 

It always outrage me how our $60 AAA games are simply a “shell” of a game, all the rest is via season passes or microtransactions. For what in the end? Getting a complete game (GOTY, Complete editions) a year later and cheaper game (most of the time) while everyone could wait later.

 

Anybody who grew up in the NES/SNES era may recall that once you bought a broken game, you were pretty much stuck with it.

 

Since there was little in quality control a lot of shit got passed through and there were more than plenty of fundamentally broken games. It's basically the same as Steam, tons of shovelware somehow gets greenlighted and put on that store so the quality is all over the place.

 

You're going to have to accept that $60 AAA games aren't the entire package anymore. As long as people continue to buy DLC and microtransactions then these companies will continue to develop them. I can understand being against microtransactions, I just don't understand people hating DLC. If money is an issue I completely see where you're coming from. Doesn't mean the DLC is bad, I've played plenty of DLC in various games that turned out quite good.

 

Then of course there's indie games, most of which are cheaper and you get the entire game as one with maybe a couple patches. That's perfectly alright.

[Maxie_M0us3]

@Spaz This is why I praise indie developers over AAA.

[AJ_Radio]

That's fine and all, but I wouldn't advise skipping out on a couple AAA games you might want to give a try. Unless they're simply not your thing.

[FawltyPowers]

Console games to me have always been too expensive.

 

After having the Commodore 64 and Amiga it was a huge wake up call when I got a SNES and cartridges went for around £50. Back then I only really had Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat so it wasn't too bad.

 

The time I really noticed just how expensive things got was when I moved onto a PS1, the cheapest I got a game for was £20 and the most expensive £50. I had around 50 games and if I average that by £35 a game that's £1750, add in the two light guns and mouse I brought I'm confident I spent over £2000 on gaming. Holy crap! I still shake my head, what a waste.

 

I cannot justify £50 for a game, I just can't anymore. £50 is a lot of money and lets face it, if you want to experience everything a game has to offer, more often than not now it's going to cost you a lot more than the initial cost through DLC and season passes and going forward in the short term Microtransactions (there will be a revolt against the industry for this transgression at some point as it progressively gets worse and I cannot wait for this day).

 

So I wait for the sales, GOTY editions and so forth and it's when it comes to these sales I would have to say that console gaming has never been cheaper. Most games I've purchased have been less than £10, in addition PS Plus has given me Until Dawn and Infamous Second Son for free.

 

All in all if you're prepared to wait then it's a great time to be a gamer, you just have to shop savvy.