Lets talk about that price increase

[Kelvin]

A few days ago, Jim Sterling did a Jimquisition on the $10 price increase for games moving forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7kaK2-725w

He makes a number of extremely good points, some less obvious than others; games have already increased in price through microtransactions, special editions and double dipping Game of The Year Editions. Wages haven't increased in line with inflation. We're entering another recession. Developer wages haven't increased in line with inflation, executives are grotesquely overpaid. Many of the companies charging the most through microtransactions don't even pay taxes.

Looking online, it seems that in the UK, games will be increasing by £10, too, regardless of the exchange rate. Beyond the obvious - games companies are run by greedy cunts - what impact do you think this will actually have on the industry? Will buyers just suck it up, moving forward? Or will there be a pretty significant drop off in day one purchases and pre-orders? £10 seems like a big increase, psychologically, I think.

[bgmnts]

Buyers will definitely suck it up.

[Zetetic]

Hope "the industry" keeps putting it up, month on month.

[Kelvin]

Buyers will definitely suck it up.

Obviously they will for some games, the big AAA games that they love. But I do wonder if some series, seen as less essential, might take a hit. I'm not suggesting people will actually protest the entire idea of $70 games, to be clear, more that it might have an impact on how some people buy games.

[Bazooka]

*CEX enters the thread,leaves B.O trail and exits.*

[Chedney Honks]

I got Demon's Souls for £70. Well worth it. Feels like better quality than getting something for free on Game Pass, you know.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Paying full price is for chumps.

[Chedney Honks]

I actually paid £60 in ShopTo credit.

®️®️®️

[Famous Mortimer]

games have already increased in price through microtransactions, special editions and double dipping Game of The Year Editions. Wages haven't increased in line with inflation. We're entering another recession. Developer wages haven't increased in line with inflation, executives are grotesquely overpaid. Many of the companies charging the most through microtransactions don't even pay taxes.

Looking online, it seems that in the UK, games will be increasing by £10, too, regardless of the exchange rate. Beyond the obvious - games companies are run by greedy cunts - what impact do you think this will actually have on the industry? Will buyers just suck it up, moving forward? Or will there be a pretty significant drop off in day one purchases and pre-orders? £10 seems like a big increase, psychologically, I think.

For every correct thing in your first paragraph, increasing the price of games will do nothing for any of them. It won't stop microtransactions or pay developers more, it will just mean a better bottom line for the people who own the games companies.

[Bazooka]

It all makes sense though, next generation will cost more to develop for, and it only takes a few months or less for AAA games to drop a tenner during a sale.

[Phil_A]

It all makes sense though, next generation will cost more to develop for, and it only takes a few months or less for AAA games to drop a tenner during a sale.

I am 99.9 percent certain the price hike has fuck-all to do with development costs, as the big publishers like Activision already make more money than God whilst being seemingly unwilling to invest any of that vast income into the wellbeing of their employees.

It's all to do with the illusion of prestige, they're betting that people will fork out even more for AAA titles just for the privilege of owning next gen, and because the perception is something costing that much must be top drawer quality. And a lot of people probably will buy into it like they always do.

[Bazooka]

Yes undoubtedly that is all true, but you also can't produce a more expensive product in any industry ever without increasing the base product .price

[Marner and Me]

Someone I know spent £55 on a fucking CoD game the other day, that's unreal, for the rate they're churned out at, £25 tops is what you're looking at. That extra tenner won't go anywhere near the grunts who make the games, you know, it, I know it. When it comes to the PS5 I will be getting the disc version so the online store doesn't have me by the bollocks

[Zetetic]

No game should cost both more than £7 and less than £500,000.

[Kelvin]

Yes undoubtedly that is all true, but you also can't produce a more expensive product in any industry ever without increasing the base product .price

Watch that Jim Sterling video or read my bullet points. The product price has increased, just via additional charges.

[bgmnts]

Yeah, basically nowadays you create a game, chop out large chunks of it and sell it off as extra content or whatever. That way you can charge up to 100 quid for essentially the full game as made. Madness really.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Is that how it usually works? All the DLC I've ever purchased has been of the old fashioned expansion pack sort.

[Rev+]

It's how it works now.  A famous example is the main guy behind Mafia 2 completely leaving the games industry because the publisher chopped the bugger up into slices that could be sold separately.  The stuff that was supposed to be there stripped out and sold as DLC.  He rightly recognised this as bullshit and fucked off into the sunset.

[Mister Six]

Not universally, or if it is they do a good job of reworking the packs into seemingly independent chunks. The story in the Horizon: Zero Dawn DLC doesn't intersect with that of the game proper so you don't miss anything by not playing it. The DLC for The Evil Within is a couple of separate stories (one of which shows another angle on the main story, but isnt absolutely essential), same with Batman: Arkham City. Prey's DLC is basically a new game built on the engine and assets of the original. The Spider-Man DLC is a new story set after the game is done.

I can imagine DLC being planned and developed in tandem with the main game for continuity and connectivity, and also to allow for the dev teams to segue into it once they're done with the game proper, but I'm not sure if creating a game then hacking bits off it to make separate DLC is still a thing.

Mafia 2 is 10 years old now. The last game I played that gave the impression of having stuff sheared off for DLC was Dragon Age: Origins (with the Shale character and Return to Wherever It Was, I Can't Remember mission pack) and that came out the year before. Perhaps that particular trend has died out? Or maybe I've just not played any games with that particular form of egregious gouging of late.[nb]OTOH, Injustice 2 expects you to use microtransactions in a full-price game... now that is taking the piss.[/nb]

[BeardFaceMan]

Didn't one of the Gears Of War games on the Xbox come with future DLC already on the disc?

[Jerzy Bondov]

I feel like if we can't have AAA games without working people into comas and paying £70 - SEVENTY POUNDS - for them, we just shouldn't have AAA games.

[MojoJojo]

Didn't one of the Gears Of War games on the Xbox come with future DLC already on the disc?

I'm not really sure that's of any real relevance. The extra content cost extra money to make and they charge extra money for it. When it was made, and how it's distributed aren't really interesting.

I can't really get excited about this. There's always a price hike with each generation as the industry looks to exploit early adopters with deep pockets. Companies will charge what they think will maximise their profits. Customers will pay up to what they think a game is worth. It's the same as most other products.

Crucially, there are other options, like waiting a few months. Maybe it's just me, but it's not hard to find AAA games from the last two years that I haven't played and would enjoy that don't cost £70. The £70 price is only for those who get on board the hype train.

What has changed is the decline in the second hand market, and that had weird distorting effects.

[The Culture Bunker]

Crucially, there are other options, like waiting a few months. Maybe it's just me, but it's not hard to find AAA games from the last two years that I haven't played and would enjoy that don't cost £70. The £70 price is only for those who get on board the hype train.

That's certainly been my approach in recent times - the big-name games I've played this year (Hitman 2, Pro Evo 2020, Just Cause 4), I bought when they were going for less than £15 in a sale, with DLC content thrown in too. Just Cause 4 was sadly a bit wank, but good value for the other two.

The idea of paying whatever price this Cyberpunk 2077 will be on release date seems crazy to me, but then so did buying a PS5 on first day and I knew plenty of apparently sensible people frantically asking where they could get one.

[BeardFaceMan]

I'm not really sure that's of any real relevance. The extra content cost extra money to make and they charge extra money for it. When it was made, and how it's distributed aren't really interesting.

You don't think paid DLC being included on the game disc on release day but is locked until you pay more for it is a bit rum?

[The Culture Bunker]

You don't think paid DLC being included on the game disc on release day but is locked until you pay more for it is a bit rum?

Was that the case with Mass Effect 3, which had a whole character locked away unless you stumped up extra?

[Timothy]

That's certainly been my approach in recent times - the big-name games I've played this year (Hitman 2, Pro Evo 2020, Just Cause 4), I bought when they were going for less than £15 in a sale, with DLC content thrown in too. Just Cause 4 was sadly a bit wank, but good value for the other two.

The idea of paying whatever price this Cyberpunk 2077 will be on release date seems crazy to me, but then so did buying a PS5 on first day and I knew plenty of apparently sensible people frantically asking where they could get one.

Cyberpunk is 45 pounds on BASE. Most of the new games are between 45 - 50 pounds on BASE. That's quite a good price for a new release imo. The most expensive new games are Demon Souls and Miles Morales Ultimate but since you get a complete remake with all DLC of Spider-Man with that game the latter isn't that expensive either.

[Zetetic]

I feel like if we can't have AAA games without working people into comas and paying £70 - SEVENTY POUNDS - for them, we just shouldn't have AAA games.

Correct.

[Chedney Honks]

They're usually the best games, though, so most people don't mind about the cost or the toll on other people's physical, emotional and mental wellbeing.

I offset the guilt by not using any products or clothes made in China, Vietnam or Cambodia.

[The Culture Bunker]

Cyberpunk is 45 pounds on BASE. Most of the new games are between 45 - 50 pounds on BASE. That's quite a good price for a new release imo. The most expensive new games are Demon Souls and Miles Morales Ultimate but since you get a complete remake with all DLC of Spider-Man with that game the latter isn't that expensive either.

I think anything North of £30 feels like a lot to me these days - I was daft enough to fall for the hype (a lot of which self-generated based on previous entries in the franchises) with Mass Effect: Andromeda and Fallout 4 to become very reluctant to spend that kind of cash again.

[Cuellar]

Name a AAA game that ISN'T boring as fuck