NextGen Games new $70 price point and paid upgrades? [2020-07]

[Malo]

every generation we have much more capable hardware so less work for optimisation and cheaper production ? nope, every generation games are more and more expensivie

IO performance issues has never been basically eradicated though, like we have with the new consoles.

With big publishers making far more profit than they ever have before, the new norm for them is if the next iteration of Game X in their series doesn't make double the profits of the prior version then it's a failure and they complain games are expensive to make.

 

[iroboto]

I'm fairly positive that pricing is generally not about how much it costs to make, sometimes it is, but I think most times it is not. There are a handful of price brackets that most games will fall under for launch, from Indie, AA to AAA. I really think it just comes down to what the market is perceived to be able to afford and the pricing is situated around that. Anything that costs more can technically cost less (by removing it) if resources are unavailable. Features and other things can be removed which happens often; this content is usually re-inserted at a later date and charged again as some form of DLC or season pass.

 

[snc]

IO performance issues has never been basically eradicated though, like we have with the new consoles.

With big publishers making far more profit than they ever have before, the new norm for them is if the next iteration of Game X in their series doesn't make double the profits of the prior version then it's a failure and they complain games are expensive to make.

that just only one thing from many, we have now more capable gpus so more thing can be done in the same frame that have to be implemented and tested, we have far more capable cpu so again we can push physic etc. I can agree that some crossgen games can be easier to do on new platforms but generaly cost will increase not decrease as always

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm fairly positive that pricing is generally not about how much it costs to make, sometimes it is, but I think most times it is not.

Seriously? Of course it's not, video games are a business and the goal is to make a profit. And the profit has to be worth the hassle of managing anywhere between 1 and 2,000 people, depending on the project. And not all games will make a profit so overall you profits need to cover when you barely break even or another project or when you make losses. Really, you want as much money as possible because money is good for buying things and keeping your company running when things aren't going as well. Companies need reserves for sustainability.

There are a handful of price brackets that most games will fall under for launch, from Indie, AA to AAA. I really think it just comes down to what the market is perceived to be able to afford and the pricing is situated around that. Anything that costs more can technically cost less (by removing it) if resources are unavailable. Features and other things can be removed which happens often; this content is usually re-inserted at a later date and charged again as some form of DLC or season pass.

I'm not seeing any real price brackets on Steam or console stores. You can find games at all prices, even really weird ones like $7.39. No Man's Sky is made by a small team but launched at £40 at launch on PC and PS4. CDPR can charge less because their costs a tiny fraction of somebody like Rockstar because the cost of living in Poland is lower (relatively) to other parts of Europe and North America. It's not a coincidence that lots of big publishers have lots of teams in parts of Asia. When you're really big you can leverage things like this in a way small companies cannot.

 

[JPT]

IO performance issues has never been basically eradicated though, like we have with the new consoles.

But you still have to do some/alot of work to use those new features, work = times = money

With big publishers making far more profit than they ever have before, the new norm for them is if the next iteration of Game X in their series doesn't make double the profits of the prior version then it's a failure and they complain games are expensive to make.

The only reason anybody makes a game today, is to earn money, profit is just that you where able to earn more. Why should anybody give away money? If you win the lottery, would you refuse to accept a bunch because you do not need it.

I'm fairly positive that pricing is generally not about how much it costs to make, sometimes it is, but I think most times it is not. There are a handful of price brackets that most games will fall under for launch, from Indie, AA to AAA. I really think it just comes down to what the market is perceived to be able to afford and the pricing is situated around that. Anything that costs more can technically cost less (by removing it) if resources are unavailable. Features and other things can be removed which happens often; this content is usually re-inserted at a later date and charged again as some form of DLC or season pass.

Development costs is one thing, but what do you group under development costs? Just salaries? How about overhead for building rental, computers etc? Marketing for the AAA could be even more money than the development of the game. The fee to the HW platform is what, 30 ish percent?
Of course it's about what the market will absorb, this is the world we live in today. If not your shareholders will sue you for negligence or what not.
Content being removed because of time strains or not fun, sure it happens. But I doubt they can release it as DLC without any extra work.
Then again you do not have to buy the popcorn when you go to the movies.

 

[iroboto]

Development costs is one thing, but what do you group under development costs? Just salaries? How about overhead for building rental, computers etc? Marketing for the AAA could be even more money than the development of the game. The fee to the HW platform is what, 30 ish percent?
Of course it's about what the market will absorb, this is the world we live in today. If not your shareholders will sue you for negligence or what not.
Content being removed because of time strains or not fun, sure it happens. But I doubt they can release it as DLC without any extra work.
Then again you do not have to buy the popcorn when you go to the movies.

Once again, my debate isn't that price should not increase with respect to costs. I'm talking about the trend that some publishers want to move forward increasing price and some publishers do not.
Ultimately every publisher is going to look at sales projections and multiply out their price to get their approximate revenue stream and the eventual revenue stream reduced pricing etc.

What I'm saying is that, some publishers can spend 5-8 years making a game, and the cost of development is massive, but still the price point is going to be locked in at that 59.99 - 69.99. They will justify that cost increase based on sales projections. But the price does not necessarily follow the cost of development for a particular title, as other titles could be completed in 2 years time and still charge the same price. Because that's ultimately what the market can handle.

So right now, this move to 69.99, is really just about taking a stand here that sales projections aren't going up, so they have no choice but to increase price. If that makes sense. I think if sales projections were increasing significantly, then price points may have stayed the same.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Once again, my debate isn't that price should not increase with respect to costs. I'm talking about the trend that some publishers want to move forward increasing price and some publishers do not.

For some publishers I imagine it's necessity, perhaps made more urgent by the pandemic. For others it will just be an opportunity to make more money. As has been posted, most of us do live in countries which embraces capitalism and most people with something to sell will try to sell that product or service at a price that the market will pay.

What I'm saying is that, some publishers can spend 5-8 years making a game, and the cost of development is massive, but still the price point is going to be locked in at that 59.99 - 69.99. They will justify that cost increase based on sales projections. But the price does not necessarily follow the cost of development for a particular title, as other titles could be completed in 2 years time and still charge the same price. Because that's ultimately what the market can handle.

The cost of development will vary wildly depending on where you are. A 100 person development team in London or Oxford (UK) will undoubtably cost more than a similar size team in Cardiff (UK) and that more then a similar size team in Warsaw (Poland) because of the differing relative costs of living and expected wages in the region. As will any tax breaks provided locally, and when they are available. The tools, the cost of asset production/licensing, the complexity of the project, the time will all add further variability to the base costs. Costs are wildly, wildly variable and they are really aren't comparable excuse there will be more differences than similarities between two development projects. Maybe you have, but I have not seen any game's being priced until much nearer their launch. E.g. Halo Infinite's RRP was only announced last week.

But there are limits to what people will pay so sometimes you may be faced with selling at a certain pricepoint to recoup losses because pricing higher will result in lower sales and lower overall revenue.

It's most definitely easier for larger publishers to spread the risk and costs across multiple projects than smaller publishers.

 

[iroboto]

As has been posted, most of us do live in countries which embraces capitalism and most people with something to sell will try to sell that product or service at a price that the market will pay.

But there are limits to what people will pay so sometimes you may be faced with selling at a certain pricepoint to recoup losses because pricing higher will result in lower sales and lower overall revenue.

Right so in continuing this line of thought, I think the change or information around the demographics of purchasers are likely to drive an increase in price more so than just development costs alone.
If the majority of gamers are now 40+, and increasing the price point $10 is unlikely to drop sales by any significant amount, we are more likely to see a publisher increase a price to maximize the revenue for the increased volume at the higher priced tier.

I think costs, as much as I know it is rising, I don't think is necessarily the greatest driver for increasing the price. Doing something like 5 million units at 60 vs 70 is a 50 million dollar revenue surplus, and that's more than likely to cover the cost of supporting PS5 and PS4. So the porting costs alone is unlikely the driver for the price increase.

I think you're seeing a price increase because you're going to have 5 million sales at 60 and you'll still have 5 million sales at 70. So it's just a maximization happening as you stated earlier. We here are the majority, we have money, much more money to spend on this form of entertainment than the other main groups of gamers in generations past.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Why should it? The nextgen consoles have new technologies that require extra effort to exploit. Why should nextgen console owners not have to pay for that, or arguably why should last gen console owners who won't benefit have to subsidise it? Why do I have to pay Microsoft more for my Windows Server licence if I have 512 CPUs compared to if I have 128 CPUs? It's literally the same OS.

Man, and here we have people on this forum and others complaining about how supporting previous gen hardware costs more time and money and that publishers could save money by just making the next gen version the only version.

BTW - I'm with you on this. Supporting previous gen. hardware in most cases involves a negligible cost and is just added almost "free" revenue. As the generation goes on and developers move away from how they've been developing games up until now, that'll potentially change, but currently most titles started development on older hardware so there's little to no cost involved with supporting that hardware.

Many, many games give you tens, even hundreds, of hours of entertainment. I do not consider $70 controversial. Nobody likes paying more money than you have to for anything but gamers ignoring fifteen years of inflation for AAA games is some absurd bullshit.

Nobody has to buy games at all, if $70 is too bitter for some, wait for a sale. Most do because the vast majority of sales for AAA games come way, way after launch when sales have begun to kick-in. Gamers are some of the stupidest, most entitled people I've come across in any of my hobbies.

/rant

Hell, I was paying 80 USD for games back in the early to mid 90's. Ultima VIII was 80 USD at launch. And that's even before you adjust the price for inflation. So, even 70 USD now is way cheaper than what I used to pay for some games ... even before adjustments for inflation.

Hell, I'd be fine if developers went even higher than 70 USD, especially if it's for a game that isn't being supported by DLC and is basically complete.

That said, pricing shouldn't be some blanket pricing. There's room for feature complete 100+ USD games and room for 60 USD games with DLC (which likely ends up costing WAY more than 100 USD with all DLC purchased. ) or even free games with paid DLC or microtransactions.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Hell, I was paying 80 USD for games back in the early to mid 90's. Ultima VIII was 80 USD at launch. And that's even before you adjust the price for inflation. So, even 70 USD now is way cheaper than what I used to pay for some games ... even before adjustments for inflation.

Likewise, I'm old so I remember carts being über expensive for early 4/8-bit consoles, then equalising a bit when cheaper cassette tapes were a viable medium for distributing games and more people had 8-bit computers than consoles, then a slight price increase for floppy disk versions of games and further price increases transitioning into 16-bit and 32-bit computers/consoles because 1-2 man dev teams became the rarity rather than the norm as many games evolved the need for experienced graphics artists, sound engineers and composers as well as programmers.

Generally, the greater hardware scope for complexity, the higher the expectation and the higher the costs, even if some traditionally complex tasks becomes easier due to increases in computational power.

I generally gauge value of games in retrospect, i.e. how much did I pay and how much fun did I get out of the game. As somebody who prefers single player RPG/action/adventures I feel really pleased with games like Halo, Assassin's Creed, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, The Last of Us, Uncharted, Gears, Ghost of Tsushima, Fable, God of War, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, No Man's Sky etc.

But it's easy to not pay launch prices, just for a while for a sale.

 

[zed]

But it's easy to not pay launch prices, just for a while for a sale.

Thats how I see it
I dont play games but watch films, I remember going to video stores (back when this was a thing) I would only rent the 1$ weekly films, and not the $5 films for a single night new releases. I have rented literally 1000s in my life (I remember I asked one store once and they said I had rented more than 1000 according to their records, I would hazard a guess I would of rented close to 5000 films) yet I don't think I ever rented a single $5 film ever. I never saw the logic, these $1 films were the new releases of a year ago, did they suddenly become bad? No they are the exact same film, whats different then? The new releases have the marketing/hype/ads around them currently thus ppl have to have them now. Its hilarious how easily ppl are manipulated

 

[eastmen]

Man, and here we have people on this forum and others complaining about how supporting previous gen hardware costs more time and money and that publishers could save money by just making the next gen version the only version.

BTW - I'm with you on this. Supporting previous gen. hardware in most cases involves a negligible cost and is just added almost "free" revenue. As the generation goes on and developers move away from how they've been developing games up until now, that'll potentially change, but currently most titles started development on older hardware so there's little to no cost involved with supporting that hardware.



Hell, I was paying 80 USD for games back in the early to mid 90's. Ultima VIII was 80 USD at launch. And that's even before you adjust the price for inflation. So, even 70 USD now is way cheaper than what I used to pay for some games ... even before adjustments for inflation.

Hell, I'd be fine if developers went even higher than 70 USD, especially if it's for a game that isn't being supported by DLC and is basically complete.

That said, pricing shouldn't be some blanket pricing. There's room for feature complete 100+ USD games and room for 60 USD games with DLC (which likely ends up costing WAY more than 100 USD with all DLC purchased. ) or even free games with paid DLC or microtransactions.

Regards,
SB

I agree. I also but ultima VIII for that price lol. I also think mario 64 was that price at launch. I don't mind spending more on a game if it gets good reviews and its a game I want. I don't buy a lot of games anyway. My yearly purchases started dropping when I met my wife and once we moved in they fell in even more. Not because she doesn't want me gaming but because we spend more time doing things together and seeing friends and family in which those two categories doubled since my wife family and friends became mine . When you add in game pass I am only buying 5 or so games a year and even fewer at retail price because I can't keep up. I think this year if reviews are good I'm getting dying light 2 and that is the only game i am paying for . But if dying light 2 gets great reviews and is even better tha nthe first one i would be willing to buy it for $100

 

[Deleted member 13524]

You're paying more for the video game developer to spend effort to exploit the extra new hardware you paid for. Some of these technologies are new and developers are still learning how to get the best for them. Developer time = $$$. Your argument makes sense for the Windows Server model because there is literally no difference between Windows Server running on a 64 CPU system vs. a 512 CPU system. You are charged more because you have more CPUs.

I have no idea how the big picture economics of next-gen patches really are, but surely the developer + publisher aren't depending only on the additional charges they take from people with the base game. A next-gen patch (and I mean true next-gen patches, not next-gen-aware patches for boost mode because no one's asking money for those) results in a renewed income of full game sales from the PS5 version.

Ideally, I guess these new sales would/should cover the development costs for the next-gen patches, but IMO the problem is:
a) they're trying to normalize the $70 price point ASAP on all PS5 games (patched-PS4 titles included), while
b) many of these patched games have already been in steep sales and even on PS Plus, making the $70 price point too much to ask for just a patch.


In reality, I think they should just offer the next-gen patches to every person who owns the base game (like they already did with all games up until FF7 Remake), and they should create new PS5 entries of the older patched PS4 titles at a modest price like $35-40. Though I do concede this solution could perpetuate the perception that $70 is too much to ask for a next-gen game, and that seems to be a major concern to Sony at the moment.

I think this year if reviews are good I'm getting dying light 2 and that is the only game i am paying for . But if dying light 2 gets great reviews and is even better tha nthe first one i would be willing to buy it for $100

Erm you do know Dying Light 2 has been in Development Limbo for some time, and while it does have a release date of December 2021 the reports of its troubled development suggest that we should brace for a subpar game compared to the original and The Following expansion.
Which is a shame because I really liked to play DL + Following cooped with friends, and we were (are) still looking forward to playing the sequel.

 

[eastmen]

I have no idea how the big picture economics of next-gen patches really are, but surely the developer + publisher aren't depending only on the additional charges they take from people with the base game. A next-gen patch (and I mean true next-gen patches, not next-gen-aware patches for boost mode because no one's asking money for those) results in a renewed income of full game sales from the PS5 version.

Ideally, I guess these new sales would/should cover the development costs for the next-gen patches, but IMO the problem is:
a) they're trying to normalize the $70 price point ASAP on all PS5 games (patched-PS4 titles included), while
b) many of these patched games have already been in steep sales and even on PS Plus, making the $70 price point too much to ask for just a patch.


In reality, I think they should just offer the next-gen patches to every person who owns the base game (like they already did with all games up until FF7 Remake), and they should create new PS5 entries of the older patched PS4 titles at a modest price like $35-40. Though I do concede this solution could perpetuate the perception that $70 is too much to ask for a next-gen game, and that seems to be a major concern to Sony at the moment.



Erm you do know Dying Light 2 has been in Development Limbo for some time, and while it does have a release date of December 2021 the reports of its troubled development suggest that we should brace for a subpar game compared to the original and The Following expansion.
Which is a shame because I really liked to play DL + Following cooped with friends, and we were (are) still looking forward to playing the sequel.

Yea i am aware but the slices of game they have been showing look pretty good to me . I will of course wait for reviews since its a single player game.

I mean look at death loop , everyone was saying it would be bad and its getting high reviews right now.


I think MS's approach to this has been better for the consumer. At the same time however Sony has a large list of expensive exclusives that they are trying to eek out however much money they can from them.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I have no idea how the big picture economics of next-gen patches really are, but surely the developer + publisher aren't depending only on the additional charges they take from people with the base game.

I think the price increase was overdue. Traditionally software price hikes have been slipped in during previous generation transitions but the mixed generation nature of modern consoles has muddied the water a lot.

PlayStation is a profitable venture for Sony and I assume Sony want to keep it that way. Anything that takes efforts takes time and time costs money.

 

[see colon]

I think the price increase was overdue. Traditionally software price hikes have been slipped in during previous generation transitions but the mixed generation nature of modern consoles has muddied the water a lot.

PlayStation is a profitable venture for Sony and I assume Sony want to keep it that way. Anything that takes efforts takes time and time costs money.

Sony, I think, are in a tough spot because I don't think they ever expected their competition to be so all in on cross generation games. Their earlier statements about believing in generations are often meme'd now, but I truly believe that they expected to be able to sell PS4 and PS5 versions of games and everyone would be fine with it. But Microsoft is over there selling games for last gen prices and next gen features (on next gen of course). So if they follow suit, they need to decide on a price. Would they just start selling new releases at $70 that contain the PS4 and PS5 versions of the game? I think they budgeted for $70 retail on PS5 games and losing 1/7th of your income isn't an insignificant amount. Then there are other considerations. 1 disc or 2? Would it include a download code for one version?

Of all the things Microsoft were hyping before launch, Smart Delivery was the one that I looked at once and thought, "Is this really something that needs to be marketed? Of course your system will download the version of a game made for it." But, I guess it is.

 

[eastmen]

Sony, I think, are in a tough spot because I don't think they ever expected their competition to be so all in on cross generation games. Their earlier statements about believing in generations are often meme'd now, but I truly believe that they expected to be able to sell PS4 and PS5 versions of games and everyone would be fine with it. But Microsoft is over there selling games for last gen prices and next gen features (on next gen of course). So if they follow suit, they need to decide on a price. Would they just start selling new releases at $70 that contain the PS4 and PS5 versions of the game? I think they budgeted for $70 retail on PS5 games and losing 1/7th of your income isn't an insignificant amount. Then there are other considerations. 1 disc or 2? Would it include a download code for one version?

Of all the things Microsoft were hyping before launch, Smart Delivery was the one that I looked at once and thought, "Is this really something that needs to be marketed? Of course your system will download the version of a game made for it." But, I guess it is.

Yea , I also think its important to think long term for support also. We are talking about ps4 games patched to ps5 games. But MS is kinda patching xbox original , xbox 360 and xbox one games with their BC program.

So like yea its $10 bucks to upgrade a ps4 game to a ps5 game but what about when ps6 comes out ? Microsoft will most likely go back through and upgrade the BC program again for an Xbox next and not charge the end user. That is a pretty good long term option.

As a pc gamer I kinda experience it now. I can go back to games from 5-10 years ago with my new pc hardware and crank up all the settings , put it at 4k and crank the fsaa or other image quality options and that is one of the things that keeps me paying $500-800 for a video card.

 

[see colon]

Thinking back at BC on Xbox One, there were more than a few games that were$10-20 for digital copies that got bumped to $30-40 when they went BC. Call of Duty MW3 and Ninja Gaiden 2 I think both did it.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sony, I think, are in a tough spot because I don't think they ever expected their competition to be so all in on cross generation games. Their earlier statements about believing in generations are often meme'd now, but I truly believe that they expected to be able to sell PS4 and PS5 versions of games and everyone would be fine with it.

I agree entirely. Microsoft are more willing to take risks and even lose revenue to change their gaming profit paradigm whereas Sony are content with the existing model because it is working very well for them.

I think the obvious reason for this is Sony have more to lose. Why risk what are well quantifiable profits..

 

[eastmen]

Thinking back at BC on Xbox One, there were more than a few games that were$10-20 for digital copies that got bumped to $30-40 when they went BC. Call of Duty MW3 and Ninja Gaiden 2 I think both did it.

Were they on sale and then went back to full price ? I can't comment cause I don't really know.

I do wonder what ms will do when they remove the bluray drive from the xbox. Do you think they will make it an add on ?