Would You Pay $70 For PS5/XSX Games?

[Moonface]

This came out a while ago, but if somehow you didn't manage to hear about it, 2K is charging $70 for NBA 2K21 on PS5 and Series X. No other publisher has announced their games will have this higher price, so it could be 2K just wanting to get more money (as if GTA alone doesn't bring them enough) or daring to be the first publisher to push the idea out there. If games that are currently $60 are given a $10 increase for PS5 and Series X, would you be willing to pay that price on any game or would you wait for a price drop?

For me it would depend on the game. Single player experiences that have zero microtransaction methods like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, etc. wouldn't bother me at $70 because revenue is only coming in from the initial purchase of the game and nothing else, unless DLC expansions are made later like how HZD got Frozen Wilds, but said expansions are not microtransactions. For games that do or will clearly have microtransactions, it would depend. Ideally I'd like such games to stay at $60 under the reasoning that they can make money from microtransactions, but then why not argue for those games to be cheaper than non-microtransaction filled games instead of both being $60? A game like CTR:NF has microtransactions, but you can unlock all the content in the game without using them and they pushed out something like 8 big updates to that game without ever charging for it, so I'd be more willing to fork over $70 for a game that gets great support like that even with MT's in it compared to something like GTA V, which while a big game that has free content updates for the online is also clearly made to be a grind to encourage buying MT's when said updates are all given such extortionate prices in-game that you either grind like the game is a second job or pay money to it like you have an extra mouth to feed. Of course, GTA is a 2K property so it's no surprise it's riddled with such shit.

If nothing else, I am interested to see how game sales are affected if they all go to $70. Unless releases get spaced out more there's no way releasing multiple big games at the same time is not going to impact the sales when they all want $10 more. I'd hope the games that are riddled with MT's like 2K titles are would suffer the most, but the fact they're willing to come out the door first with this and use it on a game that has a very bad reputation for MT's tells me they have confidence that enough people are going to just give them the $70 they're asking for. Hopefully they'll be proven wrong, but I won't hold my breath.

[Maniakkid25]

Short answer: No.
Long answer: It's not like I'm not already paying that much and more for a new game anyway.

See, we live in the era of DLC, where developers can sell us new content in the game at the cost of 10 or 20 bucks, depending on how extravagent (or greedy) developers get. And when developers figured out people will pay to pre-order that DLC, we soon moved into the idea of the 60-dollar shell, as I'll call it; You buy a game, but you aren't getting the full game.

It's become routine that a $60 game is sold in a "deluxe" edition that costs at least 1/3 ON TOP OF the base price just for some crappy skins. Hell, I myself got the pre-order bundle for Resident Evil 2, and the only thing I got were some crappy guns that were empty, so I haven't even used them!

Sure, in the years past, there were games with expansions, but those routinely came out YEARS after the original work, not a few months. Simply put, I don't have the cash to burn for a shell of a game at 60 dollars, so why would I do it at 70?

Edit: my stupid phone posted this before I was ready! AGH! I'm sure I have more to say, but now's not the time.

[queenzelda]

Hahaha, no. I don't pay $60 for a new game as is. Usually I can get most Sony titles on sale for super cheap if I wait a year or more. Just look at Death Stranding, a year out from being on the PlayStation & I've seen it on sale for as cheap as $30 new.

[Kyng]

If I was a console gamer, then I would - but only occasionally. Either it'd have to be one of my favourite franchises, or it'd have to have received very high marks from my fellow players. Otherwise, I'd just wait for the prices to drop (and I suspect consumer pressure would make it pretty much inevitable that they would at some point).

[ShiraNoMai]

Yeah, I second Moony's idea of not being overly bothered by titles that are single player one-time expense experiences. I find the games are more worthwhile in expense when I know the longevity of them will be equitable to the expense, i.e. a game like Animal Crossing, even Breath of the Wild.

Games that nickle and dime you after the initial purchase are ones I'm definitely not looking into paying full price for, or things that I know will be a limited experience.

[Mr EliteL]

I'll have to really REALLY want the game to pay that price for it. Even games I really wanted now/recently I've waited on a bit or am waiting for a price drop, the game also has to be a physical copy. I did buy Code Vein first digitally and on release but I played the demo and knew I really wanted it, so that's also a way I might, through a demo. £60-£70 though I'll need to think longer on, and this time around I want to have the console first before I consider buying games.

[Moonface]

Who bets that if games as a whole go up in price that so will all the DLC's and micro transactions?

[Mr EliteL]

I forgot to concern DLC/MTs in my last post but I'd agree and would not buy the base game at full price, and wait.

But I can see the price going up for them anyway, or just wouldn't be surprised. Which in some cases still suck as cosmetics/skins get to be too much now already, and them going up would be mind-boggling. Expansions like multiple full blown maps/levels in a pack with other stuff could be acceptable as opposed to smaller DLC. Hope to still see stuff be free like CTR:NF did.

[Dragon Lord]

I would, yeah. It's only a $10 increase from the price now and it's an increase I can easily afford, so I wouldn't be too bothered by it. Especially considering since I normally go for Limited Edition/Collector Editions of the games I get, I'm paying $80-$120 for the games I get anyways.

The only thing it would possibly effect is that I might put off a couple of games I was on the fence about until they went on sale or I could confirm the game is something I would definitely like.

[Moonface]

Ubisoft have stated that for at least this Fall, all their games will be $60. Given that they explicitly state the Fall, I expect they will increase the price eventually but if their titles are cross-platform they may not want to have a PS4/XBO game be $60 and the next-gen ones be $70 when it's the exact same game. I can see their first AAA PS5/XSX only game being $70, although then they're going to have to argue a good reason for the consumer why suddenly the games cost $10 more when all prior PS5/XSX games of theirs were $60.

[Moonface]

Call of Duty Black Ops: Cold War is also going for $70 for PS5/XSX, except that it's advertised as a cross-gen bundle where you get a PS4/XBO version alongside the PS5/XSX version. The real bullshit though is this:



The physical edition of the game for PS5 will not run on a PS4, and the physical XBO version of the game can not be upgraded to an XSX version: https://support.activision.com/black-ops...itions-faq

What's really interesting to me is how the upgrades work. If you own the game digitally on PS4/XBO, then you just upgrade your digital copy. If you own the game physically on PS4/XBO, then at least in the case for PS4 (because XBO doesn't offer it for some reason) you have to get the upgrade digitally, but must have the PS4 disc inserted to access the PS5 copy. If you lack the disc, you can not use the PS5 copy you digitally upgraded to.

[queenzelda]

I refuse to pay $70 for a COD game filled with micro-transactions ANYWAY.

[Moonface]

So far any game confirmed to be $70 has some form of microtransactions in it. CoD always does and NBA 2K21 will too. Says a lot when the games that already have ways to make more revenue beyond the initial purchase (and probably make a lot of revenue from those microtransactions) are the ones to lead the way with higher prices.

[WR91]

$70 for a video game? Very few and far between would I spend that much for a game. It better be a massive ass game or one that I've waited and wanted for a long time. Otherwise, I'll just wait until it goes down in price. Kinda like how I do now.

[Moonface]

Knew we had a thread about games going up to $70 somewhere on here.

Anyway, I saw earlier today that Microsoft have announced that all of their first party games will increase to $70 starting next year: https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/5/23494...rease-2023

I actually forgot that Sony was so far the only console maker to increase their game prices and that Microsoft and Nintendo were still charging $60. I doubt the price increase will really be that noticable to most people who play Microsoft's first party titles since they're probably using Game Pass which isn't going to be affected by this change. I wonder though if the Xbox Series S/X will increase in price next year or not though since I recall Microsoft saying they wouldn't do it for this Holiday season after Sony increased the price of the PS5, and I'm sure I saw something saying that Microsoft were considering putting the console price up next year instead. Either that or it was Nintendo but I can't remember.

Speaking of Nintendo and price increases though, I wonder if they'll ever put their games up to $70 or stick with $60. I doubt they will since unlike Sony and Microsoft, their first party games rarely go down in price so I suspect they get more money in the long run from their games in comparison.