Will you pay $59.99 or $69.99 for a new game?

[Anthony1]

With the arrival of the 360 in a few months, and late September 2006 the PS3, comes the thought process that is suggesting that all games are going to be $59.99.


For some reason, publishers think that with the launch of the new systems, comes an opportunity to get video game prices back into the range they prefer to see them.

I think all the $19.99 games and bargain bin games have had a negative effect on the industry, and they feel that this is their opportunity to try to get the pricing structure back in their favor.


The perfect excuse of increased development costs is ripe and waiting to be plucked by them. They plan on harping about how their developement costs have skyrocketed, and that they need the games to be at the very least $59.99 just to come close to breaking even, much less a profit.


In the beginning, that might actually be a legitimate bluff, but long term, we all know that this is about getting the pricing structure back to the profitable 16-bit era when games did come out at $59.99 and $69.99.


But back then it was carts and now it's disk based. Sony might actually have some justification for higher prices if their games are actually on Blu-Ray disks. I can see them charging a higher price, but the cost of regular DVD's is super cheap, so there really isn't any reason for 360 games to cost $59.99 or $69.99, unless they just want to gourge the early adopter.


It will be interesting to see if Microsoft prices their 1st party games lower, maybe at $49.99.




The question of course is, are you going to buy them new at $59.99 or $69.99, or will you wait a few weeks to see them on sale at Target or Best Buy or Circuit City for $49.99.?

[CrimsonNugget]

Where'd you get this idea? Games will probably stick at $49.99 like they have for a long time now. The prices were at 59-69 because carts were expensive to produce.

[GobopopRevisited]

...with the "HD-Era" comes more attention to detail. So you'll either need to hire more employees to make everything up to par, or have existing employees work over long development times.

Also with all the Multicore processors, you'll need to hire new talent... talent that knows how to make use of the new technology. Everything is going to be more complex when it comes to game development this upcoming generation.

But, I'd be willing to pay the extra $10 - $20 depending on the game. If the game isn't all that special, I'd just wait for a few months when it's sure to go down in price...

[RetroYoungen]

No. I don't want to spend 70 bucks on a game. I didn't back when that was the going rate for Donkey Kong 64, and I can't see myself going for that now. I can only remember spending anywhere NEAR that much two times in the past, and the last one was Halo 2 (which, after playing through it rather quickly, i felt like I should have waited for it to go on sale).

It's just too rich for my blood.

[PDorr3]

I can stomach a $60 game if it is definitly going to be worth the money, but if I am not certain about the game I will rent it before I purchase it. and a $70 game is out of question, I am not paying that much.

[ddockery]

I won't even pay $40 now, so of course not.

[Slimedog]

Being as I hardly ever spend more than $15 dollars now (new or used) I see no reason to spend more than that in the next generation. For my gameplay dollar, I'm much better off buying older used games.

[Leo_A]

Where'd you get that PS3 release date from? Wish you'd start going with more facts with your post instead of just making stuff up.

[Half Japanese]

No sir. Games have to be something special to warrant their full asking price. I think I've buckled maybe 4 or 5 times in the past year:

Resident Evil 4: Well worth it, used trade-ins to shave off the cost.

Halo 2: Paid full retail, played it long enough to make it a worthy investment.

Lego Star Wars : Used trade-ins to shave off the cost, traded it in a few weeks later

MechAssault 2: Used trade-ins, major disappointment, got rid of it.

Jade Empire: used trade-ins, well worth it, beat it and traded it in.

A game has to be around the $30 price-point or incredibly attention-grabbing to demand cash from me.

[boatofcar]

Back in the day I paid $70-80 for FF3 and Chrono Trigger at Babbage's. However, back then I only got one or two video games a year.

However, the new systems just don't interest me enough to warrant spending that much on any game.

I really doubt games will be higher than 59.99, no matter the platform. There's no way gamers will shell out that kind of dough after living with 39-49.99 for so long.

[thegreatescape]

Quit yer bellyaching; we (Australia) already pay $59 and $69 US for new releases.

On the topic of a price rise however, its hard to tell what will happen; With each new generation of consoles there has always been an inherit rise in development costs- more power and more space means more money. Steadily Increasing sales of games (by way of increased potential customers) means it hasnt been necessary to raise prices; a perfect example is the playstation. With the massive increase of space available came a boom in gaming popularity (i.e the Playstation).

We spoke with a few retailers, who said the potential $59.99 price tag for games is still hanging in the air. "We're having a hard time selling good games at $49.99 right now, so an increase of $10 is not set by any means."

From one developer's standpoint, however, the additional power of this system, requiring more people on a team, logically extends to a higher priced game. "As far as we are concerned, these next gen systems just mean more artists, because now you can do so much more with the visuals. So yes, it will be more expensive because you will need a lot of artists."source

The above quote is from a recent xbox 360 article, but similar comments were made when the Mega CD, playstation and PS2 came out. Im hedging my money on limited price increases, if any (mainly on really big budget+likely high sales stuff).

[evil_genius]

No, I generally wait till the game gets cheaper. New games aren't usually impotrant to me, unless its like SOCOM 3 or Zelda. I'm still playing games from the 90's that are new to me.

[VG_Maniac]

I remember when I bought Turok: Dinosaur Hunter on N64 back in 1997 for $69.99. I think that's the only time I shelled out that much money for a new game, and I don't ever plan on doing it again. Washington state has very high sales tax...a $70 game ends up costing $76. Why would I want to blow nearly $80 on ONE game??

[NE146]

$59-$69 was actually the average price of SNES & Genesis games for me on down until I moved out to the states again. So I guess the answer is yes.

[donkeykong1]

I won't. I barely pay 50 dollars now, and it has to be a game I really want.

[Rev. Link]

Lord, no!

Zelda is pretty much the only thing that can get me to pay $50 now. That and maybe Mario. For anything else, I wait until it's at least $30.

Maybe if developers put all their money into actually making games good instead of just good-looking I wouldn't feel that way.

[Mianrtcv]

$59.99 or $69.99 is just too rich for my blood. Often times I don't even spend the current $49.99. I wait till it drops or get it used. Rarely will I spend the top dollar. I don't have enough time to rent most games I buy, I usually borrow or play a demo first to see if I like it. Even then sometimes I'm sorry I paid release price. Too many games just don't live up to the price tag. For $59.99 or $69.99 the game would have to be EXCELLENT! I would have to have a decent demo, first.

[chrisbid]

no way, dvds arent durable like carts. i will however buy games at that price if there are added bonuses (like special edition DVDs).

but if publishers are going to push real-time ads via broadband and nickel and dime gamers with bonus content that you have to purchase, then forget it.

[Jumpman Jr.]

Depends on the game. There's no way that I'd shell out 59.99 (or 69.99 for that matter) for a game that I'm not all that excited for. Back in the day, I'm sure I bought alot of my games for that (or a higher) price though. I remember saving up to buy Mortal Kombat 3 and I needed something like 80 bucks. But yeah, it really depends how much I want it. Like, for instance, I will have no problem spending 69.99 on Twilight Princess (if thats what its going to cost, I have no idea). If its a game that I've been looking forward to and can't wait to play, I spend the money.

[MattyXB]

I would buy then only great games, which I will play. Zelda & Castlevania for example. But most other games which are only good but not great wouldn't I buy then.