The latest gaming generation has introduced a number of features, but with all the new and shiny things comes a higher price tag. Some AAA game publishers have used this new generation as a springboard to increase the prices of games from $60 to $70. One of the companies leading the charge is Take-Two, who released NBA 2K21 for $70 on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S. During a conference call that took place earlier this week, Take-Two's CEO Strauss Zelnick reiterated the point of the price increase for major games going forward, saying, "our review was that we're offering an array of extraordinary experiences, lots of replayability, and the last time there was a frontline price increase in the US was 2005/2006, so we think consumers were ready for it."

While Take-Two seems to think that players are ready to accept the new MSRP for games, he also mentioned that the $70 price point won't apply to all future games published by the studio, as they plan to, "make announcements on a title-by-title basis" and that they "want to always deliver more value than what [they] charge."

Source: Morgan Stanley Technology Media & Telecom Conference (transcribed by VGC)

 

[Delerious]

I'll be ready for $70 games when companies like EA and 2K are ready to ship out complete games that are actually entertaining and not full of live service bullshit.

 

[FAST6191]

This gamer is ready for calling the $70 game Take Two CEO a cunt.

 

[banjo2]

lots of replayability

So why do they have to make a new one at full price every single year? A game with a lot of replayability should last at least a couple of years, in my opinion...

 

[HideoKojima]

We need to create a gamers syndicate to protect gamers interests. I don't have a problem paying $70 for a game but it should last twice the length of nowdays games (open world games excluded)

 

[CrashMidnick]

The only sport games I have bought from them were NHL 2k series but they stopped. They will not have a single penny from me.

 

[K3Nv2]

It's a sports game it'll be in $10 or less bins by next year

 

[Teletron1]

More like gamers are ready for refunds for broken games , where are the consumer rights protection? I’ll wait for sales then pay $70

 

[gamesquest1]

If the game pricing followed the inflation, games would cost $80 today. The $60 price tag for AAA titles was introduced in 2006 with the launch of the PS3/X360. Adjusted for inflation that's $80 today. $70 is a jump, but it's still not as bad as it could be.
And that's just recent history. SNES games cost the equivalent of $120, and so on.
Here's an article: https://techraptor.net/gaming/features/cost-of-gaming-since-1970s

That being said, most games do not justify a $60 price tag today, let alone $70.

I often see topics like that brought up in regards to lots of things when it comes to prices not going up, but the reality is that sure a SNES game might have cost the equivalent of $120 in todays money, but its a lot more complicated that just exchange rates and inflation, costs of development have gone up too, but likewise costs of production and distribution have dropped dramatically, plus the consumer base is way bigger than back in the snes era, to factor in all the variables would be near impossible, one thing I know for sure is if take2 tried to charge $120 today they would no doubt go bankrupt within a few years and people would quickly find alternative football or basketball simulators to play that sure might not have the official names and branding but offer a similar or better experience for a lower price

truth is I'm sure they will get away with the $70 price increase, but that said it does open up the possibility of a PES style competitor to emerge and steal away their usual customers, honestly I don't follow football games at all, but a quick google showed Pro evolution soccer now has patches available for adding real team names and logos etc, I'm surprised more developers haven't opted to bypass the costs of licenses and just allow end users to just supply fan made mods that give fill that function for themselves

 

[|<roni&g]

Lol I only ever pay £20 max for a game. No "hype" stupidity purchases here.

 

[Windaga]

The sports games are the WORST ones to use as an example for a price increase...they're the laziest games on the market.

That being said, if we adjust for inflation and everything, I'm more than willing to pay $70 for really solidly made games. Just...not NBA2K...never.

I wholeheartedly agree. The yearly sports games (whether it be from EA or Take-Two) don't bring enough to the table year-to-year to justify buying the games every year, let alone at an increased price. If NBA2k22 is your first basketball game in 15 years, then sure, $70 is an understandable entry price. But it's an insult to their current user base to hike the price, swap out the cover art, add in 6 layers of micro-transactions, add 2 gutted "new" modes and call it a new, $70 worthy game.

 

[Y0shII]

I do not preorder ganes or even pay full price for games, only buy during sales. Good luck with those $70 "aaa" games

 

[Meteor7]

Yes, Take-Two. You nailed it. In the middle of a pandemic, in a depressed economy, where the cost of living has only been going up over the past decades, and many people are going hungry; gamers are "ready" to pay more for their lazy, microtransaction-littered gambling-boxes. How could they not be? Either they're somehow talking about everyone except their American consumers, or they're full of it.

Honestly, I've willingly paid much more than $60 for games I thought were worth the money, and I'll certainly do so again in the future, but that's only for the games that prove their quality and I feel deserve more revenue. Take-Two insisting that their games are worth even $60, much less more, though, is a joke.

All that aside, it's always a classy move for anyone to say "you're ready to pay me more money for the same product." Smooth.

 

[godreborn]

I still remember when games were $80-$100 back in the snes days, but at least they had a reason with the cartridge and a bulky 80-page instruction manual. that's one thing I miss about games -- instruction manuals.

 

[driverdis]

I think I will stick to paying 10$ under MSRP at Walmart TYVM. It is nice to have 70$ games be 60$ and 60$ games being 50$ at Walmart while that lasts at least.

 

[Theone5000]

Gamers are "ready" ... blablabla

 

[gene0915]

Arr me mateys....... 70 doubloons for half baked games......... I'd rather walk the plank! I shall continue to sail the seas...... it's a pirate's life for me! Arrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[lordelan]

Let's be realistic about this.
Big productions will cost more, the bigger and better looking the games become.
It should be obvious that Mario Odyssey costs Nintendo more to develop than Mario 64. More polygons, higher resoluted textures, bigger levels, more effects, more content and so on.
Thus I can't blame the industry if they raise the price tag at some point because if they won't, they'll reach a point where even games such as a new GTA cost more money than they earn.

However this point is far in the future (the current GTA earned them half of the money on this f*cking planet).
And I don't see it ever apply to f*cking sports games.
It's not like they are creating new levels/maps, monsters, vehicles or anything for their releases.
They polish a bit and - yes - they may do an engine rewrite every 10 years or so but apart from that, sports games should get cheaper.
Or let me get this straight:
It's alright to take a full price for a FIFA or NBA game (full price = 50 or 60 bucks, not 70!) if everyone who has the game from the previous year can buy the new content (basically updated player stats) for a lower price (20 or 30 bucks).
If I pay 60 $ for FIFA 21, then 30 $ to update it to FIFA 22, then another 30 $ to update it to FIFA 23, that would be okay.
What they do at the moment is not.

 

[Veho]

I often see topics like that brought up in regards to lots of things when it comes to prices not going up, but the reality is that sure a SNES game might have cost the equivalent of $120 in todays money, but its a lot more complicated that just exchange rates and inflation, costs of development have gone up too, but likewise costs of production and distribution have dropped dramatically, plus the consumer base is way bigger than back in the snes era,

That's why I added that as an afterthought and focused on the PS3/X360 era, when the conditions were more similar to today.
SNES had a smaller userbase, but also the cartridges were a huge part of the game cost, they were a big chunk of hardware in themselves. A Blu-Ray costs next to nothing.

 

[MarcusSuridius]

Who would pay 70 quid for what's basically the same game every year who's only improvements is a reskin and odd new feature.

 

[Issac]

And here I am remembering buying N64 games back in the day, for $80 US bucks.