Next Gen Games For $70?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Nemesis X
For those not in the know yet, some within the gaming industry is legit considering that the new standard price for games on PS5 & Series X should be $70. 2K being the first to announce this for their NBA game they'll be porting over to these next gen platforms.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/70-games-may-become-ps5-and-xbox-series-xs-standar/1100-6479260/

What are all your thoughts on this?

-Pr-
I don't mind, in theory, the idea of games increasing in price. Games have been steadily increasing in price for years.

What I have a problem with is that nowadays, it feels like I get less for my money than I did before due to things like DLC, season passes and so on. Sure, people will say "you don't have to buy the DLC", but when games are chopped up with DLC in mind (and there are numerous examples), that is, to me, devaluing what I paid for.

Kazenji
Doesn't really bother me, Usually around $70 or more here in Australia for new games with the current generation.

Nemesis X
I'm definitely against it. They're not factoring in all these companies with microtransactions, loot boxes, Day 1 DLC in "special editions" in mind. Increasing the standard price now and beyond in this environment, people are rather gonna be playing Destiny 2 until EVERY new game gets discounted because screw that noise.

Smasandian
Don't have an issue with it. In Canada, the prices are $79, which went up when the dollar was crap.

Why do you think companies try to utilize all the extra crap? It's because game development costs have gone up but prices have stayed the same. In regard to inflation, a $59 title is now around $81. It's normal for AAA game to cost $75 million+ now. How much do you think Sony spent on Last of Part 2, or God Of War?

If prices are increased in the States, we might have companies take more risk instead of playing it safe. Less extra crap.

Ridley_Prime
While games being made $70 feels like it can be adaptable depending on other factors, seems like a bold change/inflation to make in the midst of an economic recession.

Total Warrior
That's the average price for games here already ahahha

BackFire

cdtm
Originally posted by Smasandian
Don't have an issue with it. In Canada, the prices are $79, which went up when the dollar was crap.

Why do you think companies try to utilize all the extra crap? It's because game development costs have gone up but prices have stayed the same. In regard to inflation, a $59 title is now around $81. It's normal for AAA game to cost $75 million+ now. How much do you think Sony spent on Last of Part 2, or God Of War?

If prices are increased in the States, we might have companies take more risk instead of playing it safe. Less extra crap.



They're making record profits, it has nothing to do with overhead.


They're doing this because loot boxes are no longer a golden goose, and the party is over. Investors will start leaving in droves now. A crash comparable to the mid 80's is coming.

MooCowofJustice

jaden_2.0

Smasandian
Since Xbox Game Pass is a thing, I only really buy games that I really want to play immediately. For instance, Last of Us Part 2...or the new F1 game.

Before, I would pick it up if I'm interested but not sure how it will turn out. Now, I just wait until it comes onto Game Pass.

StyleTime
Yeah, I think game passes make this moot for a lot of folks. Even aside from that, many gamers already wait for price drops on most titles. I generally only pay full price for indie games that I think need my support. I think games are mostly being supported by a smaller percent of players than actually plays the game. It's similar to how whales are where most free to play mobile games make their money.

I do wonder if there is a tipping point, where the price is so much that not enough people are willing to buy new release games to be sustainable. I'm not saying 70$ is that price point of course.

And an NBA2k, or any popular sports title, is risking very little with a price increase. The annual installation purchase is a bit of a ritual among sports gamers isn't it? I think they'll buy NBA2k every year even if it were 100$.

cdtm
I'm a lot more miffed at Indy game price creep then mainstream shite.



Although I will say getting Hollow Knight for 7 dollars on sale feels like theft. All the dlc built in at no extra cost makes it worth more then the 15 dollar price tag.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by Smasandian
Why do you think companies try to utilize all the extra crap? Because they're greedy, because they know they can get away with it and because capitalism demands infinite, unsustainable growth.

Development costs have gone up because publishers spend insane amounts of money on marketing and PR (EA spent over $50 million to pay twitch streamers to play their various new releases. What the ****?) and because huge portions of a game's budget are sucked into the latest graphics meme. The result is an entire gen full of worthless AAA titles that are nice to look at but offer zero substance. Games such as:
Destiny
Ghost Recon
Assassin's Creed
Anthem
Battlefront 2 (for the majority of its existence)
Battlefield
Call of Duty

The game industry gets zero sympathy from me. We're in a indie game renaissance right now where people are making millions of dollars building games in their basements (minecraft, undertale, hollow knight etc) and the most financially successful games of this gen are mostly mid-budget games with free to play business models that rely on purely cosmetic purchases! Fortnite, PubG, League of Legends, APEX Legend etc.

If game development budgets are too high then maybe publishers should stop being omega cocksuckers and dumping $200 million into shitty movie games. Bring back the AA title as the standard, and put the emphasis on innovative gameplay and interesting 9and cost effective) art styles instead of muh ray-tracing 90 trillion pixels at a silky smooth 22 fps nonsense.

These retards are demanding extra money from each game to justify the budgets and they still can't achieve ****ing 1920x1080 60fps as a standard. Give me a ****ing break. That money is not going anywhere worthwhile.

StyleTime
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Because they're greedy, because they know they can get away with it and because capitalism demands infinite, unsustainable growth.

Development costs have gone up because publishers spend insane amounts of money on marketing and PR (EA spent over $50 million to pay twitch streamers to play their various new releases. What the ****?) and because huge portions of a game's budget are sucked into the latest graphics meme. The result is an entire gen full of worthless AAA titles that are nice to look at but offer zero substance. Games such as:
Destiny
Ghost Recon
Assassin's Creed
Anthem
Battlefront 2 (for the majority of its existence)
Battlefield
Call of Duty

The game industry gets zero sympathy from me. We're in a indie game renaissance right now where people are making millions of dollars building games in their basements (minecraft, undertale, hollow knight etc) and the most financially successful games of this gen are mostly mid-budget games with free to play business models that rely on purely cosmetic purchases! Fortnite, PubG, League of Legends, APEX Legend etc.

If game development budgets are too high then maybe publishers should stop being omega cocksuckers and dumping $200 million into shitty movie games. Bring back the AA title as the standard, and put the emphasis on innovative gameplay and interesting 9and cost effective) art styles instead of muh ray-tracing 90 trillion pixels at a silky smooth 22 fps nonsense.

These retards are demanding extra money from each game to justify the budgets and they still can't achieve ****ing 1920x1080 60fps as a standard. Give me a ****ing break. That money is not going anywhere worthwhile.
Pretty much. If they could justify the price point, fine, but if we're just getting slightly prettier models for less content than a 7$ phone game, then they can keep that.

I mean, that Hyperdimension Neptunia series is on it's what, 13 entry now? 14th? You clearly don't need ultra mega budgets to be successful.

cdtm
Originally posted by StyleTime
Pretty much. If they could justify the price point, fine, but if we're just getting slightly prettier models for less content than a 7$ phone game, then they can keep that.

I mean, that Hyperdimension Neptunia series is on it's what, 13 entry now? 14th? You clearly don't need ultra mega budgets to be successful.



And how many times are they going to re-release Skyrim?


That things pure profit by now. And still no patching all those bugs!

StyleTime
Originally posted by cdtm
I'm a lot more miffed at Indy game price creep then mainstream shite.

Although I will say getting Hollow Knight for 7 dollars on sale feels like theft. All the dlc built in at no extra cost makes it worth more then the 15 dollar price tag.
I'm of a similar mind to Pr: it's about worth to me. I think indie games have become synonymous with cheaper, so people think it's an inherent feature. Yes, they typically cost less, but there's no reason they can't charge more if it's warranted.

A good example to me is the Bloodstained titles. I'm okay with Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night being 40$.

Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon 1 and 2 are 10$ and 15$ respectively though. It's fitting because they are 8-bit, retro-style homages to the "Classicvania" era of Castlevania titles. Asking 40$ for them would be absurd. They are well done, but are just way smaller products. Both in content and form. Also, the music is worse, although improved in 2.
Originally posted by cdtm
And how many times are they going to re-release Skyrim?


That things pure profit by now. And still no patching all those bugs!
Kinda like RE4. Re-re-re-released on nearly every system since it came out, including iPhone and whatever Zeebo is.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Because they're greedy, because they know they can get away with it and because capitalism demands infinite, unsustainable growth.


And w/out free market capitalism, we probably wouldn't have video games at all, and if we did they would probably all be pretty damn crappy since developers wouldn't have any real incentive to make genuinely good games so quit your whining about capitalism you socialist/commie.


As for the subject of this thread, I'm definitely against raising prices of games up to $70.00. That's just too much, imo.

Ridley_Prime
Well, thanks $ony for pushing the $70 game price with their 1st party titles.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
And w/out free market capitalism, we probably wouldn't have video games at all, and if we did they would probably all be pretty damn crappy since developers wouldn't have any real incentive to make genuinely good games so quit your whining about capitalism you socialist/commie.


As for the subject of this thread, I'm definitely against raising prices of games up to $70.00. That's just too much, imo. Hey bud, I just made a cool new game that I'm selling for $350. You're gonna buy it, right? Remember, having standards and expectations is communism!

cdtm
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Hey bud, I just made a cool new game that I'm selling for $350. You're gonna buy it, right? Remember, having standards and expectations is communism!


Exactly how I feel any time I express an opinion, and get dog piled for it.


If having tastes and standards makes one a commie, then call me a commie.

Smasandian
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Well, thanks $ony for pushing the $70 game price with their 1st party titles.

Which is funny when Microsoft releases all first part titles on Game Pass day one for 10 bucks.

I haven't seen the prices Microsoft is asking for on 1st party titles......

cdtm
Game pass is essentially a rental.


Just a big waste of money.

BackFire
Game pass is a great deal.

cdtm
It would be if you can keep anything.


No different from a rental at blockbuster from where I'm sitting.

BackFire
More like Netflix because as long as you are subscribed to the service and the game remains on said service you will be able to play it. There is no time limit.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by cdtm
Exactly how I feel any time I express an opinion, and get dog piled for it.


If having tastes and standards makes one a commie, then call me a commie.


No, it is when you have opinions that seem to indicate you hate capitalism that people assume you're a commie. It is only logical for someone to think that... and he is a commie, or at the very least a socialist which is really just a commie in disguise.

-Pr-
Originally posted by cdtm
It would be if you can keep anything.


No different from a rental at blockbuster from where I'm sitting.

Okay, so... what's wrong with that? You don't like renting?

cdtm
Originally posted by -Pr-
Okay, so... what's wrong with that? You don't like renting?

Well, the Xbox Live Gold was 60 bucks a year, and you got two games a month to keep (One for the 360, one for the Xbox One)

The Game Pass is 120 a year. Or 110 for the first year. You get to keep nothing once the subscription ends.



The advantage is the sheer size of the selection, but how many of those games will you really play in a year?


Or more to the point, how many am "I" gonna play? I'm the type who plays a game and sets it down, then picks it up again a few months later. Or if I do play through it, I'll enjoy it at a leisurely pace, mainly because I can't do extended gaming sessions anymore and hold my interest. An hour, a few hours tops, then I'm ready for a book or sleep.


I mean, here I am finishing up Everspace over a weeks vacation, and DDM picks it up and beats it the first time in a day. I'm just the type of person this scheme was made for, they'd love for me to buy into it and finish six games over three years instead of just buying a few used at GameXchange.

cdtm
Originally posted by BackFire
More like Netflix because as long as you are subscribed to the service and the game remains on said service you will be able to play it. There is no time limit.

Kind of.


Same type of service, different type of entertainment. Movies and shows, you binge then move onto the next. Everyone does it, who watches movies and shows. Games can be binged, or they can be obsessed about over the long haul as you master them. I mean, some people stick with a game like Dragon Ball Fighter Z or Ikaruga and just play them religiously.


And of course you've got your 80-120+ hour rpg's.

-Pr-
Originally posted by cdtm
Well, the Xbox Live Gold was 60 bucks a year, and you got two games a month to keep (One for the 360, one for the Xbox One)

The Game Pass is 120 a year. Or 110 for the first year. You get to keep nothing once the subscription ends.



The advantage is the sheer size of the selection, but how many of those games will you really play in a year?


Or more to the point, how many am "I" gonna play? I'm the type who plays a game and sets it down, then picks it up again a few months later. Or if I do play through it, I'll enjoy it at a leisurely pace, mainly because I can't do extended gaming sessions anymore and hold my interest. An hour, a few hours tops, then I'm ready for a book or sleep.


I mean, here I am finishing up Everspace over a weeks vacation, and DDM picks it up and beats it the first time in a day. I'm just the type of person this scheme was made for, they'd love for me to buy into it and finish six games over three years instead of just buying a few used at GameXchange.

Oh. I honestly thought the price wasn't that high.

I dunno if I'd call the games on Gold free, though. A sub is still required, iirc.

cdtm
Originally posted by -Pr-
Oh. I honestly thought the price wasn't that high.

I dunno if I'd call the games on Gold free, though. A sub is still required, iirc.


You pay for them, but get to keep them once the subscription ends.



Granted, most of the games are bargain bin stuff, so really not worth it. Certainly nothing of the caliber Epic Games Store gives away like GTA V, the entire Arkham franchise, Hitman 2016, Subnautica..


I love it, but kind of think Epic is out of their minds if they think people are ever going to buy anything just because they're getting free stuff.


Unless that's not the point, and all they want is to shore up registration numbers.

StyleTime
Originally posted by cdtm
Exactly how I feel any time I express an opinion, and get dog piled for it.


If having tastes and standards makes one a commie, then call me a commie.
Well, yeah, people are allowed to disagree with you. Especially when your opinions amount to "It's new. I'm scared!"
Originally posted by cdtm
Game pass is essentially a rental.

Just a big waste of money. Originally posted by cdtm
It would be if you can keep anything.


No different from a rental at blockbuster from where I'm sitting.
Like this, which you've still failed to provide a compelling argument for, just like last time we went through it. Blockbuster analogy is inaccurate. It's more like Netflix, which put Blockbuster out of business.

Why would this be a bad thing exactly? Most people only play most games once or twice anyway.
Originally posted by cdtm
Well, the Xbox Live Gold was 60 bucks a year, and you got two games a month to keep (One for the 360, one for the Xbox One)

The Game Pass is 120 a year. Or 110 for the first year. You get to keep nothing once the subscription ends.

The advantage is the sheer size of the selection, but how many of those games will you really play in a year?

Or more to the point, how many am "I" gonna play? I'm the type who plays a game and sets it down, then picks it up again a few months later. Or if I do play through it, I'll enjoy it at a leisurely pace, mainly because I can't do extended gaming sessions anymore and hold my interest. An hour, a few hours tops, then I'm ready for a book or sleep.

I mean, here I am finishing up Everspace over a weeks vacation, and DDM picks it up and beats it the first time in a day. I'm just the type of person this scheme was made for, they'd love for me to buy into it and finish six games over three years instead of just buying a few used at GameXchange.
It would take what...3 or 4 games a year to make game streaming services worth it? Maybe a couple more if they are cheaper games? Even many casual gamers would save money here fairly quickly. I use PsNow, and it's 60$ a year.

Admittedly, this is the first time you've addressed a legitimately issue here: ultra casual gamers. The types of people who don't game regularly but do enjoy a specific title or two might lose out. I have a friend who basically only plays GTA. This would make zero sense for him.

cdtm
Originally posted by StyleTime
Well, yeah, people are allowed to disagree with you. Especially when your opinions amount to "It's new. I'm scared!"

Like this, which you've still failed to provide a compelling argument for, just like last time we went through it. Blockbuster analogy is inaccurate. It's more like Netflix, which put Blockbuster out of business.

Why would this be a bad thing exactly? Most people play most games once or twice anyway...

Strawman response. Pretty much covered all of this.

StyleTime
Originally posted by cdtm
Kind of.

Same type of service, different type of entertainment. Movies and shows, you binge then move onto the next. Everyone does it, who watches movies and shows. Games can be binged, or they can be obsessed about over the long haul as you master them. I mean, some people stick with a game like Dragon Ball Fighter Z or Ikaruga and just play them religiously.


And of course you've got your 80-120+ hour rpg's.
If someone sticks with Tekken 7 long term, the game doesn't go anywhere. They just also get to play tons of other things along with it.

Originally posted by cdtm
Strawman response. Pretty much covered all of this.
That's not what a strawman is. You're still not explaining why a streaming service is bad though. You've dropped the doomsday scenarios, which is good. But if you want to play a game long term.....you can do that.

cdtm
Like I said, different mediums.



Buying movies is a waste, because you watch it once, maybe twice, then get sick of it.


Renting games is a waste, because if the games good, you'll never get enough of it. That's the basis of "new money for old rope", where people keep rebuying the same game across platforms.


Of course, it depends on the type of gamer.. If you could marathon a game a week, maybe it's a good choice for you. I know people can do this.


Me, I just don't have it in me to game that much anymore. The 120 bucks a year would be better spent divided up on used games that I've been meaning to get too, or the odd sale. I guarantee I do not spend 120 in a year on games, nor could I really invest time in more then a game or two every few months..


I also can not justify too many new games, with a huge backlog dating back to the 16 bit era.


Just beat Starfox for the first time. And finished up Armored Core Project Phantasma's arena mode.

Smasandian
I see the $120 dollars per year as buying 1.5 games in a year. As long as I do that..it's a good deal. Considering MS releases all first party titles on Game Pass day one...it's a fantastic deal.

Also, I heard it's a great deal for developers because the get way better numbers from releasing on Game Pass instead of releasing like normal.

But overall, I have played more games that I would never have played because it's only a download. Just in the last month, I played Ace Combat 7, Spiritfarer, Battletoads, Streets of Rage 4, about 4 other indie games (like Overcooked 2), Wasteland 3, Star Renegades,. Over the last 6 months, Mechwarrior 5, Hypnospace Outlaws and etc.

I haven't had a chance but I can also play Flight Sim 2020, Crusader Kings 3, Tell Me Why and etc....also...lets not count the games that I have tried but didn't enjoy like No Man's Sky, Don't Starve and a few others....

Most of those games I would never play. It's a great ****ing deal and if there is a game you haven't finished but is leaving, you get discount if you buy digitally.

Ridley_Prime
Originally posted by cdtm
Renting games is a waste, because if the games good, you'll never get enough of it. That's the basis of "new money for old rope", where people keep rebuying the same game across platforms.
One can easily get burned out from any game, no matter how good it is; with AAA games now especially where there's little replay value after you've done everything, so you're pretty much just done with it and move on to the next thing. That's kind of another issue altogether with a lot of games now though.

That said, I condemn the idea of rebuying the same games on other platforms, which makes me more thankful for the level of backwards compatibility Microsoft has now with games.

Smasandian
Another big difference is the amount of games now.....10 years..we were lucky to get 2 AAA titles in a month..now it's like 4 and most of them are large open world games.

I felt less of a need to replay older games than I used because there is generally something always coming out. Top quality indie games were much less available 10 years ago..now its seems there is 1 every few days.

StyleTime
Originally posted by cdtm
Like I said, different mediums.

Buying movies is a waste, because you watch it once, maybe twice, then get sick of it.

Renting games is a waste, because if the games good, you'll never get enough of it. That's the basis of "new money for old rope", where people keep rebuying the same game across platforms.
People use Netflix/Hulu/etc for TV too, which is a better comparison. Binging all 7 seasons of Mad Men, or marathoning 11 seasons of Archer, takes as much time as going balls deep in a game you love.

That's not true in any way tbh. I loved RE2 Remake, but I beat it into the ground just like I did the original. 1st playthrough is for enjoyment, then I do all the S rank speedruns for unlockables, play through again with all my cool unlocked shit, then I delete it. There's just too many other games out there to keep going through something I've smashed repeatedly.

Originally posted by cdtm
Of course, it depends on the type of gamer.. If you could marathon a game a week, maybe it's a good choice for you. I know people can do this.

Me, I just don't have it in me to game that much anymore. The 120 bucks a year would be better spent divided up on used games that I've been meaning to get too, or the odd sale. I guarantee I do not spend 120 in a year on games, nor could I really invest time in more then a game or two every few months..

I also can not justify too many new games, with a huge backlog dating back to the 16 bit era.

Just beat Starfox for the first time. And finished up Armored Core Project Phantasma's arena mode.
Actually, I play games pretty slowly too. Outside of pandemic lockdown, I don't beat most games in a week. You don't need to go full hermit for this to work out, not that anything is wrong with full hermit.

If you only play one, Momodora priced game each year, then yeah, I get it. With Game Pass, it only takes two new games start saving money though. And that's ignoring PSNow, which is only 60$. It's even easier to get value out of, although there's less options for new releases. I'm fine waiting though, and it frees up my wallet for the indie games that need my support.

A backlog is more reason to use a streaming service, not less. That's why most of us use one tbh. I pay for PSNow because it's just easier and saves money compared to getting all my backburner games individually. And you have the added benefit of not losing anything if you end up hating the game.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to talk you into it. I'm only disagreeing with the idea they're bad offers. The truth is, PSNow/GamePass/NintendoSwitchOnline/etc are all quite amazing, albeit focused on different things, hence the price differences.

Smasandian
I will say Nintendo NES Online and SNES Online is a rip off at $5 a month. They rarely update it with new games and they dont have any of the classics aside from their own.

Considering Game Pass is an extra $5 with newer games (day 1 releases) and at least 10-15 new games a month...it's kind of nuts Nintendo doesn't get shit for their crappy online service.

ares834
It's the same price as Live and PS Network. Also those classic games are some of the best of all time.

BackFire
The ps+ games that are now being included in the service are really nice for newcomers too.

Ridley_Prime
Originally posted by Smasandian
I will say Nintendo NES Online and SNES Online is a rip off at $5 a month. They rarely update it with new games and they dont have any of the classics aside from their own.

Considering Game Pass is an extra $5 with newer games (day 1 releases) and at least 10-15 new games a month...it's kind of nuts Nintendo doesn't get shit for their crappy online service.
I would like a better 2 player beat up em on SNES online than what we currently got on there, but otherwise pretty happy with the selection and what they still add to it and NES, though there could definitely be more. 2 player online for all those old games is pretty nice too.

Smasandian
I think it can be more...these games are 30+ years old...there should be hundreds of them.

Ridley_Prime
Other publishers may prefer to re-sell their games individually on Switch (Disney with The Lion King/Aladdin game re-release, Konami with the classic Castlevania collection, etc), which is why you won't see them on Switch NES/SNES online. Probably licensing issues far as bringing back some of the other old games too.

Smasandian
Sure...but it still sucks.

StyleTime
I will say, the Nintendo Switch Online(NSO) service has expanded it's NES/SNES library. It was only around 30 a while ago, but I think they're about 100 deep now. And if you buy annually, NSO is only 20$.

NSO is more comparable to PS Plus or Xbox Live Gold than PS Now or Game Pass. NSO is just their general online multiplayer service, but they also give you the classic library with it instead of rotating monthly games like PS Plus or Live Gold.

I'm not up to date on it, but I heard Nintendo plans on making a proper Nintendo version of PS Now and Game Pass down the road though.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.