Jump to content

How do you feel about £70 for a game?


Recommended Posts

If that’s what they charge for GT7, yeah I’ll pay it. If it’s like GT Sport I’ll still be playing it on a weekly basis 4 years later and they will still be just about updating it too. Good value over time and I’m happy to support them.

 

A last of us game? Something triple A I’ve been waiting years for? Yeah maybe I would. But I won’t like it, and we are talking about 1-2 of these over the life of the PS5 tops.

 

Everything else, absolutely not. Not even close. I typically don’t pay more that £40. Come to think of it I don’t like I’ve paid more than than £45 for a game ever.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to think I won't pay it, but if the next Mario games (Kart, Maker and the platformers, not so much Mario and Sonic or Mario Tennis) are that price, I almost certainly will.

 

I'll also get franchises I know I like - Forza, Forza Horizon etc.  But I won't take a chance on many unknowns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope for me. Not to say it's not worth it, just hard for me to justify. I always tend to pick up games 2nd hand nowadays though as i'm in no rush to play on release day ( which is why I never buy digital releases )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Er....no.

 

I'd pay £70 for GT7 but that's only because it's my bag. Finding a PS5 to play it on, is going to take some time, by which time I suspect that games will be back to a much more palatable £50.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't pay it.   It screams of opportunism too, it was something of a news story when games went to $70 in the USA because they hadn't raised from $60 since, what, the Xbox 360 era?   Game prices rose here from £40 to £50+ during that time and it seems now we get a price bump just because our friends across the pond are finally catching up with us? 

 

However I can't see the price lasting.  At the moment there isn't much hardware out there those who are lucky enough to own a PS5 are also being met with a lack of software.  I think they are being seen as folk who will pay the early adopter tax because for the most part they are the most enthusiastic of customers.  Once you can just walk into a shop and pick up a next gen console and have a bucket load of choice in terms of what games to own then price sensitivity will become a big market force, those charging £70 (with the possible exception of the absolute biggest AAA tier titles) just wont see the sales figures they are hoping for and the price will come down.  It will still come down to a higher figure than PS4 games were being sold for so they still win in the end, but fuck £70.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have a particular attachment to a game, series, or franchise, then maybe. Several years ago I think I paid slightly over the odds for a "new" copy of Wario Ware Inc. because I felt like an idiot for trading in my old copy. However, I probably wouldn't take that risk with something I don't know. Even when it comes to things like Persona, I didn't bother with the super-special editions of the P5 games, only the steelbooks.

 

How many people bought Demon's Souls for £69.99 on their digital edition PS5s?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would pay it for a new mainline 3D Zelda and Mario. Maybe the next Rockstar or Naughty Dog game. But for the vast majority I won't pay it. I'm getting Returnal but only because I managed to get it for £55 from eBay and because I know I can sell it on afterwards to bring it down even further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BossSaru said:

Adjusted for inflation, £70 is not too far removed from historic game prices. And if you can sell a game on then the net cost is less than the purchase price.

The problem with using the inflation measure as an argument is that it's without much context. What else could you get for £40 in 1992, for example? Has purchasing power increased or decreased relative to inflation during that time? Does £70 take up a greater proportion of your disposable monthly income now, compared to that 1992 equivalent? And perhaps the main one, wage increases. I don't know about anybody else, but certainly in the past 10 years or so (probably longer) I can't think of too many times I've had a greater than inflation pay rise (and in at least 3 years there hasn't been a pay rise at all, across 3 different companies).

 

So, sure, in terms of inflation you can say the price is about what is should be, but that's nowhere near close to being the full story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an odd one for sure. I totally get, and even agree somewhat, with the argument that big high production values games are expensive to make, and that sticker prices haven't increased much for many years. I'd much rather pay the full price for a game than be nickel and dimed for season passes, XP boosters, level packs and so on. And I am lucky enough that I can afford £70 for a game that I want to play.

 

£70 for a game I play a lot probably represents more enjoyment hours per pound than my Netflix subscription does (I haven't done the maths.) I think a lot of these subscription services rely on providing you with enough content that's "good enough" rather than stuff you fall in love with. But the value proposition of Game Pass is hugely attractive, and makes paying for games look very expensive.

 

£70 seems psychologically like a lot of money! I am looking at Returnal, and my finger keeps sliding off the buy button every time I do. I guess we'll see if I do buy it at £70 or not. If I do, it'll be in a way that it only costs me £60, but then that's still presumably £10 more than last-gen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this some kind of psychological test to get people to view the price point of a £50 game and think actually that’s not too bad and then be more likely to pay after witnessing £70? Simply a way to get more people to view a regular full price of old as more affordable than may have been previously seen?

 

I think part of it is the thing about early adopters going for these prices because of the enthusiasm and the need to try and make more now considering the console is also new and needs its return. 

 

Ive always bought digital 99% of the time and do this because of the retained resale value. That and the fact I just like collecting the physical stuff for my small collection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not happy about it but I paid £65 for Demons and I've paid £65 for Returnal as I'm bored as fuck and it looks like a fun game to play on my already expensive console. How many actual new exciting AAA games have been released this in the past 6 months? Cyberpunk, the PS5 launch games and now I guess this? It's a pretty dry market right now is what I am saying for actual next gen style gaming experiences. If there were a lot more new exciting games available then maybe I would be more discerning with where I threw my cash but that's not the case right now so yeah I paid £65 for Returnal. In 6-12 or even 18 months when this new gen has finally taken off I hopefully won't be paying £65 for new games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chadruharazzeb said:

For the 80th time:

 

Why people don't just create a US PSN account and download it from there I don't know. $70 is currently just over £50.

Because a lot of people don't want to pay that for digital. Sure, you can get it physical with a discount, but it's still more expensive than last gen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

70 is just ridiculous.

i can’t remember the last time I payed over 45. So it’s a massive increase.

yes, they cost more to make, but the market is now also way bigger. games are now a huge industry, and the big AAA publishers pushing this are making millions. 

Tempted to say they ought to be getting cheaper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

55 minutes ago, Naysonymous said:

I won't pay it.   It screams of opportunism too, it was something of a news story when games went to $70 in the USA because they hadn't raised from $60 since, what, the Xbox 360 era?   Game prices rose here from £40 to £50+ during that time and it seems now we get a price bump just because our friends across the pond are finally catching up with us? 

 

Two points though

1 - It's the start of a generation, PS1 launch titles were £50, much less the two generations later you talk about.

2 - In 2007, that $60 was £30.  It's now much closer to £50 so technically we should be in for that pricerise if the US hadn't changed at all.

 

Also worth noting that $70 doesn't include 20% in sales tax in our price.

 

16 minutes ago, Chadruharazzeb said:

For the 80th time:

 

Why people don't just create a US PSN account and download it from there I don't know. $70 is currently just over £50.

 

Because I'm not created a bunch of dodgy accounts in dodgy countries with fake addresses to pay still over the odds for something.

 

And if Sony suddenly decide to crack down on it you could lose everything in those accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HarryBizzle said:

I think it’s an incredibly cynical move by Sony at a time that they’re making more money than ever. So the “cost of development is going up” line of thinking doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, in my view. 
 

I generally thought £50 was too much; I justified it on being able to sell the game on after. 

 

I agree.  The cost of development has gone up. But the cost of manufacture, distribution, packaging, it's all dropped through the floor.  Also, everything, literally everything is priced at what the market will accept.  The cost of manufacture of a hardback book is much the same as a paperback. Movies are a tenner, Blu-rays are a few quid more than a DVD.  It's all for no reason other than that is what people are prepared to spend.  I have a Blair Witch DVD from Andy's Records that still has its £24.99 sticker on because DVD was brand new.  

 

£70 for a game on a disk, same box, same disk as the Blu-ray movie on the next shelf for a tenner.  It's madness. And the movie probably cost more to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that Returnal got me thinking about, since reviewers are banging on about just how difficult it is, is the skill barrier to entry games have compared to other media. If you buy a film or an album (ignoring that subscription services now dwarf the market for Blu Rays/CDs) you can do so confident that you'll see the end of the film/listen to the last track. With games there's no such guarantee. I'll admit I've always been a bit crap at games, but particularly as I've grown older. I see videos of kids with the reflexes of a Cheetah attached to an IV of Red Bull pulling off stuff in Fortnite and think 'Oh god, this must be what my dad felt like on Christmas day when he's pick up the second pad and I'd be telling him how easy it is to throw fireballs'.  £70 is a lot of money for a single piece of media at the best of times, but even more so when you don't know how much value for money you'll get from your purchase, regardless of how 'good' the game is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the issue I think is that launch RRP of non-Indie titles doesn't really seem to reflect the development effort or ongoing costs.

 

We've got games made in a year or two by big teams but using basically off the shelf tech that other than the odd but patch or the like are done once released. Other games are in production for 4+ years. And others are supported with new free content for years.

 

I think it's hard to justify £70 (or even £50) up front when you cannot be entirely sure you'll absolutely love it or how well supported it will be over the coming years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BossSaru said:

Adjusted for inflation, £70 is not too far removed from historic game prices. And if you can sell a game on then the net cost is less than the purchase price.

 

Where the £70 price falls down is when it is compared with the competition. A game may be 'worth' £70, but when subscription services like GPU exist then it becomes much harder to justify spending that much on a single title. Also, the market is increasingly diverse. Games like Hollow Knight cost a tenner, look fantastic, and offer a lengthy and fulfilling experience.

 

The other issue is that there is an expectation of rapid price falls from many publishers (excl Nintendo). Games are often only truly 'finished' several months after release, when patches have fixed graphical and gameplay issues. It is hard to argue that a game is worth £70 on release when a better version is available for significantly less a few months later on a better state.

 

If £70 was the cost of games I would still be a gamer. But I would probably buy fewer, take fewer risks, and rinse the games I player rather than switching to something else when I get bored.


Inflation is always a hugely flawed metric to use as income and cost of living have not kept in line with inflation. £70 is a lot of money for the general consumer for just a single game. Only gamers will feel inclined to buy at that price, the general populace will rightly scoff at it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s hardly an impulse purchase price, but I’d pay £70 for a game I’m almost certain I’m going to like - a Last of Us 2 or a Red Dead Redemption 2 or a Bloodborne or a Returnal. I don’t think it’s that much in the grand scheme of things, and while it’s hard to quantify, I would definitely say I’ve got way more than £70 worth of enjoyment from, say, Destiny 2. In fact, I think I paid £70 for that game anyway, because I bought the big-box collectors edition. I guess that’s a bit different as you get a physical item, but I would still think it’s worth paying that for the game.

 

I don’t really have many vices - I rarely drink, I don’t do some expensive activity like golf, I don’t have a car - so I’m comfortable paying £70 for a game that I really want to play, and waiting until other stuff goes on sale. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s easy to say that games have stayed at £40 for decades so £70 isn’t unreasonable, but that misses the point a bit. 
 

When games were £40-50 in the early ‘90s they were expensive items that kids might get one or two of for gifts. 
 

Part of the reason they started to become more mainstream is because they stayed at £40 and became relatively cheaper. Alongside all the other advances. More people buying obviously allowed this as they’d be getting just as much, or more, cash from increased sales even if the profit on each was less. 
 

£70 today is similar to the £40 proposition of the early ‘90s. It puts a game back in the realm of one or two a year that you’ve carefully considered. For me, that would be a football game I know I’d play to death and maybe a big RPG or adventure game. 
 

If games had gently crept up over the past 30 years then maybe we’d be at £70 as a norm by now, but I’m not sure the industry would be as big as it is if that were the case. It’s the fact that they always try to ‘catch up’ with one big hike at the start of every generation that causes the backlash and prices to drop back. I think £50 is becoming a new normal that’s begrudgingly accepted for most new titles. £60 might have been possible at a push but £70 is a step too far. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 70p for a Mars Bars is extortionate. £70 for a game? No chance. And if it means the triple AAA market collapse because I don't, then, ah well, never mind. It's not like I was ever going to do it in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple for me: is it a really nice edition, with a full manual, nice artbook, maybe a soundtrack and some other gubbins? Then sure, I'll think about spending £70 for it. I might even spend £40 on a game I really want. But for anything else, £30 is my upper limit. Perversely, the larger the studio, the less I'm willing to pay - so I'm actually tempted to buy Returnal when it reaches £40, but any in-house Sony game I wouldn't touch for over £30.

 

(of course, if I really like a game I'll end up rebuying it on multiple platforms. And if it's from an indie developer I'll buy gift copies for friends/buy daft merch/donate to their Patreon/overpay on itch)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this PS5 games price increase a UK/Europe only thing? 

Returnal is 7000 yen on amazon.co.jp, which converts to 46GBP and I'm pretty sure is roughly what most new PS4 games cost too. 

I paid 7300yen for Cyberpunk on release day (and didn't regret it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.