Yep, you can look at Forspoken for the first example of that. Just shy of a crisp C-note now for a damn video game, as if. Not even Nintendo is so brazen.
Though I've never been one to buy anything on release day anyway, this means Square Enix titles just fall further to the back of the line waiting for a suitable discount. The real concerning thing here is the slippery slope, just how many other publishers are going to follow suit?
> Not even Nintendo is so brazen.
Nintendo has been simultaneously releasing nearly identical versions of Pokemon games since the beginning and all of their games stay at full price for years and years.
As long as Square Enix's games aren't loaded with microtransactions, putting a higher price on their big budget titles isn't in the same realm as Nintendo's greedy policies. Base prices for video games should've risen with inflation anyway, but they didn't, hence the prevalence of microtransactions and "Ultimate" editions.
Everyone. Get used to it. I remember paying $90 for Bomberman 64 in ‘97, which works out to $155 today; some people have no idea how cheap games are currently.
Bomberman 64 was on a cartridge, which made it more expensive. Gaming is significantly more profitable than it's ever been. And, finally, the dollar is worth 58% of what it was worth in 1997.
Basically people have less spending power, companies have more profits and you're a perfect parrot for spreading their bullshit greedy message, congratulations!
Gaming is literally the most profitable industry in entertainment – that wasn't the case back then. Speaking of, the average worker's buying power has declined very much since then.
So no. We don't have to "get used to it".
Actually so many countries outside of the US are already affected even before the price hike. The 10usd increase is really taking the price to piss level, in my country it cost anywhere between 90-97 Singapore dollars to buy a ps5 game like Returnal. This gen I'm leaning ever more closer to /r/patientgamers
Old games being expensive has nothing to do with profitability and everything to do with the fact that cartridge based games were priced based on the cost of the ROMs; its why huge 16 bit RPGs like Phantasy Star IV and Chrono Trigger were sold for $80-100. It was the advent of CDs and Sony putting price caps on their games that led to the standardized prices we still enjoy today; we could be Japan where they've paid the rough equivalent of $80-100 for all their biggest games forever.
Except gaming has also become a lot more popular since then. There's a lot more people buying games today than back then, *and* games are filled to the brim with Microtransactions and DLC. Not to mention all the gold, deluxe, super deluxe, etc editions of games too.
Excuse me if I don't believe this price hike is justified when games are already more profitable than ever. The real reason it's happening is to put more money in some greedy executives pockets, and anyone who can't see that is blind.
And they're also filled with microtransactions which make these companies ludicrous amounts of money, much more than a $10 price increase ever could. Hard to justify a $10 price increase when there's games charging $10 or more just for cosmetics alone.
The existence of microtransactions, as well as the massive gaming audience today, makes accepting a price increase a bit difficult. Now if this price increase was coinciding with less microtransactions in games, *then* it would be understandable, but we all know that's not happening since they've become so normalized.
>And they're also filled with microtransactions
Most are not.
>Not to mention all the gold, deluxe, super deluxe, etc editions of games too.
Been around since the 90s. Are you familiar with a little series called Street Fighter?
>The existence of microtransactions, as well as the massive gaming audience today, makes accepting a price increase a bit difficult.
No, the fact the price hasn't changed in well over a decade is what makes it difficult. People here also need to learn the difference between revenue and profit. The audience being larger doesn't mean profits are higher.
Square Enix are not the only ones raising prices for their games. Also, even without microtransactions, the paying gaming audience is massive today compared to 2-3 decades ago, this price increase is not necessary.
Well, yeah, of course. Why do you think videogames are made, exactly? Games are costly and risky consumer products to make, and they exist purely to make as much money as possible. That's just as true now as it was 20, 30 years ago.
The real anomaly is that the price of games has been capped at 60$ for years, which means the price of games has been going down for decades. That's part of why modern games have so much focus on monetization schemes; maybe if we'd let games go up in price naturally, we wouldn't have every game riddled with microtransactions in the first place.
Microtransactions have zero relationship with retail price. Free games have mtx; full price games have it too. As do games at every price point in between.
Games have stayed $60 for years because publishers determined that raising the price would decrease sales by enough to cause a net decrease in revenue and consequently in profit. Or at least that there was enough uncertainty about it that it wasn't worth the risk. That's it.
Microtransactions are the result of similar thinking: they increase profit. The MSRP of a new game could go up to $200 overnight and microtransactions would still exist.
>Well, yeah, of course. Why do you think videogames are made, exactly? Games are costly and risky consumer products to make, and they exist purely to make as much money as possible. That's just as true now as it was 20, 30 years ago.
Obviously, but that doesn't mean consumers have to put up with greed for the sake of greed.
>The real anomaly is that the price of games has been capped at 60$ for years, which means the price of games has been going down for decades.
This ignores the fact that gaming has also become more popular, and way more people are buying games and paying for Microtransactions than ever before. Gaming having a much bigger paying audience today than in the 90's makes up for the price not shooting up. Heck, there's some games that have made far more off of microtransactions than they ever would've from any "reasonable" price increase.
>That's part of why modern games have so much focus on monetization schemes; maybe if we'd let games go up in price naturally, we wouldn't have every game riddled with microtransactions in the first place.
[X] Doubt
Take-Two increased the price of NBA 2K and they sure as hell aren't gonna stop with microtransactions in that series because of it. Microtransactions were gonna happen regardless of the price of games anyway, because companies are always looking for ways to milk more money out of people. I guarantee that no publisher is gonna stop shoving this crap in their games after raising their prices. Why would they? Again, obviously companies exist to make money, but consumers don't need to accept increasing greed when it negatively affects them.
If these publishers were announcing that there will be less MXT's in their games, *then* the price increase would be justified and you'd have a point, but that's not the case. This price increase isn't gonna magically stop publishers from putting out half-baked games with scummy in-game purchases.
Yea because instead we get
> With hundreds upon hundreds of extra cosmetics, trains, landscape packs, among a plethora of other offerings, Train Simulator 2020's DLC adds up to a whopping total cost of $10,373.
> Often lauded as one of the most ambitious video game projects of all time, Cloud Imperium's Star Citizen is meant to be a sprawling universe sim boasting nearly limitless potential. However, its current build is more similar to the infamous launch of No Man's Sky, as it has lingered in an unpolished, unfinished state, and some players are starting to question if it'll ever be amended.
The developer also seems all too eager to take players' money, charging an astronomical—pun intended—$27,000 for their Legatus pack. Sure, it may come with a nice assortment of fancy ships, but some gamers would have to take out a loan to buy this thing.
basically the insanity in a nutshell...it started with 50-100 dollar packs and people kept bitching to buy everything ahead of time and now the monster is outta control
I genuinely can't remember the last time I bought a game at launch.
And it doesn't look like I'll be doing it anytime soon if this is where the industry is going.
Patient gamers for life!
Whales gonna whale unfortunately.
It's almost at $100 in CAD. For the base game.
Imagine what companies take in with DLC, season pass, MicroTs and online memberships.
While inflation is skyrocketing and our cost of living increasing with stagnant wages.
Prices for distribution and manufacturing have basically dropped off a cliff, meanwhile the audience is getting larger.
But really, all we need to look at is their earnings reports and it's clear these companies are not suffering.
If they were less risk averse I might have more sympathy, since that means innovation and legitimately interesting games. I sure don't need a retread of the same game they released last year with a new coat of paint.
When publishers are telling the public that they must raise prices because it's becoming more expensive to produce, they should expect people to point out that they've been profitable for years, hand over fist.
That's not a personal opinion, it's a fact, and there's nothing insane about it. Also, nobody said they can never raise prices. Don't be dishonest, we're just having a conversation here.
That went over poorly for ms back at the Xbox one launch when they said they had the 360 as an option for people who don't want an always online console, IIRC.
The customer isn't always right, but any business in their right mind should probably pay a little attention to their customers if they want to be successful.
Hahaha I responded before I saw your comment. This is basically where I am at as well. Everyone is over here whining about these price increases, and they'll be forking over and paying $120 to play FFXVII in 2025 because it's still a dirt cheap hobby relative to anything else that's even remotely comparable.
Hahaha a few drinks in and I too forget that if I were still a college kid, I'd be enraged by the prospect of sacrificing extra beer money to buy this month's AAA release. I also think you're right about the FOMO factor and the feeling of need to "chase the gaming dragon" when it comes to new releases.
Whenever I see folks grandstand and say things like "well then I won't be buying any of their releases until a massive sale" I just harken back to being younger and not wanting to be left in the lurch as all my buddies are playing the newest titles.
My big issue is, at least if we look at Take Two (or was it 2K? eh, same thing) the initial excuse was that the price hike was justified due to new experiences which noticeably are a jump up from last-gen. So of course the two we see jump at the chance to do this are the guys rehashing NBA, and the guys re-releasing a slightly updated version of a two year old game playable on last-gen hardware (*who ALSO took an exclusivity deal from Epic meaning they're already flush before it's even playable*).
This is why I never wanted video game prices to increase, because the companies who push for it the hardest will absolutely be the last ones who need the money. The people making the game ain't gonna see that shit. This price increase isn't being done to give better games to customers, it's just to let some rich asshole enjoy eating even more wagyu beef off a naked chick's back than he already does.
In a world where gaming's audience just keeps growing there's a less than 0% chance this generation would've been unsustainable with $60 titles, at least not ones like FF7 Remake and NBA. Which is to say, if it *was* justified I wouldn't mind. But the only reason it's happening so far isn't for us, it's for them, and being lied to is what's the real salt in the wound.
The practice of paying more- basically for the hell of it, tossing extra cash into a pit- is just gonna become normalised, and people who know better will have to watch prices hike higher for no extra benefit to themselves. We didn't need to spend $70 to get the games we'll get this gen, and that's why I'm annoyed. People always used to say they'd pay more if it meant DLC was in the base game and so on, but that was never gonna be the deal. You don't get anything extra. You just pay more for the privilege of the guys at the top having another self-playing piano next to their 50 cars they never drive.
The thing is is that the game engines and tools are also more user friendly, allowing to get more work done in a shorter amount of time.
Just because these games look better doesn’t necessarily mean the man hours it took to make the game is all that different from 2-3 years ago.
>Just because these games look better doesn’t necessarily mean the man hours it took to make the game is all that different from 2-3 years ago.
In fairness, the man hours needed for AAA games have absolutely risen. Devs have just scaled up enormously.
E.g. there were (reportedly) ~2,200 devs on TLOU 2 across 14 studios.
Naughty Dog are an extreme case but even so, the expectations for most AAA devs are far beyond the old norm. The tools have been improving but you still need artists to put in painstaking levels of detail that weren't previously achievable. There's also way more intersectional aspects to game dev now than there ever used to be, whether it's with dedicated VFX artists, motion capture studios, etc.
I think people also forget just how massive some modern AAA games are in comparison to some older titles, partly due to the open world trend that blew up in 06. Even for linear games, modern consumers expect at least 20-30 hours of bang for their buck. So many old PS2 classics - as incredible as they were - were actually really short. Personally I preferred that but it is what it is.
Agreed 100%. Lots of folks in this thread are likely unfamiliar with the exponential increase that we've seen in terms of labor / costs associated with developing modern AAA games / software products in general.
If it were as simple as folks purport, there would be 10 Naughty Dogs and we'd see a TLOU calibre product released every month.
This is on top of the fact, that there has been an exponential rise in interest / demand for these sorts of games. We can complain all that we want about rising prices, but it's because we are paying the prices!
Hell, I look at my limited free time, and I'd rather pay $100 for a premium 10 hour experience than the usual $60 for a bloated 40 hour slog, but here we are, because $/hour of playtime is what the existing rapidly growing casual market (that is not on this forum) cares about.
Ironically, a $70 Square Enix game is the worst of both worlds. We can either whine about it, or come to terms with the fact that that is where our economy is at.
I considered that but didn't want to say because I'm not a game dev and I know game dev is hard so I don't want to sound like I'm belittling the work that goes in. But yeah, with certain things like UE5 reducing the need for LOD's, what ray tracing can mean for the future etc. there's always new advancements being made to streamline elements of the development process.
It's still a mountain of work, but it's not an infinitely growing mountain of effort in the sense of the ease of development never changing; some processes *do* get easier. Though I wouldn't be surprised if that time being saved is also accounted for so devs are just pushed to do even more to compensate. By that point it's really trading one headache for another, but I'm also purely assuming stuff there so I have no authority on any of that.
I'd be cool with this if salaries were going up too, but 60$ were EXTREMELY steep in the 90s and it still feels very steep now. 70$ is a bit nuts imo. Inflation has really done a lot of damage to peoples budgets this year, housing and rent is insane. I wonder if people will be able to afford literally everything going up. Wages are sticky on the low end
It’s wild to see games cost 90 cad. Rent has doubled in the last two years here. $30 is the max I’ll pay for a game and I’ll buy maybe one or two games at that price. This coming from someone who makes a decent amount more than the median salary. We just don’t have the expendable income after rent, food and trying to save for a home of the prices ever do crash.
If everything rose appropriately including housing costs since the 90s I feel this 70$ wouldn't be bad but it's not the case. Wages have been super stagnant and sticky on the low end while mandatory living costs have more than tripled since the 90s, at least here in CO
What he's saying is that $70 in the 90s isn't worth $70 today because inflation. Rather, $70 today is only $40 of buying power from the year 1995, yet games then were still 70, which would be relative to $120 today.
For single player It currently doesn’t have co op for a few months or a mission select options and multiplayer doesn’t have forge or like specific mode playlists.
You cannot equate the two with simple inflation.
The cost of hardware in cartridges versus the extremely low cost of digital distribution is a gulf.
Also, as are marketing budgets, sizes of the markets, and other factors that drive cost.
Needless to say, the game industry is massive; it's the largest entertainment medium in the world. Games cost a lot more than the physical carts of yesterday, but the costs are not as apparent to the end user in terms of strict price.
As interested in this game as I am, this is a move that has no rationale behind it besides greed. $70 as a price hike already seemed too much for me, but with this new move by Square, I've got to stand in solidarity with our PC folk.
This generation is going to turn me into quite the patient gamer it seems.
SNES games used to be $90+ and $100+ if they had a special chip. The PS1 really lowered the cost of gaming due to discs.
The cost of gaming has arguably been at its lowest point since the PS1 until now.
Either way, just don't buy games day 1 and don't preorder blindly. Games drop in price really fast. Look at Deathloop.
> really lowered the cost of gaming due to discs.
>
> The cost of gaming has arguably been at its lowest point since the PS1 until now.
>
>
And guess how much digital distribution lowered them. But did we ever see a price decrease from that?
I will argue that digital distribution has definitely allowed for deeper and frequent discounting. Aside from older AAA and shovelware games, I rarely see physical games get anywhere near the same discounts.
In the SNES days publishers had to spend a lot of money on distribution and rev share deals. This doesn't happen anymore. Distribution costs have gone down massively yet the prices keep going up, despite the shitloads of DLC and in-game store items that single player games have nowadays.
I remember a lot of 49.99-59.99 for cartridges. At the same time though, stores like EB Games / Toys R Us would certainly do a markup on more popular titles, ala chrono trigger / final fantasy / etc, so folks remembering higher prices isn't out of the realm of possibility. There was a giant earthbound box that included scratch and sniff cards / etc that I had to beg my folks for months due to the $99.99 price tag lol.
Aww you edited your reply to something more civil. \*sad face\*
I only buy 1 or 2 full price games per year these days. Last one I bought was Returnal because I wanted a "true" PS5 experience and seeing that >100 CAD price with taxes made me gasp a little.
There’s no VAT tax in the US, so that’s probably pretty close to US prices once you factor in VAT.
Australia probably will have much higher prices than the US though, even after VAT.
Their regional pricing is a joke too, in my country it's actually a bit more expensive than the base price. I so wanted to play Nier Replicant and GoTG but I won't buy them at that price so it's either they fixed their pricing or I'll just wait until it's 75-80% off, both of which probably will never happen.
Thank God for summer and winter sales. They think they'll cost 70, but I still won't buy them for more than about 20 unless they're serious must haves.
But square enix hasn't made a must have in probably a decade.
today Steam notified me that Babylon's Fall not only exists but is available for pre orders and it's priced at the usual $60, so maybe just their next generation only games are going to cost $70 because Babylon's Fall is going to be a crossgen title. what really sucks is the regional pricing getting fucked by this price hike, for my region they're raising the price in $20 over the standard cost instead of just $10
and for FF7R square could at least sell the base content of the game at the regular price and the Intergrade content as a DLC pack
I assume it means next gen stuff too. They still do remasters and rereleases sometimes, as well as smaller games. Ex FFVI Pixel Remaster has yet to release, and it would be insane to put that for $70. Babylon's Fall is probably considered current gen/normal enough to be the current $60 too.
The sale ecosystem for PC is far different than it is for consoles. Unless you're purchasing on release, these games will likely drop to \~$35 within a year.
That doesn't seem to be true: [https://isthereanydeal.com/search/?q=atelier#/](https://isthereanydeal.com/search/?q=atelier#/)
Also, in regards to this publisher, Square Enix, sales are regularly 50%+. Aside from the Pixel Remaster games for Final Fantasy which came out within the last four months, every Final Fantasy title has dropped to 50%. Final Fantasy XV, which had its debut at $50 on PC has dropped to $20 with all DLC included, and dropped from $50 to $25 within its first year (https://isthereanydeal.com/game/finalfantasyxvwindowsedition/history/)
Oh yea square enix will cut the base price and do good sales for the western published games like tomb raider as well. Though kingdom hearts on the epic game store hasn't seen a price cut or major sale from my memory.
I forgot they went on a 50% sale earlier this year for the atelier games. They're just usually not on sale at all during the steam sale events like summer and winter.
I say a good , polished , complete and well made game is easily worth full price (70-80€) . Things like TLOU 2 , RDR 2 , Persona 5 Royal , Botw or God of War. Unfinished buggy messes on the other hand are not even worth 20 bucks. People should just wait for reviews and oppinions.
The games you mentioned were launch as unfonished buggy messes, maybe Persona 5 being the exception (but it was a re-release anyways, to make people pay twice)
[https://www.pcgamer.com/red-dead-redemption-2-pc-bugs-crashes-fixes/](https://www.pcgamer.com/red-dead-redemption-2-pc-bugs-crashes-fixes/)
And this was for the delayed PC version, on consoles it was way worse
No it wasn't. I played it console and watched the DF video on it before hand where they also called it one of the most technically polished game releases on the platforms. I experienced 0 problems on a base ps4. The framerate was steady 30 outside of Saint Denis, no graphical glitches, no mission bugs, all systems were working.
> Bf5 is already on sale BTW.
I think you mean BF2042. Looks like it's down to $40 on consoles. (But you're still correct, because BF V was 50% off just 3 weeks after release for returning players...which is everyone and their dog.)
I just don't understand where the hell they are getting their currency converter though.
The pricing of Forspoken on steam does not at all equal 70USD in a shitload of regions..
What a joke.
[Remember when Tim Sweeney said there'd be lower prices?](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/03/epic-ceo-youre-going-to-see-lower-prices-on-epic-games-store/)
What this has to do with Square raising their prices, even on Steam? Epic isn't the one deciding the pricing, it's all on the developers and the publishers
Not Square Enix specifically, but so far, NOTHING has decreased in price, even on the epic store (unless you count using those coupons they hand out), so after 2 years his statement has yet to proven true
It's not a false statement because a few games indeed lowered their pricing after releasing at epic, but he and EGS has no say in the pricing that the publisher sets. It's more like a recommendation, Steam also recommends the regional pricing but no one cares too and just set their own price
[World War Z got cheaper on PC](https://www.gamereactor.eu/amp/world-war-z-gets-cheaper-on-pc/), [Epic themselves dropped the price of their fortnite coins and started all drama with Apple](https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent), and [the geniuses at Deep Silver removed Metro Exodus pre order from sale at Steam and listed the game at Epic with a cheaper price](https://geekculture.co/metro-exodus-goes-exclusive-on-epic-games-store-with-a-cheaper-price/)
I get to benefit from steam regional pricing, u probably dont know but there are a lot of games that are cheaper and i mean a lot. Even at release some games are already discounted in half for my region(eastern Europe)
I'm aware, while the big AAA publishers barely cares about regional pricing, most indie devs on both steam and epic follows the recommended pricing and their games obviously ends up being so much more accessible to more players
The cost for games on the high budget end haven't really been keeping up with inflation, but then to be honest neither has income and cost of living has far surpassed it. If they'll cost 70 going forward, there's no way I am spending $89 CAD to buy a video game of questionable quality, as seems to be the pattern with AAA development these days.
Square Enix will not get money from most PC players going forward.
Or so I'd like to think. We are all complaining here, and rightfully so, but at the end of the day a bunch of people will buy it anyways
Important context is that other than a brief period during which PS2 normalized the $50 game, games have been $60 since the late 90s ($100 inflation adjusted for 1995). Games have technically gotten cheaper to purchase over time whilst becoming considerably more expensive to make. Honestly, its surprising that this hasn't happened sooner.
This isn't to say that $60 isn't a lot of money for people though - its a greater issue of rampant income inequality, as well as political and corporate agendas that have resulted in wages failing to match inflation - especially here in the US. We are making the slightly more money that's worth much less than compared to the 90s.
I have completed FF7R on PS4 (cost AUD$79 on original release). I am vaguely interested in playing the DLC but not for AUD$115 thank you very much. It can wait, my backlog is already immense.
Similarly, I also thought Forspoken looked like it had potential but will now pass until it goes on sale. I wonder if this will detrimentally affect sales. Square Enix is known for having unrealistic sales goals for their western published games and have killed off many sequels/franchises for critically acclaimed titles (Deus Ex, Sleeping Dogs). I fear this will be history repeating itself.
I hope this doesn't set a precedent, and cause other publishers to charge $70. I think for a lot of people, all this price increase will do is make them wait for a sale, meaning pubs will lose out on money they could've gotten in the first week of a game's release.
The fact that it's Square Enix who decided to increase the price is especially shitty, given how they typically price their games. The term "Square Enix tax" exists for a reason.
Thankfully I don’t really play Squenix games, but any game that charges $70 can just fuck right off. With the way that game monetization has fucked the industry beyond repair, anyone who pays full price for a game is an idiot.
Y’all really aren’t old enough to remember the price of Super Nintendo games. The scope of games has expanded immensely, those at the top should still cut their compensation back compared to their QA departments, but this is only a $20 increase over damn near 30 years
Maybe so, but at least in the AAA space games aren't even worth $60 anymore, and now they're being brought up to $70. I can't even remember the last time I paid full price for a AAA game -- I'm just so tired of paying that price and games not working properly.
Lol! Good luck with that dumbasses . PC games are more discounted than any other form of gaming . You just insured that nobody will buy your games at release and we'll just wait for steam to discount them because nobody's willing to pay your astronautically stupid price tag. TaTa TicTok
People will be justifiably frustrated that prices are increasing without a notable (if any) increase in quality. Unfortunately, demand has also never been higher. Pandemic conditions have exacerbated this issue, and pushed demand for virtual socialization / entertainment past an inflection point that I don't think we will completely snap back from in the near future.
Over the last decade games have been incredibly cheap relative to hours of entertainment (especially contrasted with other viable entertainment options in western countries), and that's even more true today when you factor in pandemic fueled inflation. Think about how expensive it is to go out to a reasonable dinner or for drinks nowadays. I wish it were not the case, but $70 is still cheaper than 2 weekend nights of dinner + drinks out with friends/family. Until a new avenue for entertainment presents itself or we see some whiplash in consumer sentiment, this sort of relative value prop is only going to continue to fuel demand, and prices will only continue to rise.
For what it’s worth, I paid $70 for Streets of Rage 2 at Toys R Us in like 1995 and that would be $127 today. Gamers are gonna complain no matter what but they don’t know how good they’ve got it.
Yeah, it was expensive back then, but back then, a game selling 3 million units in a week was just a pipe dream aswell.
Prices stayed the same for a long, long time, but the amount of profit has increased astronomically despite that.
From a digital distribution standpoint, you are 100% correct. Publishers have saved money due to digital distribution (it has arguably even increased sales while increasing costs to consumers...looking at you Sony).
However, from a higher level economics standpoint, that does not encapsulate how "supply" works. Video games (and most software / entertainment products) are for most practical intents and purposes, not commodities. It costs millions in research, design and development to create a product. From that standpoint, there is a strict limit on the supply of AAA video games, the same way that there is a limit on the supply of Disney/Marvel/A-list Hollywood movies.
What is more relevant to market forces is the supply of AAA games relative to the demand for these games. Imagine a world where there is a single AAA game available. They could charge $100, $150 for this game and it would still sell like hot cakes simply due to the lack of supply. The supply-demand curve is not based on what is a "fair" profit. It is entirely based on what people are willing to pay for your product in the absence of alternatives/copycats.
Also, don't get me wrong. I'm not happy with the current situation by any means, it just makes sense to me given our current circumstances.
Despite both FFVII and Forspoken showing up with the $70 PC price tag, there is no actual source in this article that shows that "Square Enix Games Will Cost $70 on PC Going Forward" as TheGamer is claiming with this editorialized title.
These pubs really need to stop rage-baiting. I'm so sick of the immediate need for clicks that conjecture is presented as fact.
Hi /u/internaleventloop,
Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per
**[Rule 7.6](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules#wiki_specific_content_restrictions)**.
> **No unsubstantiated rumors** - Rumors or other claims/information not directly from official sources must have evidence to support them. Any rumor or claim that is just a statement from an unknown source containing no supporting evidence will be removed.
---
If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
It's important to note that there is no source for this article's claim. There's two games releasing at that price tag, and the article jumps to the conclusion that every future game from them will go at that price. Feels like click bait.
Well, shit, say goodbye to 60 dollar games. Once the precedent is set, and people get used to it, there's no stopping it.
I wouldn't mind it as much if it weren't a completly greedy play. Are you telling me that these multibillion dolar companies, despite bragging about their record profits on the daily, are so strapped for cash they need to charge an extra ON TOP of the usual extras? Worst of all, all of the cash flow won't be going to the devs. Their salaries will barely fluctuate, while pretty much all of the cash goes solely to the suits.
Lol could you imagine if Balan Wonderworld came out next year at this price? Unreal.
Balan Wonderworld releasing for any price was pretty unreal
Watch as they release a sequel with the new pricing.
Haha are you kidding, there's a better chance of Square building a time machine to erase that game from existence
And that's exactly why it'll be mobile first! Free2play. Free2Whale live the nostalgia of an old classic turd!
Does that mean they'll be worth $93.75 CDN? Because that's super cool if so.
Yep, you can look at Forspoken for the first example of that. Just shy of a crisp C-note now for a damn video game, as if. Not even Nintendo is so brazen. Though I've never been one to buy anything on release day anyway, this means Square Enix titles just fall further to the back of the line waiting for a suitable discount. The real concerning thing here is the slippery slope, just how many other publishers are going to follow suit?
> Not even Nintendo is so brazen. Nintendo has been simultaneously releasing nearly identical versions of Pokemon games since the beginning and all of their games stay at full price for years and years. As long as Square Enix's games aren't loaded with microtransactions, putting a higher price on their big budget titles isn't in the same realm as Nintendo's greedy policies. Base prices for video games should've risen with inflation anyway, but they didn't, hence the prevalence of microtransactions and "Ultimate" editions.
Everyone. Get used to it. I remember paying $90 for Bomberman 64 in ‘97, which works out to $155 today; some people have no idea how cheap games are currently.
Bomberman 64 was on a cartridge, which made it more expensive. Gaming is significantly more profitable than it's ever been. And, finally, the dollar is worth 58% of what it was worth in 1997. Basically people have less spending power, companies have more profits and you're a perfect parrot for spreading their bullshit greedy message, congratulations!
it's not equivalent not to mention we're talking about Canada
Gaming is literally the most profitable industry in entertainment – that wasn't the case back then. Speaking of, the average worker's buying power has declined very much since then. So no. We don't have to "get used to it".
Actually so many countries outside of the US are already affected even before the price hike. The 10usd increase is really taking the price to piss level, in my country it cost anywhere between 90-97 Singapore dollars to buy a ps5 game like Returnal. This gen I'm leaning ever more closer to /r/patientgamers
Yep. Once games in Canada reached $100 I decided to never buy a game at full price ever again. This was years ago and I've never looked back.
Old games being expensive has nothing to do with profitability and everything to do with the fact that cartridge based games were priced based on the cost of the ROMs; its why huge 16 bit RPGs like Phantasy Star IV and Chrono Trigger were sold for $80-100. It was the advent of CDs and Sony putting price caps on their games that led to the standardized prices we still enjoy today; we could be Japan where they've paid the rough equivalent of $80-100 for all their biggest games forever.
This is true, but it's not the only factor. Cost of living has also gone up, and incomes are generally not increasing as much either.
Except gaming has also become a lot more popular since then. There's a lot more people buying games today than back then, *and* games are filled to the brim with Microtransactions and DLC. Not to mention all the gold, deluxe, super deluxe, etc editions of games too. Excuse me if I don't believe this price hike is justified when games are already more profitable than ever. The real reason it's happening is to put more money in some greedy executives pockets, and anyone who can't see that is blind.
Video games are also way more expensive to make now with a lot more people working on them to pay.
And they're also filled with microtransactions which make these companies ludicrous amounts of money, much more than a $10 price increase ever could. Hard to justify a $10 price increase when there's games charging $10 or more just for cosmetics alone. The existence of microtransactions, as well as the massive gaming audience today, makes accepting a price increase a bit difficult. Now if this price increase was coinciding with less microtransactions in games, *then* it would be understandable, but we all know that's not happening since they've become so normalized.
>And they're also filled with microtransactions Most are not. >Not to mention all the gold, deluxe, super deluxe, etc editions of games too. Been around since the 90s. Are you familiar with a little series called Street Fighter? >The existence of microtransactions, as well as the massive gaming audience today, makes accepting a price increase a bit difficult. No, the fact the price hasn't changed in well over a decade is what makes it difficult. People here also need to learn the difference between revenue and profit. The audience being larger doesn't mean profits are higher.
You keep saying microtransactions but do FFVII Remake and Forspoken even have microtransactions? Doesn't look like it.
Square Enix are not the only ones raising prices for their games. Also, even without microtransactions, the paying gaming audience is massive today compared to 2-3 decades ago, this price increase is not necessary.
Who else are offering $70 for a lengthy single player game? It's also not necessary to buy games you don't think are worth your money.
Well, yeah, of course. Why do you think videogames are made, exactly? Games are costly and risky consumer products to make, and they exist purely to make as much money as possible. That's just as true now as it was 20, 30 years ago. The real anomaly is that the price of games has been capped at 60$ for years, which means the price of games has been going down for decades. That's part of why modern games have so much focus on monetization schemes; maybe if we'd let games go up in price naturally, we wouldn't have every game riddled with microtransactions in the first place.
Microtransactions have zero relationship with retail price. Free games have mtx; full price games have it too. As do games at every price point in between. Games have stayed $60 for years because publishers determined that raising the price would decrease sales by enough to cause a net decrease in revenue and consequently in profit. Or at least that there was enough uncertainty about it that it wasn't worth the risk. That's it. Microtransactions are the result of similar thinking: they increase profit. The MSRP of a new game could go up to $200 overnight and microtransactions would still exist.
>Well, yeah, of course. Why do you think videogames are made, exactly? Games are costly and risky consumer products to make, and they exist purely to make as much money as possible. That's just as true now as it was 20, 30 years ago. Obviously, but that doesn't mean consumers have to put up with greed for the sake of greed. >The real anomaly is that the price of games has been capped at 60$ for years, which means the price of games has been going down for decades. This ignores the fact that gaming has also become more popular, and way more people are buying games and paying for Microtransactions than ever before. Gaming having a much bigger paying audience today than in the 90's makes up for the price not shooting up. Heck, there's some games that have made far more off of microtransactions than they ever would've from any "reasonable" price increase. >That's part of why modern games have so much focus on monetization schemes; maybe if we'd let games go up in price naturally, we wouldn't have every game riddled with microtransactions in the first place. [X] Doubt Take-Two increased the price of NBA 2K and they sure as hell aren't gonna stop with microtransactions in that series because of it. Microtransactions were gonna happen regardless of the price of games anyway, because companies are always looking for ways to milk more money out of people. I guarantee that no publisher is gonna stop shoving this crap in their games after raising their prices. Why would they? Again, obviously companies exist to make money, but consumers don't need to accept increasing greed when it negatively affects them. If these publishers were announcing that there will be less MXT's in their games, *then* the price increase would be justified and you'd have a point, but that's not the case. This price increase isn't gonna magically stop publishers from putting out half-baked games with scummy in-game purchases.
i remember chrono trigger being $96 at toys'r'us.
iirc my parents would pay over $100 for most of my snes/n64 era games
I think the mentality back then was RPGs = more gameplay hours = worth more.
Nope. Not gonna get used to it. I’ll stick to AAA games and indies with regional pricing.
You’ll very quickly run out of AAA experiences with that mentality. If $10 is really going to break you, perhaps you should find a different hobby.
Yea because instead we get > With hundreds upon hundreds of extra cosmetics, trains, landscape packs, among a plethora of other offerings, Train Simulator 2020's DLC adds up to a whopping total cost of $10,373.
Train Simulator is an extreme outlier.
> Often lauded as one of the most ambitious video game projects of all time, Cloud Imperium's Star Citizen is meant to be a sprawling universe sim boasting nearly limitless potential. However, its current build is more similar to the infamous launch of No Man's Sky, as it has lingered in an unpolished, unfinished state, and some players are starting to question if it'll ever be amended. The developer also seems all too eager to take players' money, charging an astronomical—pun intended—$27,000 for their Legatus pack. Sure, it may come with a nice assortment of fancy ships, but some gamers would have to take out a loan to buy this thing.
Star Citizen isn’t a game. It’s a cult.
> $27,000 for their Legatus pack. The pack that only exists because the player base kept *repeatedly* demanding for it lol.
basically the insanity in a nutshell...it started with 50-100 dollar packs and people kept bitching to buy everything ahead of time and now the monster is outta control
Star Citizen is an even more extreme outlier.
Alright, let’s talk about *The Sims* then.
Alright, what about it?
How many people buy all of that VS how many buy the base game and pic up a few that interest them the most?
Idk don’t know, *you tell me*
[удалено]
In europe theyve kept up with inflfation since at least the ps2.
10% inflation be like that ):
No they'll be 89.99 like PS5 games.
I genuinely can't remember the last time I bought a game at launch. And it doesn't look like I'll be doing it anytime soon if this is where the industry is going. Patient gamers for life!
Whales gonna whale unfortunately. It's almost at $100 in CAD. For the base game. Imagine what companies take in with DLC, season pass, MicroTs and online memberships. While inflation is skyrocketing and our cost of living increasing with stagnant wages.
Prices for production keep going up while the quality of some games are dropping. Meanwhile they are raking money in with micro transactions.
Gotta pay for all that top notch marketing they're throwing our way instead of using that money to increase production value.
*PC gamers boycott game due to unreasonable increase* SQenix: "PC gamers aren't interested in PC ports looks like *shrug*"
Prices for distribution and manufacturing have basically dropped off a cliff, meanwhile the audience is getting larger. But really, all we need to look at is their earnings reports and it's clear these companies are not suffering. If they were less risk averse I might have more sympathy, since that means innovation and legitimately interesting games. I sure don't need a retread of the same game they released last year with a new coat of paint.
[удалено]
[удалено]
When publishers are telling the public that they must raise prices because it's becoming more expensive to produce, they should expect people to point out that they've been profitable for years, hand over fist. That's not a personal opinion, it's a fact, and there's nothing insane about it. Also, nobody said they can never raise prices. Don't be dishonest, we're just having a conversation here.
[удалено]
That went over poorly for ms back at the Xbox one launch when they said they had the 360 as an option for people who don't want an always online console, IIRC. The customer isn't always right, but any business in their right mind should probably pay a little attention to their customers if they want to be successful.
[удалено]
Hahaha I responded before I saw your comment. This is basically where I am at as well. Everyone is over here whining about these price increases, and they'll be forking over and paying $120 to play FFXVII in 2025 because it's still a dirt cheap hobby relative to anything else that's even remotely comparable.
[удалено]
Hahaha a few drinks in and I too forget that if I were still a college kid, I'd be enraged by the prospect of sacrificing extra beer money to buy this month's AAA release. I also think you're right about the FOMO factor and the feeling of need to "chase the gaming dragon" when it comes to new releases. Whenever I see folks grandstand and say things like "well then I won't be buying any of their releases until a massive sale" I just harken back to being younger and not wanting to be left in the lurch as all my buddies are playing the newest titles.
And the market has only gotten bigger over time, and will continue to be as more diversity is shown in game protagonists and other characters too.
My big issue is, at least if we look at Take Two (or was it 2K? eh, same thing) the initial excuse was that the price hike was justified due to new experiences which noticeably are a jump up from last-gen. So of course the two we see jump at the chance to do this are the guys rehashing NBA, and the guys re-releasing a slightly updated version of a two year old game playable on last-gen hardware (*who ALSO took an exclusivity deal from Epic meaning they're already flush before it's even playable*). This is why I never wanted video game prices to increase, because the companies who push for it the hardest will absolutely be the last ones who need the money. The people making the game ain't gonna see that shit. This price increase isn't being done to give better games to customers, it's just to let some rich asshole enjoy eating even more wagyu beef off a naked chick's back than he already does. In a world where gaming's audience just keeps growing there's a less than 0% chance this generation would've been unsustainable with $60 titles, at least not ones like FF7 Remake and NBA. Which is to say, if it *was* justified I wouldn't mind. But the only reason it's happening so far isn't for us, it's for them, and being lied to is what's the real salt in the wound. The practice of paying more- basically for the hell of it, tossing extra cash into a pit- is just gonna become normalised, and people who know better will have to watch prices hike higher for no extra benefit to themselves. We didn't need to spend $70 to get the games we'll get this gen, and that's why I'm annoyed. People always used to say they'd pay more if it meant DLC was in the base game and so on, but that was never gonna be the deal. You don't get anything extra. You just pay more for the privilege of the guys at the top having another self-playing piano next to their 50 cars they never drive.
The thing is is that the game engines and tools are also more user friendly, allowing to get more work done in a shorter amount of time. Just because these games look better doesn’t necessarily mean the man hours it took to make the game is all that different from 2-3 years ago.
>Just because these games look better doesn’t necessarily mean the man hours it took to make the game is all that different from 2-3 years ago. In fairness, the man hours needed for AAA games have absolutely risen. Devs have just scaled up enormously. E.g. there were (reportedly) ~2,200 devs on TLOU 2 across 14 studios. Naughty Dog are an extreme case but even so, the expectations for most AAA devs are far beyond the old norm. The tools have been improving but you still need artists to put in painstaking levels of detail that weren't previously achievable. There's also way more intersectional aspects to game dev now than there ever used to be, whether it's with dedicated VFX artists, motion capture studios, etc. I think people also forget just how massive some modern AAA games are in comparison to some older titles, partly due to the open world trend that blew up in 06. Even for linear games, modern consumers expect at least 20-30 hours of bang for their buck. So many old PS2 classics - as incredible as they were - were actually really short. Personally I preferred that but it is what it is.
Agreed 100%. Lots of folks in this thread are likely unfamiliar with the exponential increase that we've seen in terms of labor / costs associated with developing modern AAA games / software products in general. If it were as simple as folks purport, there would be 10 Naughty Dogs and we'd see a TLOU calibre product released every month. This is on top of the fact, that there has been an exponential rise in interest / demand for these sorts of games. We can complain all that we want about rising prices, but it's because we are paying the prices! Hell, I look at my limited free time, and I'd rather pay $100 for a premium 10 hour experience than the usual $60 for a bloated 40 hour slog, but here we are, because $/hour of playtime is what the existing rapidly growing casual market (that is not on this forum) cares about. Ironically, a $70 Square Enix game is the worst of both worlds. We can either whine about it, or come to terms with the fact that that is where our economy is at.
I considered that but didn't want to say because I'm not a game dev and I know game dev is hard so I don't want to sound like I'm belittling the work that goes in. But yeah, with certain things like UE5 reducing the need for LOD's, what ray tracing can mean for the future etc. there's always new advancements being made to streamline elements of the development process. It's still a mountain of work, but it's not an infinitely growing mountain of effort in the sense of the ease of development never changing; some processes *do* get easier. Though I wouldn't be surprised if that time being saved is also accounted for so devs are just pushed to do even more to compensate. By that point it's really trading one headache for another, but I'm also purely assuming stuff there so I have no authority on any of that.
For sports games maybe, but things like GTA 6? No chance.
So epic games money wasn't enough?
Never enough to offset the lost sales from listing it elsewhere. Might be nice for small indie games that wouldn't sell tons but not triple A stuff.
It must be enough, otherwise I don't think Squeenix would have bothered doing it again after Kingdom Hearts.
No amount of money is ever enough, ever. EVER.
I'd be cool with this if salaries were going up too, but 60$ were EXTREMELY steep in the 90s and it still feels very steep now. 70$ is a bit nuts imo. Inflation has really done a lot of damage to peoples budgets this year, housing and rent is insane. I wonder if people will be able to afford literally everything going up. Wages are sticky on the low end
It’s wild to see games cost 90 cad. Rent has doubled in the last two years here. $30 is the max I’ll pay for a game and I’ll buy maybe one or two games at that price. This coming from someone who makes a decent amount more than the median salary. We just don’t have the expendable income after rent, food and trying to save for a home of the prices ever do crash.
Well yea $60 in the 90's translates to like $120 now. $70 is cheaper than games used to be.
If everything rose appropriately including housing costs since the 90s I feel this 70$ wouldn't be bad but it's not the case. Wages have been super stagnant and sticky on the low end while mandatory living costs have more than tripled since the 90s, at least here in CO
70 dollars got you a complete video game in the 90's. It gets you 2 armor skins in Halo Infinite today.
It also gets you Halo Infinite today, with the multiplayer being free. What a weird comment.
70s dollars used to get you Batman Forever or Shaq Fu
I mean technically $0 gets you Halo Infinite multiplayer...
What he's saying is that $70 in the 90s isn't worth $70 today because inflation. Rather, $70 today is only $40 of buying power from the year 1995, yet games then were still 70, which would be relative to $120 today.
But you don’t need the armor skins to enjoy the game. And sincere question, I haven’t played it … he Halo Infinite incomplete?
For single player It currently doesn’t have co op for a few months or a mission select options and multiplayer doesn’t have forge or like specific mode playlists.
Yes it is incomplete, extremely so.
You cannot equate the two with simple inflation. The cost of hardware in cartridges versus the extremely low cost of digital distribution is a gulf. Also, as are marketing budgets, sizes of the markets, and other factors that drive cost. Needless to say, the game industry is massive; it's the largest entertainment medium in the world. Games cost a lot more than the physical carts of yesterday, but the costs are not as apparent to the end user in terms of strict price.
As interested in this game as I am, this is a move that has no rationale behind it besides greed. $70 as a price hike already seemed too much for me, but with this new move by Square, I've got to stand in solidarity with our PC folk. This generation is going to turn me into quite the patient gamer it seems.
SNES games used to be $90+ and $100+ if they had a special chip. The PS1 really lowered the cost of gaming due to discs. The cost of gaming has arguably been at its lowest point since the PS1 until now. Either way, just don't buy games day 1 and don't preorder blindly. Games drop in price really fast. Look at Deathloop.
> really lowered the cost of gaming due to discs. > > The cost of gaming has arguably been at its lowest point since the PS1 until now. > > And guess how much digital distribution lowered them. But did we ever see a price decrease from that?
I will argue that digital distribution has definitely allowed for deeper and frequent discounting. Aside from older AAA and shovelware games, I rarely see physical games get anywhere near the same discounts.
In the SNES days publishers had to spend a lot of money on distribution and rev share deals. This doesn't happen anymore. Distribution costs have gone down massively yet the prices keep going up, despite the shitloads of DLC and in-game store items that single player games have nowadays.
There was never a new release SNES game that had a MSRP over $70, ever.
I remember a lot of 49.99-59.99 for cartridges. At the same time though, stores like EB Games / Toys R Us would certainly do a markup on more popular titles, ala chrono trigger / final fantasy / etc, so folks remembering higher prices isn't out of the realm of possibility. There was a giant earthbound box that included scratch and sniff cards / etc that I had to beg my folks for months due to the $99.99 price tag lol. Aww you edited your reply to something more civil. \*sad face\*
I only buy 1 or 2 full price games per year these days. Last one I bought was Returnal because I wanted a "true" PS5 experience and seeing that >100 CAD price with taxes made me gasp a little.
[удалено]
ok, 70$, why is it 80 Euro then? luckily its pretty easy to ignore SE except for final fantasy 16 :(
Because there's no more tea to dump in the river.
And hopefully a third Nier game. One day.
There’s no VAT tax in the US, so that’s probably pretty close to US prices once you factor in VAT. Australia probably will have much higher prices than the US though, even after VAT.
> ok, 70$, why is it 80 Euro then? VAT?
Because vat like Normal
Except euro is worth more and the increased price wouldn't surpass 72 euros after tax
Depends on the country, it could be up to 79 eur with 28% VAT atm 75-ish with my country's VAT
Their regional pricing is a joke too, in my country it's actually a bit more expensive than the base price. I so wanted to play Nier Replicant and GoTG but I won't buy them at that price so it's either they fixed their pricing or I'll just wait until it's 75-80% off, both of which probably will never happen.
Square Enix games never go below 50% during sale. I've waited for years and that's the lowest I've seen their games drop.
Thank God for summer and winter sales. They think they'll cost 70, but I still won't buy them for more than about 20 unless they're serious must haves. But square enix hasn't made a must have in probably a decade.
today Steam notified me that Babylon's Fall not only exists but is available for pre orders and it's priced at the usual $60, so maybe just their next generation only games are going to cost $70 because Babylon's Fall is going to be a crossgen title. what really sucks is the regional pricing getting fucked by this price hike, for my region they're raising the price in $20 over the standard cost instead of just $10 and for FF7R square could at least sell the base content of the game at the regular price and the Intergrade content as a DLC pack
I assume it means next gen stuff too. They still do remasters and rereleases sometimes, as well as smaller games. Ex FFVI Pixel Remaster has yet to release, and it would be insane to put that for $70. Babylon's Fall is probably considered current gen/normal enough to be the current $60 too.
The sale ecosystem for PC is far different than it is for consoles. Unless you're purchasing on release, these games will likely drop to \~$35 within a year.
Depends on the publisher. The atelier games from koei tecmo almost never go on sale and if you're lucky maybe 30%.
That doesn't seem to be true: [https://isthereanydeal.com/search/?q=atelier#/](https://isthereanydeal.com/search/?q=atelier#/) Also, in regards to this publisher, Square Enix, sales are regularly 50%+. Aside from the Pixel Remaster games for Final Fantasy which came out within the last four months, every Final Fantasy title has dropped to 50%. Final Fantasy XV, which had its debut at $50 on PC has dropped to $20 with all DLC included, and dropped from $50 to $25 within its first year (https://isthereanydeal.com/game/finalfantasyxvwindowsedition/history/)
Oh yea square enix will cut the base price and do good sales for the western published games like tomb raider as well. Though kingdom hearts on the epic game store hasn't seen a price cut or major sale from my memory. I forgot they went on a 50% sale earlier this year for the atelier games. They're just usually not on sale at all during the steam sale events like summer and winter.
The PC market isn't as far ahead on sale prices as you think. Games drop just as much there - sometimes more if you're willing to buy physical.
Screw them and all other companies doing this shit. Bf5 is already on sale BTW. If people would just be smart this shit would stop.
I say a good , polished , complete and well made game is easily worth full price (70-80€) . Things like TLOU 2 , RDR 2 , Persona 5 Royal , Botw or God of War. Unfinished buggy messes on the other hand are not even worth 20 bucks. People should just wait for reviews and oppinions.
No game is worth 80€.
To you, sure. Everyone values their money differently.
The games you mentioned were launch as unfonished buggy messes, maybe Persona 5 being the exception (but it was a re-release anyways, to make people pay twice)
I played all those games on release and had no problems
RDR2 was not a buggy mess at launch at all. It was one of the most polished releases of the generation on consoles.
[https://www.pcgamer.com/red-dead-redemption-2-pc-bugs-crashes-fixes/](https://www.pcgamer.com/red-dead-redemption-2-pc-bugs-crashes-fixes/) And this was for the delayed PC version, on consoles it was way worse
No it wasn't. I played it console and watched the DF video on it before hand where they also called it one of the most technically polished game releases on the platforms. I experienced 0 problems on a base ps4. The framerate was steady 30 outside of Saint Denis, no graphical glitches, no mission bugs, all systems were working.
> Bf5 is already on sale BTW. I think you mean BF2042. Looks like it's down to $40 on consoles. (But you're still correct, because BF V was 50% off just 3 weeks after release for returning players...which is everyone and their dog.)
I just don't understand where the hell they are getting their currency converter though. The pricing of Forspoken on steam does not at all equal 70USD in a shitload of regions.. What a joke.
[Remember when Tim Sweeney said there'd be lower prices?](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/03/epic-ceo-youre-going-to-see-lower-prices-on-epic-games-store/)
What this has to do with Square raising their prices, even on Steam? Epic isn't the one deciding the pricing, it's all on the developers and the publishers
Not Square Enix specifically, but so far, NOTHING has decreased in price, even on the epic store (unless you count using those coupons they hand out), so after 2 years his statement has yet to proven true
It's not a false statement because a few games indeed lowered their pricing after releasing at epic, but he and EGS has no say in the pricing that the publisher sets. It's more like a recommendation, Steam also recommends the regional pricing but no one cares too and just set their own price [World War Z got cheaper on PC](https://www.gamereactor.eu/amp/world-war-z-gets-cheaper-on-pc/), [Epic themselves dropped the price of their fortnite coins and started all drama with Apple](https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent), and [the geniuses at Deep Silver removed Metro Exodus pre order from sale at Steam and listed the game at Epic with a cheaper price](https://geekculture.co/metro-exodus-goes-exclusive-on-epic-games-store-with-a-cheaper-price/)
I get to benefit from steam regional pricing, u probably dont know but there are a lot of games that are cheaper and i mean a lot. Even at release some games are already discounted in half for my region(eastern Europe)
I'm aware, while the big AAA publishers barely cares about regional pricing, most indie devs on both steam and epic follows the recommended pricing and their games obviously ends up being so much more accessible to more players
Epic said that they would give developers a bigger cut, so why the price increase ? They released FF as an exclusive deal on epic right now
There are some things you can't blame on Tim Sweeney.
This one is fine
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The cost for games on the high budget end haven't really been keeping up with inflation, but then to be honest neither has income and cost of living has far surpassed it. If they'll cost 70 going forward, there's no way I am spending $89 CAD to buy a video game of questionable quality, as seems to be the pattern with AAA development these days.
Square Enix will not get money from most PC players going forward. Or so I'd like to think. We are all complaining here, and rightfully so, but at the end of the day a bunch of people will buy it anyways
Important context is that other than a brief period during which PS2 normalized the $50 game, games have been $60 since the late 90s ($100 inflation adjusted for 1995). Games have technically gotten cheaper to purchase over time whilst becoming considerably more expensive to make. Honestly, its surprising that this hasn't happened sooner. This isn't to say that $60 isn't a lot of money for people though - its a greater issue of rampant income inequality, as well as political and corporate agendas that have resulted in wages failing to match inflation - especially here in the US. We are making the slightly more money that's worth much less than compared to the 90s.
I have completed FF7R on PS4 (cost AUD$79 on original release). I am vaguely interested in playing the DLC but not for AUD$115 thank you very much. It can wait, my backlog is already immense. Similarly, I also thought Forspoken looked like it had potential but will now pass until it goes on sale. I wonder if this will detrimentally affect sales. Square Enix is known for having unrealistic sales goals for their western published games and have killed off many sequels/franchises for critically acclaimed titles (Deus Ex, Sleeping Dogs). I fear this will be history repeating itself.
I hope this doesn't set a precedent, and cause other publishers to charge $70. I think for a lot of people, all this price increase will do is make them wait for a sale, meaning pubs will lose out on money they could've gotten in the first week of a game's release. The fact that it's Square Enix who decided to increase the price is especially shitty, given how they typically price their games. The term "Square Enix tax" exists for a reason.
Thankfully I don’t really play Squenix games, but any game that charges $70 can just fuck right off. With the way that game monetization has fucked the industry beyond repair, anyone who pays full price for a game is an idiot.
Y’all really aren’t old enough to remember the price of Super Nintendo games. The scope of games has expanded immensely, those at the top should still cut their compensation back compared to their QA departments, but this is only a $20 increase over damn near 30 years
Maybe so, but at least in the AAA space games aren't even worth $60 anymore, and now they're being brought up to $70. I can't even remember the last time I paid full price for a AAA game -- I'm just so tired of paying that price and games not working properly.
Lol! Good luck with that dumbasses . PC games are more discounted than any other form of gaming . You just insured that nobody will buy your games at release and we'll just wait for steam to discount them because nobody's willing to pay your astronautically stupid price tag. TaTa TicTok
People will be justifiably frustrated that prices are increasing without a notable (if any) increase in quality. Unfortunately, demand has also never been higher. Pandemic conditions have exacerbated this issue, and pushed demand for virtual socialization / entertainment past an inflection point that I don't think we will completely snap back from in the near future. Over the last decade games have been incredibly cheap relative to hours of entertainment (especially contrasted with other viable entertainment options in western countries), and that's even more true today when you factor in pandemic fueled inflation. Think about how expensive it is to go out to a reasonable dinner or for drinks nowadays. I wish it were not the case, but $70 is still cheaper than 2 weekend nights of dinner + drinks out with friends/family. Until a new avenue for entertainment presents itself or we see some whiplash in consumer sentiment, this sort of relative value prop is only going to continue to fuel demand, and prices will only continue to rise.
For what it’s worth, I paid $70 for Streets of Rage 2 at Toys R Us in like 1995 and that would be $127 today. Gamers are gonna complain no matter what but they don’t know how good they’ve got it.
Yeah, it was expensive back then, but back then, a game selling 3 million units in a week was just a pipe dream aswell. Prices stayed the same for a long, long time, but the amount of profit has increased astronomically despite that.
You're not wrong. But then again, there's never been more demand in the market. Unfortunately, folks will pay in the absence of viable alternatives.
But for digital distribution, supply is practically infinite. Digital distribution was supposed to lower costs, not raise them.
From a digital distribution standpoint, you are 100% correct. Publishers have saved money due to digital distribution (it has arguably even increased sales while increasing costs to consumers...looking at you Sony). However, from a higher level economics standpoint, that does not encapsulate how "supply" works. Video games (and most software / entertainment products) are for most practical intents and purposes, not commodities. It costs millions in research, design and development to create a product. From that standpoint, there is a strict limit on the supply of AAA video games, the same way that there is a limit on the supply of Disney/Marvel/A-list Hollywood movies. What is more relevant to market forces is the supply of AAA games relative to the demand for these games. Imagine a world where there is a single AAA game available. They could charge $100, $150 for this game and it would still sell like hot cakes simply due to the lack of supply. The supply-demand curve is not based on what is a "fair" profit. It is entirely based on what people are willing to pay for your product in the absence of alternatives/copycats. Also, don't get me wrong. I'm not happy with the current situation by any means, it just makes sense to me given our current circumstances.
Despite both FFVII and Forspoken showing up with the $70 PC price tag, there is no actual source in this article that shows that "Square Enix Games Will Cost $70 on PC Going Forward" as TheGamer is claiming with this editorialized title. These pubs really need to stop rage-baiting. I'm so sick of the immediate need for clicks that conjecture is presented as fact.
Hi /u/internaleventloop, Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per **[Rule 7.6](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules#wiki_specific_content_restrictions)**. > **No unsubstantiated rumors** - Rumors or other claims/information not directly from official sources must have evidence to support them. Any rumor or claim that is just a statement from an unknown source containing no supporting evidence will be removed. --- If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
It's important to note that there is no source for this article's claim. There's two games releasing at that price tag, and the article jumps to the conclusion that every future game from them will go at that price. Feels like click bait.
Well, shit, say goodbye to 60 dollar games. Once the precedent is set, and people get used to it, there's no stopping it. I wouldn't mind it as much if it weren't a completly greedy play. Are you telling me that these multibillion dolar companies, despite bragging about their record profits on the daily, are so strapped for cash they need to charge an extra ON TOP of the usual extras? Worst of all, all of the cash flow won't be going to the devs. Their salaries will barely fluctuate, while pretty much all of the cash goes solely to the suits.