If game prices in the U.S. were raised to $70 for a console game for the next generation of consoles, would you still buy the same quantity per year? Or would you stop buying them all together to protest?
This question would be based on almost all console games costing $70, not just a select few.
There is literally no justification for games to be $70. The manufacturing costs aren't even justified for $60 a pop. It's all a ploy about "piracy causing it" and "used game sales are the problem". By the way, I am NOT defending Gamestop. Regardless...no, it's not piracy. It's spending overinflated budgets on games that don't deserve overinflated budgets, trying to push out a game every 18 months rather than taking time to create a quality game that would be worth the full admission price, and throwing these huge press events when you could easily just show them the demo in a hotel room and say "yeah, that's the game". It's the video game industry forcing themselves into the mainstream because they want more money at every turn. That's understandable - it's business and that's how it works.
Nonetheless, when there are options like going digital or even reducing production costs by getting tax breaks in certain states...hell, even using a completely different type of packaging for the games that would require far less money to manufacture than the already small amount it costs to make a plastic disc...
Nah. I'd quit buying games new at $70 until they got their shit straight. I probably wouldn't even bother picking up the games used. Hell, there are PLENTY of PC games that show up on Steam and GOG for a solid $15 and $20 all the time that can keep me happy.
I think I might buy a little less, but with the prices as they are today I probably already pay around $75 on average where I live - I could probably import the games and get them a bit cheaper - but it still beats going into a store and buying games for around $100 when they are new.
I play some indie games and I spend about 10 or 20$ on them. I wouldn't spent that much money on a game unless it was portal and counter-strike .The last and most expensive game I bought was modern warfare 2. I think it's worth the money if you see yourself actually playing it years later. I still have cod4 and I still play it once and awhile and it costs 50$.
I pretty much never buy games at full price even now. I barely buy any games at all, and when I do, the vast majority is through Gamefly. All I bought last year was Skyrim, Battlefield 3, Dark Souls, and the Sly Collection...don't think I'm forgetting anything there. Technically, I did buy Battlefield 3 new, but I got it on black Friday for 30 bucks at Wal-Mart.
So, I guess my answer is that I would probably just do the same as I do now...even though the keep it price through Gamefly would be more than it is now.
If they increased the price of games then I would be forced to look for cheaper ways to play the games I care about. I would probably wait until a few months in when I can get a good price on a used copy, or go back to using gamefly. Now I probably buy about 7 or 8 new $60 games a year, if they were 70 I dont think I would buy more than 2 or 3. I really hope they don't do this.
I barely pay 60 for games as it is, unless it is from a company I really love (Starbreeze, Techland) but I know won't sell a ton or be popular.
Otherwise, stuff like the Call of Duty's or Halo's I won't pay for 60 bucks, since I'd rather support my favorite underdogs.
I already wait until games drop to below €20 before buying them except in some special cases. I would just have to wait longer. I still have plenty of games to play from this generation so I don't see myself buying a new console unless there is some game I really MUST have.
If I care enough about a game to pay 60 bucks for it on release, an extra 10 isn't gonna change that. However, I normally only buy 2-3 games a year at launch. I Gamefly most of my console games, and pick up most PC games when they go on steam sales a few months after launch.
I already have a hard time paying 60 dollars for a game. If they try to sell digital copies of games for 70 dollars next gen you can count me out.
If the gaming industry is suffering of anything, it's the 60 dollar price tag. When you factor in DLC as well, very few companies put out games that are truly worth that full price.
I almost never pay the full $60 for games anymore, and I would stop altogether if the standard price was raised to $70. There's no reason to when most of the games I want to play are price dropped almost immediately out of the gate. I usually pick them up half a year later for about a third of the original price.
I would be more hesitant of it. However I don't think this will happen. I think they will stay at 60 bucks and maybe, just maybe be cheaper. However, I think this would be due to much larger amounts of dlc being put out. Now that online on consoles is readily established, the amount of dlc will grow to a larger extent. So it will be like "Hey! look our game is 50 bucks.... also be ready for dlc content every month!. Obviously this is all my prediction but like I said, the rise of DLC is yet to come friends.
Also, another scenario is people wise up and do what Sony is doing with the Vita. Put out your digital content a bit cheaper so more people are inclined to buy there. I think that would be pretty cool.
If the industry unilaterally agrees to this, they're being idiots. It means more or less a 15% increase in Activision's stock because the same number of people are buying Call of Duty, while multiple smaller publishers end up having to go out of business because of the sudden drop in income from people buying their quirky non-established games. Also, with graphics more or less plateauing and it looking very likely that Sony is going to opt for "less horsepower, more profit (or less loss)" with the PS4, a lot of people won't be motivated to upgrade and will be satisfied with the literal THOUSANDS of available games right now.
Won't happen, but I'd buy less because I don't have a lot of moneys.
But at this point, we already have artists working with assets of a certain quality, then bringing them down to current gen console levels, so not much of an issue. There will not be the huge leap in effort from last gen to current gen.
I don't think i'll buy any less (provided that my job still gives me a semi-decent income that covers the bills and get a game every now and then), but 90% of the games I buy are after they get at least 50% discounted anyway so a price hike won't matter to me that much.
I would probably retreat even further into PC gaming, where few games have the balls to launch over $50, and even if they do, eff those games, I ain't payin' no $60 for a game that didn't have to deal with console licensing fees, manufacturing and shipping costs, and retailer markup.
So PC version of Max Payne 3, I won't be seeing you until the Steam Summer Sale, where I will relent and buy you at probably 25% off; if that discount doesn't happen because the game will be coming out about 5 weeks before the start of the sale, then Rockstar can eff right off, and I'll wait until whenever the discount does happen. And Diablo 3, I guess I will see you never, because you sure as hell aren't going to cost less than $60 any time soon.
I buy very few games at launch prices at their current level, unless it is something that I am really excited for, I'll wait for a deal to show up or for the inevitable drop in price. So if they were even more expensive I would just wait longer for the prices to drop.
Price isn't the limiting factor on how many games I buy and they're substantially cheaper in real terms than they were 10-15 years ago. Limiting factor for me is always either lack of free time or the lack of availability of games I'm interested in.
I'd take each case on its merits, but I'd happily accept an increase in game prices if it meant an end to the nickel & dime business model for instance, greater quality of niche titles, making 'dead' genres viable again etc. It doesn't really work like that though, and the only people that could get away with raising their prices are the companies that don't really 'need' to do it.
i would probably buy a slightly less amount, but that's only since right now i don't have a ton of responsibility's in terms of bills.
At the very least it would cause me to think twice about experimenting with weird crazy games that i may or may not like and make me stick to the more obvious bunch that suit my taste.
I don't see games increasing in cost first off, however I will be purchasing less of them in the first place at full retail cost as they drop way too quickly now. 2 weeks or 2 months after launch amazon has em for 40 bucks; i can playthrough and resell it used for 30. Why pay full?
I don't remember the last time there was a console only game I was excited for that I couldn't wait until I found it on the cheap. One of the benefits of hating to play games with controllers is that it takes a lot to get me excited for a console only game that I'm willing to put up with using a controller to play it. So the few times there is one I can always wait until it's dirt cheap to buy it. If these guys want my money then release it on PC at the same time and make sure it has proper KBM controls.
If they bump PC games to $70 as well though, I will probably be like everyone else and bitch and moan the entire time but keep buying them because the industry knows they have us over a barrel and that they can do/charge what they want and we will keep coming back. At the same time however, I would probably end up buying a few less games with that increase as the more games go up the more I will become willing to wait for a price drop. If they go above that price point again then I will just stop buying games new and wait for Steam to put them on sale for super cheap a year down the road. They are only shooting themselves in the foot when they raise the price point.