What makes a game worth $60?

 
Let's face it, the economy is a mess right now. Like many people, I've found myself out of work, and at a minimum this means that I've had to be selective in deciding which games to play or buy at any given time. I've been able to take advantage of trade-credit, sales, and other promotions. However, being intensely selective has really made me question whether or not any game is worth $60, especially when it is likely to drop in price or go on sale eventually. Since losing my job, I've only purchased a couple titles: Halo Reach and Starcraft 2. In both cases, these represent AAA titles with strong campaigns and mutliplayer. But I've never been one to sit back and only play one game every now and again.  
 
While this past summer didn't see much in the way of exciting retail titles, I can't say there haven't been some games I've wanted to play, but couldn't afford. To name a few off the top of my head: Crackdown 2, Singularity, and Dead Rising 2. Looking ahead in the next couple weeks, I'm sure I'll end up missing out on Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Fallout New Vegas, at least in the initial run. For all of these titles, it's not like I couldn't decide to spend the money for them (I still make some income as a musician and consultant), it's just that $60 now represents a lot of money, and more money than I'm willing to part with to "take a chance" on a particular game. So while I'd be willing to spend, say, $20 to play through Singularity, I'd never consider $60. In fact, the more I think about it, the more difficult it becomes to figure out any game worth the full price of admission.  
 
Ultimately, I'll probably pick up Call of Duty...if only to play games with my friends (who only play Call of Duty). It's likely that I'll also grab Fable III, if only because I love RPGs, and good ones are increasingly rare (Bioware can only do so much at a time, and "good" JRPGs have become almost extinct). But beyond that, nothing seems to merit a $60 price tag for me.  
 
I guess this leads to the larger question: what elements make a game worth $60? For me, it is probably a matter of quality, replayability, game length, etc. I can easily look at titles such as Mass Effect 2, Starcraft 2, or even Halo Reach and determine that they merit the cost. But for games, such as Enslaved, that may just be "good" but not great, I can't say that $60 seems fair. I suppose I've had a steady income  for the last 7 years, so this is a bit new to me.  
 
I'm not certain why the $60 price tag has become obligatory. Even this late in the current development cycle, lower prices at launch are rare. On that note, I can support the folks at Ignition, who released Deadly Premonition for $20, recognizing that nobody would buy it at full retail price (they certainly didn't in Japan). Given the increasing challenges in the economy, why aren't pricing structures adjusting to match reality? Think about it this way: games like G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, Terminator Salvation, and Rogue Warrior came out with a $60 price tag. It's ultimately a little mind boggling.

62 Comments
65 Comments
  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by SonicFire

 
Let's face it, the economy is a mess right now. Like many people, I've found myself out of work, and at a minimum this means that I've had to be selective in deciding which games to play or buy at any given time. I've been able to take advantage of trade-credit, sales, and other promotions. However, being intensely selective has really made me question whether or not any game is worth $60, especially when it is likely to drop in price or go on sale eventually. Since losing my job, I've only purchased a couple titles: Halo Reach and Starcraft 2. In both cases, these represent AAA titles with strong campaigns and mutliplayer. But I've never been one to sit back and only play one game every now and again.  
 
While this past summer didn't see much in the way of exciting retail titles, I can't say there haven't been some games I've wanted to play, but couldn't afford. To name a few off the top of my head: Crackdown 2, Singularity, and Dead Rising 2. Looking ahead in the next couple weeks, I'm sure I'll end up missing out on Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Fallout New Vegas, at least in the initial run. For all of these titles, it's not like I couldn't decide to spend the money for them (I still make some income as a musician and consultant), it's just that $60 now represents a lot of money, and more money than I'm willing to part with to "take a chance" on a particular game. So while I'd be willing to spend, say, $20 to play through Singularity, I'd never consider $60. In fact, the more I think about it, the more difficult it becomes to figure out any game worth the full price of admission.  
 
Ultimately, I'll probably pick up Call of Duty...if only to play games with my friends (who only play Call of Duty). It's likely that I'll also grab Fable III, if only because I love RPGs, and good ones are increasingly rare (Bioware can only do so much at a time, and "good" JRPGs have become almost extinct). But beyond that, nothing seems to merit a $60 price tag for me.  
 
I guess this leads to the larger question: what elements make a game worth $60? For me, it is probably a matter of quality, replayability, game length, etc. I can easily look at titles such as Mass Effect 2, Starcraft 2, or even Halo Reach and determine that they merit the cost. But for games, such as Enslaved, that may just be "good" but not great, I can't say that $60 seems fair. I suppose I've had a steady income  for the last 7 years, so this is a bit new to me.  
 
I'm not certain why the $60 price tag has become obligatory. Even this late in the current development cycle, lower prices at launch are rare. On that note, I can support the folks at Ignition, who released Deadly Premonition for $20, recognizing that nobody would buy it at full retail price (they certainly didn't in Japan). Given the increasing challenges in the economy, why aren't pricing structures adjusting to match reality? Think about it this way: games like G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, Terminator Salvation, and Rogue Warrior came out with a $60 price tag. It's ultimately a little mind boggling.

Posted by Junkerman
@SonicFire:   Keep an eye open for sales in different stores.  I know Walmart (yuck I'd rather die) has awesome sales for some games at launch.  I got Batman Arkham Assylum day 1 for only 37.95.  And I also suggest Steam if you are a PC gamer.  The sales they have are intense.  As for games that might not warrent the full pricetag, you can always rent them.  Its 6 bucks at the movie-store near my house to rent a game for 3 days.  Which for a game like say, Enslaved, was perfect. 
Posted by FluxWaveZ

Longevity, a good multiplayer aspect and perhaps replayability (although I rarely play through a game twice).  I rent the rest.

Edited by captain_clayman

i think there should be a tiered system for game pricing, definitely.   
 
-AAA games like halo, star craft, cod and stuff like that are worth $60 (50 would be better, since they always have 50 dollar gamestop gift cards and 60 dollar games.)
-Good single player games with no multiplayer (or not good multiplayer) should be like $30-40.  (like singularity, kane and lynch, enslaved) 
-Movie games should be 20, because they're fucking awful and everyone knows it. 
-Downloadable games should be 15 like they are now.  10 would be even better but i wont complain.  

for me, 60 dollar games should be games that i actually want to finish, sometimes more than once (uncharted is a good example) and good multiplayer is always a plus.

Posted by SumDeus

Fun

Posted by ReyGitano

I go off feeling. If I really want a game so much that I need to have it as soon as it's out, then it's worth $60. If not, I wait for the price to drop to around 20.

Posted by SonicFire
@Junkerman:
Oh, I always do. Believe me. I pay attention to Dealnews and CAG and other sources, because there are great deals. I guess my curiosity is that deals aside, which games are worth it? Thanks.
Posted by SonicFire
@captain_clayman:
Interesting ideas, but I'd like to think that developers and publishers have a good sense of how good their games might actually be. Although they all want their games to be runaway successes, for the most part, they have to know whether their games stack up to the top tier titles.
Posted by haggis

What I'd like in a $60 game is a solid fifteen-to-twenty hours of play that's good enough for me to want to play through at least twice. What we usually get are okay games with ten to fifteen hours of gameplay. So games like Mass Effect 2, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed 2, etc. all seem worth the money to me, but most other games simply don't. Since I don't care for multiplayer, it doesn't add any value to me, so paying $60 for Call of Duty games is just not an option.
 
@drag: I actually like the idea. Games with bigger budgets offering more gameplay should be able to charge more, and other games not aiming for quite as big a spectacle should be able to sell for less. What we have right now are developers pushing six hour games for $60 and sixty hour games for $60. Microsoft and Sony set prices, and devs have widely diverging ideas about what a game is worth. With some diversity in pricing, we'd get more diverse gaming experiences. Just look at XBLA games for a decent example. Once Microsoft opened up to the idea of larger downloadable games, we started seeing some real quality small games come out for five bucks, and decent larger games for more.

Posted by ebritt
@SonicFire: Just wait a while and they all come down in price eventually. In the inital waiting period you wont have many games, but once you are 6 months behind it will be the same constant stream just $20 or more cheaper. I recently picked up assassins creed 2 for £10 and loved it, definitely worth the money. It will be annoying not having the most up to date game but i would rather have 2 awesome 8 month year old games than 1 awesome now game, but its all down to preference. 
 
I do buy a few games, like halo and sc2 at launch, but to me it's not essential to enjoying the game. 
Posted by TheMustacheHero

Longevity.

Edited by Jimbo

To be honest with you, there are a lot of games which I would be prepared to accept a bump in price for, if it were the difference between those games being made or not.  In real terms, games are far cheaper today than they were 10 or 15 years ago, and that's really squeezed out any risk or variety in AAA gaming.  Top developers used to make a huge variety of games, but they don't anymore.
 
I agree with you that there should be more variety in game pricing - but I think it should go both ways.  A low budget game should be priced accordingly, but equally it should be acceptable to aim a game at a smaller audience and charge a higher price.  If I could pay $100 for something interesting with some real substance and a decent budget behind it, instead of $60 each for another two 'me too' shooters with 5 hour campaigns, then I would gladly do so, but nobody is making those games.  If you want to play something a bit different nowadays, you just have to accept that it will be probably be poorly made.

Posted by SonicFire
@ebritt: Ultimately, I completely agree with you. I just will be waiting for all the titles I mentioned. But I suppose I'm curious as to what's worth the full $60. Taking basic economics into account, a default $60 price tag ignores supply and demand. Many games are slow to adjust to demand as well, unless either the publisher drops price, or the retailer decides to take a loss. For lower profile titles, often prices do not adjust with any real haste.
Posted by Hamst3r

Awesomeness.
 
If I finish it thinking, "Damn, that was awesome!" it's worth it's price. I haven't encountered too many games that I would consider over-priced, they're usually under-priced.
 
It can be a 4 or 6 hour game - but as long as it feels like a complete game, that pulls me in to the world and actually goes somewhere interesting with the story, I'm satisfied.
 
I don't need replayability, I only play games once as I'm in it for the story and atmosphere.

Posted by haggis
@drag said:

" @haggis: There's very little correlation between a game's budget and the hours of game time it offers though."

Uh ... so what? If a game is only four hours long and makes gamers wet their pants, charge $60 for it. If it's got 200 hours of gameplay in it, charge $60. But if you want to make a five to six hour adventure game with a moderate budget, right now you can't make it. It won't sell at $60 and is too much for XBLA. You can't make a $30 game right now. Budget is only part of it. Games are so expensive to make because they've got to earn that $60. But why not only let them earn $30? Look what happened to Shadow Complex. It was supposed to be a full $60 game. They didn't have enough content. Instead, it went XBLA for, what, $10-15? It didn't make it's costs back, and now we won't likely see a sequel. And you know what? I think that sucks.
 
"Charging more for games that have had more money thrown at them is a really really really really just ... really bad idea."
 
Well, that's not really what I'm getting at. Budget is only part of it. Still, you need to offer more argument than, "really really really really" if you want to convince me.
Posted by PrivateIronTFU

Being fun. I don't care about length as long as it holds my interest the entire way through. 

Posted by Grilledcheez
@SumDeus said:
" Fun "
Edited by Spikester

A strong title, that contains a lot of replaybility and content to keep you coming back. 
 
Such examples from the titles that are released this year are: 

  • Red Dead Redemption
  • Battlefield: Bad Company 2
  • Halo: Reach
  • Super Mario Galaxy 2
  • Splinter Cell: Conviction (Despite what other say, I found this to be a rock solid entry to the series)
  • Mass Effect 2
  • Just Cause 2
  • StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
  • Civilization V
Posted by one_2nd

two words: replay value

Posted by HandsomeDead
@Jimbo said:
" To be honest with you, there are a lot of games which I would be prepared to accept a bump in price for, if it were the difference between those games being made or not.  In real terms, games are far cheaper today than they were 10 or 15 years ago, and that's really squeezed out any risk or variety in AAA gaming.  Top developers used to make a huge variety of games, but they don't anymore. I agree with you that there should be more variety in game pricing - but I think it should go both ways.  A low budget game should be priced accordingly, but equally it should be acceptable to aim a game at a smaller audience and charge a higher price.  If I could pay $100 for something interesting with some real substance and a decent budget behind it, instead of $60 each for another two 'me too' shooters with 5 hour campaigns, then I would gladly do so, but nobody is making those games.  If you want to play something a bit different nowadays, you just have to accept that it will be probably be poorly made. "
In the words of John Marston: 'Spot on.'
Posted by Lazyaza

Quality of the content and sheer fun factor is above and beyond what I consider most important when paying full price for a game.  Length and quantity is meaningless if its below average or just plain bad. 
I don't care for tacked on multiplayer for games that didn't need it at all, such a waste of time and resources that could have been used to improve or add content to single player.

Posted by Interfect
@Spikester: I think every dollar I spent on Just Cause 2 I got almost an  hour of fucking craziness out of it. And I paid 69.99 plus tax for it.
Posted by Spikester
@Interfect said:
" @Spikester: I think every dollar I spent on Just Cause 2 I got almost an  hour of fucking craziness out of it. And I paid 69.99 plus tax for it. "
It's exactly what I liked about the game. It's crazy, over-the-top, cheesy, chaotic goodness. There's so much to do, and so many ways to cause colossal mayhem.
Posted by Interfect
@Spikester said:
" @Interfect said:
" @Spikester: I think every dollar I spent on Just Cause 2 I got almost an  hour of fucking craziness out of it. And I paid 69.99 plus tax for it. "
It's exactly what I liked about the game. It's crazy, over-the-top, cheesy, chaotic goodness. There's so much to do, and so many ways to cause colossal mayhem. "
Though I think after about 68 hours of it. I think I'm about done. only 66.8 percent done though.
Posted by Johnny2900

Mainly how the amount of money is spread to the people selling the game: Developers, Publishers, Marketplaces, Advertising, and some other assets help determine whatthe price is.  It's not the length or how fun it is because if we look at reality, with every good game sold at full price, there is at least 5-10 mediocre-crappy games sold at full price.
Posted by luce

Replay value. 
 
RE 5 is not a terribly long game but I ended up playing it for around 60 hours because of the unlockables and co-op.
 
These days if a game doesn't have enough replay value, I'll end up getting it at a lower price later on.
 
Especially when the "awesomeness" of a game is so subjective. I learned the hard way with God of War 3

Posted by Enigma777

Games I paid $60 for this year:
 
Darksiders
White Knight Chronicles
Heavy Rain
Battlefield Bad Company 2
Final Fantasy 13 
God of War 3
Halo Reach
Castlevania Lords of Shadow
Black Ops
 
 
In retrospect, out of all of those, I don't think that WKC, HR or FF13 were worth $60. Maybe $40 and definitely $30, but not $60...

Posted by SonicFire
@Spikester:
Actually, I think I paid 60 for almost all of those, only regretting Just Cause 2 (just not my cup of tea), and definitely Splinter Cell conviction. I thought the latter was a good example of a game not worth its price tag, at least not to me.
Posted by Guided_By_Tigers

Strong online play.

Posted by Synthballs
@Hamst3r said:
" Awesomeness.  If I finish it thinking, "Damn, that was awesome!" it's worth it's price. I haven't encountered too many games that I would consider over-priced, they're usually under-priced. It can be a 4 or 6 hour game - but as long as it feels like a complete game, that pulls me in to the world and actually goes somewhere interesting with the story, I'm satisfied. I don't need replayability, I only play games once as I'm in it for the story and atmosphere. "
I got this with Shadow Complex, I finished it in 5 hours but It was the best 5 hours of my 360's life. (Although I'd probably play it again.)
Posted by odintal

i don't spend full price on games very often.  
i visit CAG quite often to keep up on the sales they track and buy used games through gamefly. they've always come to me in great condition and i know they have a box and manual.   
the next game i spend a full $60 on will probably be New Vegas. 

Posted by Halberdierv2

i preferred it last Generation when games were only worth $50.

Edited by Valkyr

What makes a game worth $60 is the quality of the time you spend with it, not the quantity, I prefer playing an amazing 8 hour game and never come back to it rather than buying a game with a shitty single player and a lot of 'replay value' wasting hours of my life with nonsensical multiplayer.

Posted by FancySoapsMan

A lasting impression. 
 
Even if a game takes me 6 hours to complete, if it's the kind of the game I'll be thinking about for days after beating, it will be worth the $60.
 
Unless it leaves a lasting impression for being bad.

Edited by crusader8463

I'm a PC gamer so I don't buy games at $70 like the console kids do, but instead get the same game for $40-$50. Personally what I look for is something I know I will play more then once like a KOTOR or a Dragon Age if it's single player, or something that has an interesting online-which is rare for me these days. 
 
I have such limited money to spend on games that I just can't justify buying a game at anything other then $10-$15 if it's going to be some throw away 10-15 hour game like a Bio-shock or God of War. Not that I like ether of those games anyway. If I'm buying a game at full price I want something like Civilization 5 or a Left 4 Dead that I know I will play for hours a day, months at a time and not get tired of it.

Edited by Vao

Another thing i would add on top of all the good answers so far is updating multiplayer after the release, Bungie, Blizzard, Dice are good examples. I like the servers to be regulated and glitch/exploits to be fixed rather then let run rampant. 

Posted by BaconGames

I'm a very unique case because I'm a PC gamer, frugal with my cash generally, and a patient bastard.  That means I'm willing to wait out a game to get cheaper and 9 times out of 10 it does.  Call of Duty is the only game franchise that I like that refuses to get cheaper and therefore they don't get my business. 
 
My answer is...nothing.  I refuse to pay for a full priced game if I know it could or will get cheaper.  Even if it's 20 bucks, knowing it will shift down in price at least somewhat is reason enough to wait.  Having a long list of games to play is also really convenient for a gamer like me.  As a kid I got used to not getting new games for many months, often years and now I have access to more games than I've ever had in my life because I can afford to wait.  The patience I acquired as a kid combined with having my own money has really given me the best of both worlds.
 
I also will never pay more than 50 dollars for a game.  There's something about going over the half-way point between 0 and 100 dollars that just makes my brain not work right.  I like the idea of buying two full priced games for 100 dollars.  Granted this was due to the fact that my primary introduction into gaming happened at the time when 50 dollars was the standard for the most part.
 
I don't think about what makes a game worth 60 dollars because economically a price for a product comes down to "is this product worth this price at this time given my present capital and logistical resources?"  You see, a price point is a unique value proposition for each person that considers it.  However standards emerge because we define trends due to cost/reward.  With that in mind I can't justify any game being worth the "full 60" unless I have way more money or that game is way more substantial.  
 
Steam sales as well as the more prevalent used game market for PC means I have the luxury of a greater price shifts for a certain game.   I know I can't keep up with every game that comes out each week to talk about each one.  Hell the GB crew have a hard time doing that.  Therefore I would much rather let each game pass me by and jump on the moment when its cheap enough or goes on sale often within a year of release.  Generally GOTY editions also come out for these same games and are great deals.  Actually a GOTY edition of a great game with all its worthy post-release content bundled in would be worth 60.
 
This whole discussion has made be grateful to be a PC gamer because of how fucking cheap I can buy my games.  I also love how much of a demonstration of basic suppy/demand economics this is.  If I don't want to buy it at that price, it either gets cheaper or they don't have me as a customer.  Knowing it will or will not be reduced in price raises or lowers my willingness to buy something at a higher price but there's also the gamble that I might not at all.  Either way it really promotes the idea that publishers should be the ones breathing life into its own game's longevity on the shelf with sales and price reductions instead of letting the used market or pirates do it.

Edited by Lawrens

A game I like so much that I'd play over and over, or at least some parts of it. It depends really, I would probably pay 60 dollars for team ico game day one, but they aren't the games that I'd spend a great deal of time on, but team ico games are the only games I buy that fits into the 8hrs long campaign that I don't replay, but I'm pretty sure I got them for 40 dollars last generation, so it was probably why I wasn't so picky.

This generation, I haven't gotten a game that lasted me less than 10hrs, unless you count the games that's on my backlog or games I think sucks dick that I don't want to return to, even then it seems like a lot of games drag on a lot this generation with copy and paste gameplay mechanics (copy and paste shallow mechanics that is, with absolutely no depth), but those are generally the type of games I will not buy, I just look at the developer's name and stay away from them, or just don't buy their sequels.

So I guess it really depend on the developers behind the game.

Posted by SonicFire
@Tuffgong:
Outstanding response man. Since I've become more of a PC gamer this year, I think I'm gravitating towards the same stance. I have a hard time being patient when it's a multiplayer game that my friends are all playing (i.e., Call of Duty). Apart from that, sales and deals are very important. Steam sales alone make it nearly impossible to justify spending full price for a game.
Posted by SonicFire
@FancySoapsMan: 
 
I'd agree, but it's almost impossible to gauge that before you buy it. For example, Bioshock left a lasting impression with me, but I'd have never predicted the game being so solid.
Posted by mau64

It's hard for me to spend full amount of games anymore which is why I always find ways of getting it cheaper maybe with sites offering discounts or trading around. It sucks but if you are hardcore and want multiple games to play then you cannot be spending so much money on them. Gamefly also helps.

Posted by MonkeyKing1969

A good experience that hasn't wasted my time is my bottomline.  Long or short does not matter what matters is 1) was what I saw/did compelling  2) was what I put into it rewarding.    I tend to like short games, but each hour of TES Oblivion was one I loved and will remember.  A great games does what it needs to to in the right amount of time, that could be five hours or in the case of Civ 5 it could be 5,000 hours.

Posted by Einherjan

The only games I buy for $60 are RPGs and  Strategy games because of their length and re-playability. I hated myself after buying Alan Wake because I really only wanted to play it once. There are obvious exceptions, though, like Bioshock because it's almost art.

Posted by SonicFire
@MonkeyKing1969:
Interesting point, and I'd agree. But is there any way to really know in advance whether the experience is going to be that good? In other words, is it only possible to buy it full price and hope for the best? As for me, I think that track record is important. For example, I'd have no problem buying a new Bioware game right now, but I'd be pretty cautious about diving head first into something from Team Ninja
Posted by JoelTGM

big budget

Posted by phantomzxro

Here the thing for me i find with game that are  worth $60 will largely be based on what type of gamer you are. Some people will be fine buying a 5 hours game if the story is great for $60. So it is a lot harder to tell which games are worth the money in a general standpoint. I will say that if a game does rock someone socks off then it would be worth it no matter what the build of the game is. We all have those games that blow us away for whatever reason, in which we will gladly drop $60 on. Beside from that i do think it comes done to the type of game and the Quality vs Length,  we all have this sweet spot of gameplay length we like in our games. For most of us you could say it will hit at about 10-20 hours. Then the game has to have quality to it or it will feel like a budget game.  So  you stick to your favorite genre and see which games hit your sweet spots of quality and length.   
 
Now the other point you made is another deal of it's own, games do drop in price pretty fast nowadays which i feel for the most part is to keep people buying the game.  There are some people who are just day one buyers (for the most part i am one) who will buy the game day one  not caring too much about deals or just can't wait to play the game. Then you have the people who will not buy the game and the inbetween people who wait for when it is cheap or are on the ropes about buying it, so having a deal on the game say a week later will get some of them to buy it then rather then much later. So in the end you as a person have to see if you can wait on a game for lets say a year or if it a game you need to play now.  I would also point out that yes you may have fewer full $60 retail games but the PSN and Xbox live does a great job of helping the wait with great Download games that are much cheap.

Posted by melcene

Whether fortunately, or unfortunately, inflation alone makes games worth $60.  Consider for example, that most games had remained in the $50 release price range throughout a large part of console gaming's US history.  That we've only gone up $10 per game is fairly amazing.  

This is unfortunate because some games then weren't worth the $50, and certainly some games now aren't worth $60.  But it's fortunate because games could be a whole lot more expensive, and certainly some games, especially those we can rack up hundreds of hours in.

Posted by SonicFire
@melcene said:
"Whether fortunately, or unfortunately, inflation alone makes games worth $60.  Consider for example, that most games had remained in the $50 release price range throughout a large part of console gaming's US history.  That we've only gone up $10 per game is fairly amazing.  This is unfortunate because some games then weren't worth the $50, and certainly some games now aren't worth $60.  But it's fortunate because games could be a whole lot more expensive, and certainly some games, especially those we can rack up hundreds of hours in. "

I understand what you're saying, but you're confusing the concepts of "cost" versus "value." Yes, development costs have skyrocketed in the current cycle, and companies need to be able to sell games at $60, at least in many cases, to try to recoup costs quickly. But this doesn't speak to whether a game merits that price tag. More important, if you study economics and consumer behavior, then it's clear that total revenue can be HIGHER by pricing a game at a more realistic point.  In economics terms, what i'm saying is that the $60 ends up being a constraining price floor in the short run. 
 
That point aside, $60 prices are by no means a new high, or a new standard in video games. In fact, it was only with the PS1 and PS2 era that we got away from very high priced games. For example, back in the SNES days I was a huge RPG fan, but almost every Squaresoft game ran about $75. When the N64 came out, many of the games cost $70 or more at the start. So it's nothing new; the question is why almost every publisher feels that every game should launch at standard retail.
  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2