Home
News Post



There is a lot of buzz on the internet speculating what the cost of the next generation of console games is going to cost. Epic Games' founder Tim Sweeny projected the next generation of games will cost double this generation.

Take that in step with Nvidia's chief of their cloud gaming wing projecting this is the last traditional home console generation and you see there's a trend towards the current model of gaming disappearing by the end of this decade.

In fact, Sweeny is quoted as saying that Free-to-Play models could easily be the wave of the future for gaming. So with all of that said, what is an acceptable price point for you for new AAA titles?

Sound off in our poll on the right on the frontpage and above you in the forums! Also, let us know if you could see a free-to-play model working for sports gaming!

Member Comments
# 1 sactown_13 @ 12/05/12 05:12 PM
If the next wave of console games are greatly improved compaired to this gens games then i wouldn't mind paying a little extra. however, if the improvent is minimal or nonexistent then no thanks. Console games will die sooner rather than later if it is doubled tho. 120 bucks is something ridiculous
 
# 2 Majingir @ 12/05/12 05:16 PM
I'm likely keeping my PS3 for probably 2(or more) years after PS4 comes out anyways, so hopefully PS3 game prices end up being like $40 or something for new releases.

I don't think price of game matters to game company, cause they know people will pay for game, up to a certain price,and with games at $60 right now, seems like that certain price hasn't been reached yet for majority of gamers.

I'd rather see them at $50 or something. It'd allow for something like (buy 2 games for $99) or something like that. 2 digits would make it seem like a better deal.
 
# 3 NHLandPESFan @ 12/05/12 05:56 PM
I haven't paid over $40 for any game in years and rarely pay that. I always wait for sales as I think $60 is ridiculous and I have a huge backlog. I got 4 EA Sports games on Black Friday (Madden 13, FIFA 13, NCAA 13, NHL 13) for $25 each.
 
# 4 sydrogerdavid @ 12/05/12 06:35 PM
I refuse to pay more than $60 for a game. There is no way in hell anybody is going to pay $120 for a game either.
 
# 5 bukktown @ 12/05/12 07:05 PM
I would drop over $100 on MLB the Show!

I bet a lot of people would spend that much on GTA5!

And if there was an MLB the Show type NFL game, I would pay a couple hundred!
 
# 6 DetroitStyle @ 12/05/12 08:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sydrogerdavid
I refuse to pay more than $60 for a game. There is no way in hell anybody is going to pay $120 for a game either.
This. Combine that with the fact that games are coming with less features, less innovation, and more bugs, and you're telling me game prices are going to go up? I think not, sir. Does anyone here think NCAA 13 or Madden 13 are worth 59.99 when they were first released (in hindsight now)? Absolutely not. I don't see development costs increasing either but I do see a demand for increase in profit margin. They're going to start charging you more for less. I'll be done with console gaming at that point and ride the last wind of PC gaming until gaming is ruined for good.
 
# 7 eaterofworlds888 @ 12/05/12 08:27 PM
59.99 is acceptable, but it's also a lot. I rarely buy a game at full price. Anything above 60 bucks is ridiculous.
 
# 8 GOBLUE_08 @ 12/05/12 08:36 PM
I think 60 is about right for AAA games, you figure almost any other form of entertainment is gonna run you at least 40 bucks nowdays (movies, ball game, amusement park etc..) and those are just for a few hours. With video games your gonna get at least a few days worth of playing time and once your bored with it you always have the option of trading it or selling it.
 
# 9 blklightning @ 12/05/12 08:50 PM
50 bucks. 60 is way too much for the 5 hour cut-rate trash they put out now. Although, I do happily pay 60 dollars for games like Grand Theft Auto because I know I'm going to more than get my money's worth out of it. Back to my point -- I don't know where this price fixing model came from, but it needs to go away. If you made a cheap game then you should put a cheap price on it.
 
# 10 Cusefan @ 12/05/12 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitStyle
This. Combine that with the fact that games are coming with less features, less innovation, and more bugs, and you're telling me game prices are going to go up? I think not, sir. Does anyone here think NCAA 13 or Madden 13 are worth 59.99 when they were first released (in hindsight now)? Absolutely not. I don't see development costs increasing either but I do see a demand for increase in profit margin. They're going to start charging you more for less. I'll be done with console gaming at that point and ride the last wind of PC gaming until gaming is ruined for good.
Lmao if you think this this generation of gaming is the buggiest then you probably have not been playing games very long. I love when people say a game is "unplayable", I can tell they have never played any bad games from the 80s or 90s.

Development costs literally rise every single day, better graphics=higher development cost, deeper gameplay=higher development cost, better anything = higher development cost. Since video games have crazy/insane deadlines, OT is inevitable. Keeping your skilled designers, programmers, testers, or anyone with talent is going to cost money. Of course games are going to get more expensive, between inflation and always trying to push the envelope, making money will get harder and harder.

I also do not see hardcore gamers being satisfied with the free to play model, games sales are still very strong so the market is not going anywhere. There will just need to be a balance between creating quality games and keeping the price down. There is a solution to this: PC Games. PC game developers can keep costs low since they don't pay royalties and they are developing a game on a platform that is simple(compared to XBOX or PS3).

Gamers will decide what price games should be and how long the current model stays for.
 
# 11 DJ @ 12/05/12 10:44 PM
I'm not spending more than what I pay now for games. I'll be playing my PS3/360 for several more years before upgrading, anyway.
 
# 12 DubTrey1 @ 12/05/12 11:21 PM
In the end, I think it is fun to speculate - but truth is that this would not be a sustainable model for the industry longterm if any games were that cost. AAA title or not. Hardcore and casual gamers would fret at having to pay anything near that for any new unknown IP - plus the potential advent of losing the ability to play used games - the industry would kill itself. I see maybe a chance at 65$ - but doubt anything drastically higher. I think most will get there cash from forced passes, DLC must haves of some sort and micro-transactions.
 
# 13 mb625 @ 12/06/12 12:33 AM
I already limit my game purchases a ton since they're at 60 bucks... 120 would be an absolute back breaker.
 
# 14 MrWise33 @ 12/06/12 01:37 AM
40% Of OS are clearly Out of their mind.

Anybody who thinks Next-gen games are costing less than $60 needs to be drug tested
 
# 15 tril @ 12/06/12 01:54 AM
60-75.00. triple digit costs will not work in the near future. TO most adults vidoe games is just kids play. They will not pay triple digit prices for video games for their kids.
I can see folks paying triple digit priices for games maybe 20-30 years from now. and Im basing this off the cost of inflation.

However, with all the technology available, there are ways to keep the cost of gaming down.

1.We'll probably see more product placement in games. and the technology exists where this product placement can continuosly be updated. sort of like a P&G paying for commercial spots on prime time television.
2. You can technically continuously update a games soundtrack through some sort of music service. basically deals between record companies and gaming companies could also be the wave of the future. These lables could promote new artists on a more regualr basis.

There are countless of ways to keep the cost of games at reasonable cost. The technology exists. I ve only mentioned 2 ideas but have plenty more. Any gaming company that wishes to contact me, can reach me via OS.
 
# 16 ffyfe7 @ 12/06/12 05:09 AM
Well considering in Australia we already pay $100 for new releases, if the prices did increase a lot of people would resort to online shopping. As of right now I have to consider whether to drop $200 on a pre-owned PS3 because while I have a gaming PC, I love playing MLB The Show and NHL. Or I could just save up for the next gen consoles...
 
# 17 C the Lyte @ 12/06/12 08:31 AM
News Flash... We're already paying over $ 60 for games.

Sure, we may be able to buy the base package for $ 60. But when it comes to the season passes and add-ons (example: extra uniforms, special guns for FPS, etc.), some FULL games can cost in excess of $ 120.

And if you think next gen games won't nickel and dime the same way, you're crazy.
 
# 18 BezO @ 12/06/12 09:03 AM
I voted last gen prices, expecting games to continue to fall short of my expectations. I'm already down to only 1 game per year, NBA 2K. I've been alternating years with MLB The Show.

To even consider buying a next gen console, games (NFL & NBA at least) will have to fully meet my expectations. Ultra realistic gameplay & graphics, near bugless and rosters accurate & up to date. Only if the stars align will I invest in a new console & buy games. Even then, I can't see me spending much more (10%) than I do now.

I'm betting that my expectations will outgrow the products and I'll bow out of gaming.
 
# 19 shogunofharlem3 @ 12/06/12 09:42 AM
I remember when I was 13 and saved my money for Street Fighter 2 Turbo and Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES. I still have the boxes, SF2 was 74.99 and MK2 was 72.99.

I can remember my dad telling me that by time I was 30 games would be 100! Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeet, say it ain't so.

Those old game prices weren't fixed. I recall getting Super Baseball Simulator 1.000 for 30 bucks new. And Super Contra for 40.

Why can't the sliding scale come back? I'd gladly pay 70 for a Zelda game that comes out once every 5 year but sports games that are yearly, NO WAY! Unless they go to an every other year sports model and support the game through updates and patches.
 
# 20 eyeamg0dly @ 12/06/12 09:55 AM
why charge any thing up front for games when you can make more through micro transactions. successful free to play models make tons back in money for the company. Two that come to mind are League of Legends and Team Fortress 2. TF2 did not start as f2p, but when it did, it gave it a shot in the arm as well improve profits for valve. LOL is probably the first successful f2p game and riot is doing extremely well.

I really don't know how this can relate to sports gaming though. The above f2p game make money because people spend a few bucks here and there for skins and maybe a few perks. For sports games, how many different equipment skins and maybe stadiums would people be willing to buy? I also would expect some of the game experience to be scaled back and most of it focus on multiplayer.
 

« Previous1234Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.