With the growing rumors implying that Sony’s and Microsoft’s next consoles may being revealed within the next year or so, I’m beginning to wonder just what it will cost to purchase software on these new systems. The price for video games has increased with the introduction of every new home console over the years. Back in the day games for the PS1 cost $40, the price for PS2 titles increased to $50 and today a brand new PS3 game will set you back $60. See the trend?
Assuming the price for a new console game will set you back $70 will gamers finally ask how much is too much? If the next gen gaming experience is anything like what we’re seeing today – single player campaigns only lasting 6-8 hours, extra content that could easily fit in the game being offered later as paid dlc, online passes- will it be worth it?
The first next generation machine we actually know will release in 2012, the Nintendo Wii U, may give us an idea on what we can expect from the future of software pricing. Games on the Nintendo Wii are usually priced at $50, this includes AAA titles like the newly released Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. In comparison a big AAA title on either the PS3 or 360 will set you back $60. The $10 difference is partially due to the fact that the Wii doesn’t offer the same kind of high definition graphics that the PS3 and 360 does. What does this have to do with the Wii U?
According to reports the Wii U is expected to be as powerful as current HD systems which could indicate that software for the console will cost more than its predecessor. If it does this could be a good preview of just how much more we’ll be paying for games on the PS4 and next Xbox.
On the other hand if you listen to the analysts who assume that the digital age, made popular by the iPhone, Kindle and other similar devices, will soon replace disc format in home consoles then perhaps that may offset the cost of video game software. But the probability of that happening is unclear at this point since my crystal ball is still in the shop. We do know that Nintendo won’t be relying on digital downloads as the sole format in the Wii U and I’m going to make the bold prediction ( without my crystal ball ) that neither Sony nor Microsoft plans to ditch the disc based format in their next systems.
So come 2013 or 2014 when the next big gaming machine launches, how much will you be willing to spend on video games?
Tweet
Written by: Sakinah
- Contributing Editor
#1 by Jay on November 23rd, 2011 [ 82493 Points ]
The Wii U is actually Nintendo’s offering for this gen. We’re still like 6 years away from Nintendo’s ‘next gen’ console
with that said, I doubt they’d get any more than $60, because I think publishers know that they’re pushing even the $60 mark now.
#2 by EdEN on November 23rd, 2011 [ 102599 Points ]
Now, now Jay. That back of yours is fighting the beard, huh? The Wii (and it’s sales numbers) beg to differ. It’s like saying the DS wasn’t the “next gen” offering from Nintendo just because the PSP had better graphics.
$60 is my limit. Anything higher and I’d seriously consider spending less on games. As it is, I’ve got a huuuge backlog that will take me 3 years to complete so I’m set for a while.
#3 by premiersoupir on November 23rd, 2011 [ 16290 Points ]
$60 is already absurd. I’ve spent $60 on a title perhaps once — I’m willing to wait a bit for sales or deals that bring the mark down to $30-40.
#4 by Clint on November 23rd, 2011 [ 41653 Points ]
Historically games are at their lowest cost. Considering that some NES games were $30 to $50 in there day, adjusted for inflation puts them around $50 to $80 dollars. N64 games retailed as high as $80. Though some retailers back in the day had more flexibility with the ‘MSRP’ and their pricing, they were still high to todays standards.
Luckily costs are lower due to better media that the games put on, i.e. blu-ray which offers a ton of space. Games may seem high nowadays, sure, but to those of us who remember the old days they’re really not that bad.
I don’t see them charging more than they currently are, especially for PS4 games considering they’ll still be bluray, though other things factor in such as development time and learning a new systems structure, but that mainly impacts the developer. Costs for them can go up but the market cost will not expand nearly as much.
If a game offers me a solid single player experiences, I have no issue forking over the money. But I doubt they’ll be much higher than they are now.
#5 by EdEN on November 23rd, 2011 [ 102599 Points ]
@premiersoupir: Guess you never owned a SNES or a SEGA Genensis hehehe. I paid $80 for FF VI and Chrono Trigger and while I didn’t own a Genesis I remember Virtua Racing and Phantasy Star IV each being $99.99 (plus tax!) back in the day. And people complain about the $8 price per SNES or Genesis game on the Wii VC hahaha.
#6 by Isli on November 23rd, 2011 [ 31405 Points ]
SNES games used to run me 60+. Usually now, I just wait for the game to go on sale a week after it is released then I pick it up. I think DLC is the new trend for how to get people to drop 80+ on a game without realizing it.
As for PS4: 50-60 for new titles, absolutely nothing more.
#7 by Eddie on November 23rd, 2011 [ 43743 Points ]
my parents paid almost $50 for Popeye on the Atari 2600….I “understand” higher prices. But dont’ wish for them.
#8 by EdEN on November 23rd, 2011 [ 102599 Points ]
@Eddie: I see your Popeye and raise you a Pong machine. One system. One game. One huge price tag.
#9 by Baba0Booey on November 23rd, 2011 [ 5938 Points ]
Not sure where you get your figures from, but since the 80′s games have cost $45-$65, same as they are now..hell at times they were more expensive than that.
#10 by Pai do mercado on November 24th, 2011 [ 2176 Points ]
Currently where I live, I’m already paying U.S.$86 for each new game.
Without the right Black Friday, so that I can still shop at stores that do not pay certain taxes.
Because if it was in a common stores here, I would pay more than $100
I remember the game in Arcade Popoye, in atari enjoyed playing Decathlon destroying my joysticks.
At least by that time the games lasted longer, had no end LOL, liked: River Raid, Keystone Keystone Keapers, H.E.RO…
Hope I’m not too old for the next gen
#11 by Jay on November 24th, 2011 [ 82493 Points ]
sales numbers don’t mean it’s a current gen or next gen system. If the Wii U is only about as powerful as current gen hardware, that, in a technological sense, makes it a current gen system
The only new thing it’s offering is that new controller.
Anyways… games have almost always been expensive. Inflation was mentioned, and if you took that into account, we’re kind of spoiled these days lol
#12 by Sakinah on November 24th, 2011 [ 26489 Points ]
Yes but pricing wasn’t consistant back then like it is now.
#13 by pedrolabate on November 24th, 2011 [ 39934 Points ]
I see no reason why game prices should increase, only profit. It’s very unlikely that next-gen games will demand more than they’re already demanding right now. Blu-rays for example still have A LOT of unused capacity, and huge games like Mass Effect 2 only used 13GB of it (that’s 37 free GB on the same disk). No, I agree with EdEN, I’m already on my limit.
Personally in Brazil games bought in a licensed store (meaning 100% legit) will cost you about $100 (that’s US dolars) , but they could go as high as $120. Also, games don’t get cheaper over time around here, at least, no in the same rate as they do in the US. For example, you can get LA Noire for $20, but they still cost the same $100 they did back when it released around here.
Any increase in prices have a huge repercussion around here, CEs that cost $70 could cost up to $150. So no, I wouldn’t pay any more than I already do, specially taking this situation into account. There’s no reason at all to pay more for games that will required the exact same amount of work from developers and the same fabrication process as it does today.
And I’m not even going to debate the decaying quality of the average game.
#14 by Abkanis on November 24th, 2011 [ 1064 Points ]
I’ve never actually gotten paid-DLC, so my costs are still only face value.
But while I expect games to keep getting more expensive on account of higher production values…Makes me wish the days of playing Megaman X2 on the SNES would come back.
Now I wonder if my expectations rose with games as I grew up, or if I just adapted to whats being presented to me.
Either way, right now I’m spending ~$60 on gaming on a per 4-month basis. So I’d just end up buying less games, and hope the ones I do buy last me longer (like BF3 multiplayer).
#15 by Jason on November 24th, 2011 [ 27888 Points ]
For me $0. I think the next generation of gaming will be out of my budget as a hobby. I truly intend to build a gaming rig and be done with it. It simply seems more cost effective to game on pc with offerings like onlive and steam. I have been playing Counterstrike source for yrs and the left4dead series on pc as well for yrs and havent had the need to buy any more titles. When you sit down and add up what you spent in a yr its scary. I think Im at the age where a vacation sounds more appealing then a yr full of games that are hit or miss.
That being said I think it will be funny to see Call of duty going for $100 next gen.
#16 by Clint on November 24th, 2011 [ 41653 Points ]
MW3 Hardened Edition cost $100, so your dreams came true!
#17 by Ceidz on November 24th, 2011 [ 14264 Points ]
60$ is still quite a high price, add in the taxes and it’s about to 65$ a single game. It stops me from buying new: I wait a few months and then start looking at amazon. The best price for me would be 50$.
I remember my dad buying me Final Fantasy III (SNES) back in the days, it cost 99.99$ + tx = 115$ ! THIS is expensive !
#18 by EdEN on November 24th, 2011 [ 102599 Points ]
I got a Wii at launch and a PS3 till november 2009. Did need a couple of months to get used to the “PS3/360 extra cost” after paying $50 tops for my games for the PS2-Wii period.
@Ceidz: But FF III (VI) was well worth that price!
#19 by Cheeto on November 24th, 2011 [ 28784 Points ]
I understand what Pedro is saying, living on the far end of the world doesn’t really make a huge difference. We already pay $100 for each game, despite its released date. Games in my local game shop “such as Need for Speed Shift 2″ still cost $70 despite the fact that you can actually download it through PSN for $30. Its highly unlikely that prices will go down where I live, so its doesn’t really make a big difference. On the other hand I see the future of gaming through downloadable content, were games will be universally equal in terms of the price for all PSN users. It will decrease the production costs and make it easier for major and Indie publishers alike to release their games directly to the user without going through the middle process of retailers.
#20 by pedrolabate on November 24th, 2011 [ 39934 Points ]
Yeah, about that, you know what really pisses me off? Downloadable games costing the same as retail games. WTF?! I mean, you don’t get a manual, a cover, a disc, nothing, just the game. Seriously downloads should be at least $5 cheaper!
#21 by Cheeto on November 24th, 2011 [ 28784 Points ]
You make a valid point here, WTF is up with downloadable games costing as much as retail ones and in some cases even more? Take for example inFamous 2, still 59.99 on PSN, you can purchase the retail copy for 39.99. I have no idea how the system work, but something got lost in the process and obviously no one have a valid explanation. On the other hand inFamous 2 still priced at $90 where I live … so technically its still cheaper to buy from PSN … sad lol
#22 by wolfkin on November 24th, 2011 [ 10948 Points ]
Same as I do now. $20. Forget the trends. Every generation we hear cries about how much it costs to develop a game. It’s 80% BS. The loyal lapdog bloggers will then start scaling up SNES games and wow did you know Super Mario X costs $120 in today’s money meaning games are somehow cheaper than ever and I should be grateful for that $10-20 price jump.
So screw all of them. Till they stop trying to punish me instead of punishing GameStop, why should you ever pay more than $30 for a game. I’ve done some of my most expensive gaming purchases since 2001 over the past two years. Let’s see I bought Batman:AA and BatmanAC as a Wal-Mart Exclusive bundle that I’m almost positive was $40 (I do keep my gaming receipts). I bought DefJam Rapstar at $40 because I played it at a preview event and it was so much fun I really couldn’t wait any long. I bought Kirby for Wii for $50 and it came with the previous Kirby game free. and I agonized over all of those games.
In between i’ve bought every Guitar Hero game except Van Halen for $10 or less. I haven’t even played them yet. RB 3, AC/DC, Green Day, and possibly 2? all for $15 or less and honestly I think they were all $10 or less I’d have to check.
I just bought A Boy and his Blob $10 and some other Wii game that escapes me.
Honestly buying Might and Magic for $10.54 on sale was one of the most expensive single game purchases I’ve made in a while.
$20 remains my buy it now price.. if I had a job I’d have a lot more games gotta conserve so I can’t buy stuff like GTA Chinatown Wars and Saint’s Row 2 which are both $20 but .. at $20 my money goes fast. I gotta get a job man.
#23 by wolfkin on November 24th, 2011 [ 10948 Points ]
I hate hate hate that nonsense. I mean this generation is what’s out now. It’s not the latest generation of technology, it’s not HD you can even call it inferior but the Wii is current gen
Anyone else remember those pie charts they used to show all the time that break down why games cost $60. It would show development costs, marketing costs, shipping costs, packaging costs etc etc… well in an all digital version of a game how come we aren’t seeing those savings?
#24 by EdEN on November 24th, 2011 [ 102599 Points ]
@Jay: Yes, because a “new controller” is nothing… new. By your logic, the Wii wasn’t a “next-gen” console when it launched because it featured older but proven technology under the hood. The sales ARE important because even though consumers had the choice between TWO HD consoles and the Wii.. they chose the Wii which, even at the slower selling trends for the year, can STILL come on top for 2011 AND has already taken such a huge lead that neither Sony nor MS will ever close the gap.
#25 by Ceidz on November 24th, 2011 [ 14264 Points ]
I TOTALLY agree with that.
#26 by Isli on November 24th, 2011 [ 31405 Points ]
Well, discs, manuals, and game covers really don’t cost anything at all. Also-online services don’t really mark things down.
@Jay/Eden: The Wii was marketed as Nintendo’s next-gen console that didn’t need graphics to compete. Judging only by sales numbers, it really didn’t need the graphics to compete. The next-next gen (Wii U vs PS4, etc.) will in my opinion be considered the same generation because they are both trying to nab the same consumers.
#27 by Oly on November 24th, 2011 [ 129768 Points ]
Nintendo is always for the Next Gen.. as in kids..
#28 by dragon290513 on November 25th, 2011 [ 7218 Points ]
i will find deals instead of paying full price haha
#29 by Jay on November 25th, 2011 [ 82493 Points ]
then you gotta look at how many people who bought Wiis actually use them
#30 by EdEN on November 25th, 2011 [ 102599 Points ]
@Jay: Hahaha, we’re really pulling out the “Wii collecting dusts” thing? Ok, I know 10 people that play Wii games on a daily basis. That help? Same argument could be set for the PS3 since a LOT of initial sales were from people that wanted a cheaper Bluray player…
#31 by wolfkin on November 25th, 2011 [ 10948 Points ]
funny /notsarcasm
#32 by Jay on November 25th, 2011 [ 82493 Points ]
rofl, I love saying stuff about the Wii because I know EdEN will reply
with that said, the top 10 monthly video game sales, given the number of Wii consoles that had been sold, should be mostly Wii titles, but it isn’t.
Most of the people I know, besides you, who bought a Wii rarely ever touch it lol.
#33 by Isli on November 25th, 2011 [ 31405 Points ]
Bahaha, it’s like EdEN can sense when someone insults Nintendo!
#34 by Baba0Booey on November 25th, 2011 [ 5938 Points ]
good point!
#35 by Darklurkr23 on November 25th, 2011 [ 12150 Points ]
It’s cool because I don’t remember how much games cost back in the day new, because I never even looked it’s like I want it gimme gimme! Hell I don’t even remember what new games cost before PS3! I think Gamecubes were around 50 and PS2 was around there too right?
Well remember people they complain about not selling enough new, so if they up the price that’s why they are screwed. Hell if you put a new game down to 50, trust me they’ll sell more. Or hell make it 60, and add a gift card to a game of the same company That might do something
#36 by Yourgor on November 25th, 2011 [ 940 Points ]
properly not much.
#37 by EdEN on November 26th, 2011 [ 102599 Points ]
@Jay: Ok, last one. Notice how BEFORE NPD started grouping together all SKU releases of the same game (for example, all FIFA sales on PS3, 360, Wii, DS, PSP) the top 10 was very Wii and DS heavy? NPD is cheating. That’s why the Wii releases are not in te top 10 every month any more. Now, when Zelda numbers are in, we’ll see how bad Wii games are selling.
#38 by Jay on November 26th, 2011 [ 82493 Points ]
I dont ever recall NPD numbers being Wii and DS heavy but a couple times. Maybe after a big release, but that’s it. Other than that, it’s a pretty even mixture of titles from all consoles.
#39 by Eddie on November 26th, 2011 [ 43743 Points ]
Wii and DS heavy when it’s Mario related maybe lol.
#40 by EdEN on November 26th, 2011 [ 102599 Points ]
How do the kids answer to this stuff? Whatevs, is it?
I got a Nintendo 3DS Cosmo Black LE OoT Bundle thanks to some store credit. Fun-fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!
#41 by rann on November 26th, 2011 [ 4770 Points ]
I’m fine with $60. But I might be cutting down purchases on gaming later on
#42 by SubMonkey on November 26th, 2011 [ 155 Points ]
I agree. Right now (to me) with some games only having 6-8 hours of game play, it is to much to pay $50. I think if they try to push the price any higher, people will just quit buying new games and just stick with buying used or just borrowed a friend’s copy.
#43 by Jay on November 27th, 2011 [ 82493 Points ]
I think the problem we’re really dealing with isn’t so much the price, because prices, as I’ve stated (and others) have always been high when you look at the bigger picture, but since gaming has become more mainstream, newcomers to the hobby seem to help convince old school gamers, too, that prices are more expensive than they should be. Even if you look back at the SNES and Genesis era, games were expensive, and with the lack of widespread game saving capability (which oftentimes relied upon passwords to mimic saving progress; some games allowed saving, though), the games (well, a lot of them anyway) were even shorter then than they are now, being able to complete them in one sitting.
#44 by xDeFcoN_2FasT4Ux on November 27th, 2011 [ 2010 Points ]
I for one am not ready for a next gen console. Mainly because I have spent around $2500 on my PS3 stuff combined. In games, 3 PS3s and accessories. If they can make it so that the next console wont make me go through 3 different consoles in 4 yrs then well ill think about it.
#45 by Isli on November 27th, 2011 [ 31405 Points ]
@Jay: This is just my experience, but about half of my SNES games are in fact longer than games I have now. Off the top of my head, Super Mario World/Super Mario RPG, Final Fantasy, Demon’s Crest, and Super Ninja Boy all took more than the current 10-12 hour average to beat. Granted, I’m comparing RPG-ish games so it is certainly biased, but Resistance 3 took me 4 hours to beat my very first time playing it.
#46 by Jay on November 27th, 2011 [ 82493 Points ]
well, the RPG type games I know were rather long, and I meant to put that in there, but outside of RPGs and similar games (though I know SMW wasn’t an RPG, but it is long), most that I’ve played were complete-able in probably 3 hours time
#47 by pedrolabate on November 28th, 2011 [ 39934 Points ]
Everyone knows I love RPGs and they’re my favorite genre, one of the reasons I like them so much is their huge scope and long term play possibilities. A game that easily gives you 60+ hours (per playtrough) costs you $1/hour of entertainment, that is money well spent. A game with a crapish 5 hour campaign costs $12/hour, this is something I’ll pass and spent it somewhere else.
I always take this number into consideration when purchasing any game. Obviously next gen will have some good RPGs that will still be well worth their price, even if it’s more expensive, however, for the other genres the math is not looking good.
#48 by EdEN on November 28th, 2011 [ 102599 Points ]
I’m with Pedro. Longer AND fun games are an easy purchase. A good game that is 5-6 hours long is looking to be a rental at best. Backlogs aren’t taken care of in a day!
#49 by dragon290513 on November 28th, 2011 [ 7218 Points ]
wow this is probably the article with the most comments here :O
#50 by Damon on November 29th, 2011 [ 17244 Points ]
Recent research has shown the empirical evidence for globalization of corporate innovation is very limited. And as a corollary, the market for technologies is shrinking. As a world leader, it is important for America to provide systematic research grants for our developers. I believe there will always be a need for us to have a well-articulated innovation policy with emphasis on human resource development. Thank you.
#51 by EdEN on December 6th, 2011 [ 102599 Points ]
Oh no, the ant fungus has taken over FooBear’s brain!