How much should games cost?


This is a well researched and comprehensive article on game cost. It’s really interesting.

I’ve often compared it to the movie industry. Game budgets rival movies these days but ticket cost and DVD cost don’t compare to games. It seems like they’re pricing in fewer buyers to meet the profit margin of a movie-like budget.

I wonder if lowering the cost would significantly increase sales.


I think games should cost more or less depending on how they are built. Like the Witcher 3 could have easily been an $80 or $100 game. Games like Rachet and clank felt priced properly at $40 but could have been $60 it was so good. Alot of the PSVR games are priced at wild prices. I would love to see games more varied in price. I feel like having a $60 normal price could also hurt game developers. Maybe they keep some things out of their game or don’t even develop parts of the game they want because it doesn’t fit into a $60 price model.

Aldo, I didn’t read the article but I think it’s wild to think games should be less than the $60 model. Games in general are way harder and way more in depth these days to develop. Considering how much games used to cost years ago…$60 is cheap. Thing is I feel like it’s just a lot of gamers are cheap asses and the mobile gaming market has really fucked up alot. The free to play bullshit has people expecting free games and cheap games. I always love how people expect to get a remastered game for free or some bullshit. When they remastered Star wars for Blu ray… Did they hand them shits out for free? Nope. Gamers expect too much IMO.


I don’t understand the author’s reasoning about buying on release day vs waiting a year. This is no different than buying a new model car in the fall vs the summer of the next year. You will always get a better deal in the summer because the dealer needs to make room for new stock.

The author also tries to use DLC in his argument but fails to acknowledge that the $60 base game is (usually) a complete game. The DLC is optional.

And of all the games he could have considered, he throws Titanfall 2 into the discussion. Whether the game had a $60 or $40 price tag is mostly irrelevant; a lot of the game’s struggle came because of the release date chosen by EA.

When I bought Space Quest 2 in 1987, I feel like I paid around $40. The price of games increased to $50 about 10-15 years later and is now at $60. That doesn’t seem excessive to me since current games are much more elaborate than those of 30 years ago.

Also, my dad tells me he could get a candy bar for a dime 60 years ago.

Movies, on average, are 2-hour entertainment. Video games generally offer at minimum 8-10 hours, sometimes 40-50 hours. Does that now make the $60 price tag viable?

Edit - I’ve put 30ish hours into Fallout 4 in the past week. I spent 101 hours just in season 3 of Overwatch. Could I possibly spend 100 hours in my lifetime watching repeats of a single movie?

Many video games these days offer much more options for replay than the linear games of the 80s and 90s. I feel the $60 price is justified in most cases.

Also, that $60 price is a standard set by Sony/Microsoft. PC games have the option of releasing at a lower price point, as seen with Overwatch.


I think in similar terms, and prefer to get ~$1/hour value out of my video games in order to feel good about a purchase (more is obviously better, of course ;)).