From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


On a related note:

Microsoft -like many of the big name publishers- had initially and wholeheartedly decided that if Nintendo could do it, then they too
could switch to the $80 price point for their games. "Outer Worlds 2"
(which is scheduled for an October release) was going to be one of the
games with this new price.

But -weirdly enough- gamers weren't fully onboard with the price hike,
and Microsoft has just announced that they're dropping the price to
$70 "in line with current market conditions". Other "full priced
holiday releases" will also stick at that lower price.

I mean, Microsoft just fired thousands of employees so it only makes
sense that their expenses aren't so high anymore, right?

It's strange that its mostly the triple-A publishers reaching for
these prices, though. "Clair Obscur: Expedition", for instance,
launched at a mere $50 despite being considered a triple-a quality
game and having 'overwhelmingly positive' reviews. And while not as
beloved, Remedy's own "Firebreak FBC" also managed to release for less
than $80, despite being a quality game. "Dune: Awakening" and
"Wandering Village" too came out at a lower price. It's almost as if
the big-name publishers are jacking up the prices because they can and
not because the games are worthy of that price. Huh.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Am 24.07.25 um 18:03 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

On a related note:

Microsoft -like many of the big name publishers- had initially and wholeheartedly decided that if Nintendo could do it, then they too
could switch to the $80 price point for their games. "Outer Worlds 2"
(which is scheduled for an October release) was going to be one of the
games with this new price.

But -weirdly enough- gamers weren't fully onboard with the price hike,
and Microsoft has just announced that they're dropping the price to
$70 "in line with current market conditions". Other "full priced
holiday releases" will also stick at that lower price.

The question is if Nintendo can get away with it in the long run. Here
in Europe Sony did a serious price hike with the PS5 generation which
did not go fully through in the states for now. But for me it was reason enough to finally abandon consoles entirely. I dont even follow Ps5
gaming news anymore, and the few titles I bought were second hand on
discm because they usually were 20-30 Euros cheaper even shortly after
release than their online counterparts in the Sony store!
So much for online being cheaper because the retailers are cut out of
the chain, once a monopoly is established they hike prices as they think
the market can carry! By trying to make discs a hurdle (aka leaving them
out for certain models or make them an accessory) they tried to nail the monpoly!

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:41:53 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

Am 24.07.25 um 18:03 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

On a related note:

Microsoft -like many of the big name publishers- had initially and
wholeheartedly decided that if Nintendo could do it, then they too
could switch to the $80 price point for their games. "Outer Worlds 2"
(which is scheduled for an October release) was going to be one of the
games with this new price.

But -weirdly enough- gamers weren't fully onboard with the price hike,
and Microsoft has just announced that they're dropping the price to
$70 "in line with current market conditions". Other "full priced
holiday releases" will also stick at that lower price.

The question is if Nintendo can get away with it in the long run. Here
in Europe Sony did a serious price hike with the PS5 generation which
did not go fully through in the states for now. But for me it was reason >enough to finally abandon consoles entirely. I dont even follow Ps5
gaming news anymore, and the few titles I bought were second hand on
discm because they usually were 20-30 Euros cheaper even shortly after >release than their online counterparts in the Sony store!
So much for online being cheaper because the retailers are cut out of
the chain, once a monopoly is established they hike prices as they think
the market can carry! By trying to make discs a hurdle (aka leaving them
out for certain models or make them an accessory) they tried to nail the >monpoly!

Nintendo was a bit more clever about it then the others, though.
First, they announced the chnage with the release of their newest
platform (Switch 2). If you wanted new games to go with your new
hardware, you'd just have to accept the new price; there was no real alternative. But more importantly, the $80USD price wasn't intended
for ALL their games, just the best-of-the-best; the real hot-ticket
items. You know, the next Zelda, or Mario Kart. Less popular items
would still get the $60 or $70USD price-tag.

Meanwhile, on the PC side, the triple-A publishers are saying, "what
the hell, let's make evern our worst new games $80 now, and this
despite the fact there's no compelling reason for people to buy from
us".

Ultimately, I think we are going to get an $80USD price-tag on games,
for reasons I've stated earlier in this and other threads. The
industry has remained stuck at 2000-era prices for too long, even as
games have become more complex and costs have skyrocketed. But at the
same time, publishers are going at it the wrong way. A lot of people
are feeling a financial pinch and luxuries like video games are going
to be one the first sacrifices they make. Meanwhile, a $10 or $20
price-jump is going to turn a lot of people off regardless if they can
afford it or not, especially if overall quality of product isn't seen
as improving (or, in fact, seen as worsening thanks to over-reliance
on MTX and other tactics).

TL;DR: I think Nintendo can get away with this shit. Ubisoft and
Activision need to tread more carefully.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 12:03:03 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On a related note:

Microsoft -like many of the big name publishers- had initially and >wholeheartedly decided that if Nintendo could do it, then they too
could switch to the $80 price point for their games. "Outer Worlds 2"
(which is scheduled for an October release) was going to be one of the
games with this new price.

But -weirdly enough- gamers weren't fully onboard with the price hike,
and Microsoft has just announced that they're dropping the price to
$70 "in line with current market conditions". Other "full priced
holiday releases" will also stick at that lower price.

I mean, Microsoft just fired thousands of employees so it only makes
sense that their expenses aren't so high anymore, right?

It's strange that its mostly the triple-A publishers reaching for
these prices, though. "Clair Obscur: Expedition", for instance,
launched at a mere $50 despite being considered a triple-a quality
game and having 'overwhelmingly positive' reviews. And while not as
beloved, Remedy's own "Firebreak FBC" also managed to release for less
than $80, despite being a quality game. "Dune: Awakening" and
"Wandering Village" too came out at a lower price. It's almost as if
the big-name publishers are jacking up the prices because they can and
not because the games are worthy of that price. Huh.

Game pricing is more like arbitrage. There's really no way to assess
valuation except market conditions and chutzpah.

Market conditions always determine price point in IP. It's possible a pub
could make the price point for a game $40, do big volume, and turn a
decent profit. Or the game might be more niche, and need to be $60 base
with $300 in DLC, etc.

Or you just peg it at $70, as AAA has been pegged at $60 for all these
years, and see if you can get away with $80. Looks like they can't get
away with $80. If they could get away with $150, they would.

Point is, any price change occurs just because publishers will it so,
because that's the only reason to raise prices. If you think there's some valuation formula for IP goods other than "How much money can we make
from this?" I would advise that you are mistaken.

Even $/hr of play doesn't work. If I buy a shooter for $60, that comes
out to about $6/hr for most SP experiences. For multiplayer, it can come
out to pennies/hr. If I buy BG3 for $60, it definitely comes out to
pennies. I've got 158 hours in that game and I'm not finished by a long
shot. 38¢/hr and dropping.

There is no formula for pubs other than "Can we get away with it." There
is no formula for us other than "What is my gaming budget?"

There is no rational justification for *any* price point in IP.
--
Pope Zaghadka III

````````````````````````````````````````````````````|
Every man, woman, and child on this Earth |
is a genuine and authorized Pope. | `````````````````````````````````````````````````````

As Pope, you are entitled to the following privleges:

1. To invoke infallibility at any time, even
retroactively.

2. To completely rework the structure of the Erisian
church.

3. To baptise, bury, and marry (with the permission
of the deceased in the latter two cases)

4. To excommunicate yourself and others,
To de-excommunicate yourself and others,
To re-excommunicate yourself and others,
To de-re-excommunicate (no backsies) yourself and
others.

5. To perform all rites and functions deemed to be
improper to a Pope of Discordia.

Hail Eris!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2