Do you guys think linear single player games should have a $39.99 standard price point?

[Deleted member 4247]

No, but I think MP-only games should. A big, well-made SP campaign is worth more to me personally than a big MP mode.

(No, really, either can be at either price point, if the amount of content justifies it.)

 

[Tennis]

Only if they're going to drop the price to 40 like a month later. That's what happened with The Last Guardian and I learned my lesson not to buy those kind of games at launch.

 

[psilocybe]

Nah, I'm good at 60$. If a linear single player game is short though i will totally wait for that price drop/get it used.

Click to shrink...

Maybe that's the point. To make people who would wait for a discount to buy the game for 40$ day one.

The results are unpredictable, would more people buy it day one to compensate? Should it be more expensive then? Charge more of the day one buyers, because they will keep buying day one even when more expensive?

 

[Thrill_house]

Maybe that's the point. To make people who would wait for a discount to buy the game for 40$ day one.

The results are unpredictable, would more people buy it day one to compensate? Should it be more expensive then? Charge more of the day one buyers, because they will keep buying day one even when more expensive?

Click to shrink...

I understand what you mean and honestly now that i think about it there is a bigger chance of people jumping in day 1 at a 40 price point. But would it be enough to offset the price reduction, as you said thats the iffy part. Really tough to say either way. Most likely try to recoup loses from mtx or something

 

[shuno]

Given the lack of content and replayability I would never pay this much for such short singleplayer games. Another thing is that I don't feel the urge to play a game at release and seeing how much they drop in price in no time makes this even less of a problem.

 

[Stiler]

No.

Single player games usually end up costing more to develop then mp focused games.

i mean you generally are creating faaaaar more things for single player. From world building, writing, npc's, AI, etc.

For mp focused games (like say, PUBG, mp in CoD, etc) it's basically maps + items what not, no where near the scale of development time/cost it'd take to make say, Horizons: ZD.

 

[Donniewahlberg]

Mmm on what grounds, that it's a lesser experience without multi? Nah, I'm happy to pay £40/$60 for a linear game with 15 hours of content, that's tons. I won't pay more and I welcome when pubs go for less as the end consumer lol but for a great game that's got 15 hours of fun, I'd pay regular price no issues.

 

[unicornKnight]

I don't understand. Linear as in not open world? That's a very simplistic approach. From a consumer standpoint maybe if we judge by the time it takes player to finish it. But going by that analogy a Pokemon or a Monster Hunter game should cost way more than a 100$...

Anyway I do think that not everything has to be 60-70$ and there are games that stand a better chance at lower prices.

 

[somedaythefire]

No.

 

[Ikaruga]

Yes linear games need to adapt to a price point which reflects the linear nature. I want to play wolf 2 but feel paying full is waste. If it was smaller and priced cheaper I would buy it. I know it's not comparing apples with apples but I bought ac origins over wolf as ac would be a much longer game and I feel I would get my money's worth.

Click to shrink...

Then you just have to wait for a few months and get it then. SP games are losing more and more value to publishers as full price MP games get littered with lootboxes and show revenues that make SP games look like a very bad business model. EA already dumped visceral because they were working on a SP Star Wars Experience, how could they?!

 

[Loudninja]

No not at all, its like saying only open world games are worth it or games with MP.

 

[Joeyro]

No, but I think MP-only games should. A big, well-made SP campaign is worth more to me personally than a big MP mode.

(No, really, either can be at either price point, if the amount of content justifies it.)

Click to shrink...

That's flawed logic aswell because MP only games like Siege and Overwatch can be played for thousands of hours while SP Only that are not open world are usually around 8-20 hours.

 

[Ikaruga]

That's flawed logic aswell because MP only games like Siege and Overwatch can be played for thousands of hours while SP Only that are not open world are usually around 8-20 hours.

Click to shrink...

It's not about quantity it's about quality. No one is angry about paying 10 bucks to watch a quality 2 hour movie in the cinema or to pay 20 bucks for a Bluray that gives at most 3 hours of entertainment with the added content.

Yes you can watch said bluray as often you'd like but you can play a single player game more than once too.

 

[Karnova]

I think Developers are just going to have to understand that unless your game is immediately considered a must have people will tend to wait for immediate deals.

Nothing hurts more than buying a game full price, letting it fall into the ever expanding backlog, and then seeing it being sold for a fraction of a price on Steam or Amazon.

It really is going to be a double edged sword that console generations are getting longer and games are going digital, there's just less of a need to buy new games when your PC or PS4 already has a spacious library.

I went full hoarder years ago and bought any Steam on sale, $50 Publisher Packs and 75% off was my weakness. 600+ Games and counting and I'm a lot more picky with my software choices.

 

[Cragor]

Of course not, why should they? Do we measure the price of a game for its length now? for its mp? what about huge open world games that last for hundreds of hours? should they cost 200$?, what about small mp games that, no matter how popular they may be, have really bare-minimun content, should they be free or cost 2-5 bucks at most? No. They should cost what their devs/publishers think they must, and what the market its willing to pay for them.

 

[Sakujou]

i dont care what kind of price point single player or mp-games have, as long as it does not cost more than 60€ and as long as it does not contain stupid DLC, i am fine with it.
if it does, then i wait until it goes on sale or i wait until there is a GOTY version.
simple as that. fuck early access and all those shenanigans of a dev.

 

[Joeyro]

It's not about quantity it's about quality. No one is angry about paying 10 bucks to watch a quality 2 hour movie in the cinema or to pay 20 bucks for a Bluray that gives at most 3 hours of entertainment with the added content.

Yes you can watch said bluray as often you'd like but you can play a single player game more than once too.

Click to shrink...

If by quantity to quality you are talking about a comparison between open world games and linear games then I agree, open world games stories are usually around 8-20 hours of actual story with added bloat of 20+ hours.
MP only games have an entire focus purely on the multiplayer component so their quality and quantity are combined (depends on the execution ofcourse).

 

[Adam_Roman]

The problem is trying to come up with a fixed price for everything. The Order 1886, while a great game, was way too short for a $60 title. Launching it at $30 or $40 would've gotten way more people on board day one though. Instead of making every game have to be a 5 million copy AAA blockbuster, they could have smaller internal teams make ideas like Katamari Damacy or Grow Home or A Way Out, and instead spend a third of the budget of a AAA product, and expect a third of the sales. Then hey, if it was a good idea maybe it'll exceed expectations instead of being considered a failure for selling "only 2 million copies".

 

[baconcow]

Given that $59.99 USD games are selling for $79.99 CAD. here in Canada, I rarely buy them anymore at launch. A $39.99 SD price point (likely $54.99 CAD) would be an easier sell, to me. My backlog seems to be helping me with this issue, lately.

 

[Bjones]

would you price a Picasso the same as a Walmart Home Dept picture?

Set prices means you pay more for games you deem subpar but actually pay less for the games you deem superior.

But so many people want things for nothing.

 

[tommy7154]

Nope. I'm personally not going to buy many single player one time play through games for $60 but there's many that will.

I think maybe some could drop to say $45 a few weeks after release and then to $40 five weeks or so in and then down to $35 at 8 weeks and maybe they'd sell more?

 

[Cid]

So all jrpgs should be 40€ then

Should thicker books be more expensive? Maybe they are I don't even know

Maybe movies that are longer than 90 minutes should also be more expansive or shorter movies cheaper

I don't know

 

[PARANOiA2MB]

It's just not reasonable to expect the cost of games to go down as development costs get higher, regardless of the worth someone perceives it to be based on style of gameplay. There's too many factors that play into a price point.

Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder. I would have paid anything to play Bayonetta 2 when it came out, but I definitely wouldn't say that was true for a lot of people--just an example. Other times I'll wait for a game to go on sale before buying it.. but only for Xbox or PS4, knowing that the price of a Nintendo game likely wouldn't be going down for a while. The "willing to pay" changes based on that perceived worth of the title based on your personal taste in video games.

 

[Kickmaster Kim]

Um, all of them?

Click to shrink...

Well that was a yes or no question, but where is the data you got that from?

 

[Deleted member 4247]

That's flawed logic aswell because MP only games like Siege and Overwatch can be played for thousands of hours while SP Only that are not open world are usually around 8-20 hours.

Click to shrink...

I said that for me personally a meaty SP campaign is worth more. In most cases I'd pay more for that, with no MP, than I would for something that's MP-only.

That said, my most played game of all time is Rocket League. That's a game I would have happily paid $60 for, or even more, in retrospect (in reality I got it through PS+), and it's a game with very little actual "content". You're just doing the same thing over and over, but that thing is so damn good.

 

[Heshinsi]

Nah. But if you're going to have games designed around predatory loot boxes, then you should drop MSRP to that price to start.

 

[Sloane Ranger]

No. I would even pay more for deeper SP experiences. If TW3 had launched with Blood and Wine as a part of the original it would have been worth way more than $59.99. Fallout with all the DLC included at launch I would pay more for as well.

I would pay $59.99 for GTA SP without GTA Online. Actually, I would prefer that they separate the two completely in the case of R* games. Wouldn't it be great to get SP DLC for a R* game again? Maybe splitting the teams up would allow for that? [sorry for the musings]

As far as MP goes - some are worth a full $59 by themselves, others, I would not pay more than $9 for. I think MP value varies more wildly for myself than SP does.

Oh yeah ... and this is 100% me as well:

That said, my most played game of all time is Rocket League. That's a game I would have happily paid $60 for, or even more, in retrospect (in reality I got it through PS+),

Click to shrink...

 

[Siresly]

That would mean smaller budgets/games, which I'd be fine with. The games industry doesn't like mid tier games though. It's either smaller ones that might blow up or big, reliable ones.
With Ninja Theory making it seem like a feasible idea (Hellblade is doing ok as far as I'm aware), maybe more will give it a shot? I doubt it'll become a thing with publishers though.

 

[Allseeingeye]

No that's silly.

 

[Fuhgeddit]

I said that for me personally a meaty SP campaign is worth more. In most cases I'd pay more for that, with no MP, than I would for something that's MP-only.

That said, my most played game of all time is Rocket League. That's a game I would have happily paid $60 for, or even more, in retrospect (in reality I got it through PS+), and it's a game with very little actual "content". You're just doing the same thing over and over, but that thing is so damn good.

Click to shrink...

One thing I wish they did for rocket league was implement some way to get keys that doesn't involve buying. I love that the game was cheap and they do need to make their $$ for content being put out, but only being able to buy keys for crates is something I really hate. I do wish there was a very grindy way to obtain one key at least. Decyrptors were a great idea actually but as far as I can tell, only available during the Halloween event.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Given the lack of content and replayability I would never pay this much for such short singleplayer games. Another thing is that I don't feel the urge to play a game at release and seeing how much they drop in price in no time makes this even less of a problem.

Click to shrink...

It may just be my own subjective perception, but I often feel that SP only games provide more content that most MP-only games, imho.

I can't remember the last MP only game I've played where it didn't feel like they were trying to make-up for an embarrassing lack of content with RPG "carrot-chasing" mechanics and systems that force backtracking and replaying the same content over and over.

E.g. Wolfenstein: The New Order, felt like it provided me with a more complete, more fresh gameplay experience than Destiny 2; which felt like I'd completed all the solo stuff in the first few hours and then spend the rest of my time with the game repeating the same few modes to grind for gear.

 

[Deleted member 4247]

One thing I wish they did for rocket league was implement some way to get keys that doesn't involve buying. I love that the game was cheap and they do need to make their $$ for content being put out, but only being able to buy keys for crates is something I really hate. I do wish there was a very grindy way to obtain one key at least. Decyrptors were a great idea actually but as far as I can tell, only available during the Halloween event.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, the crate BS I just ignore. Customization has definitely become less fun since they introduced that. Before you could get good stuff as random drops, now everything good is in crates. I bought 5 or 10 keys once and got nothing but useless shit, so I'm done with that.

 

[Salty Rice]

Thats not how it works.

Depends on content and how much work was put into the game.

 

[Chronos]

Its time to get rid of standard pricing. Some games have an abundance of content and are justifiably worth much more than $60 like a Skyrim or Witcher 3. Many other games have significantly less and should be priced cheaper by comparison.

 

[Dekevo]

With the direction a lot of games are going with loot boxes, I think it should be $29.99

 

[Uncleslappy]

Nah, make games that are multiplayer only / have lootboxes cost $40 since they get rest back on microtransactions.

Click to shrink...

Give this man a trophy

 

[kinoki]

Games should cost what makes the most sense economically. Personally I feel that any game at $60 is robbery. I don't pay that for any game. Very seldom do I even pay more than $20 for games and that's when I really want them but even then I'm not crossing the $30 line.

 

[Deleted member 17403]

If your game doesn't offer longevity (multiplayer) or a worthwhile incentive to keep players engaged and returning to your game after they complete the campaign of a game, then yes I feel like the wise thing to do would be to offer benefits to the player like lower price points. Sure, you're taking a hit but perhaps the game will perform better than it otherwise would have at a higher price point. Remasters should always be cheaper than new, AAA properties...maybe short single player only games can be sequestered into a price between both those offerings.

Horizon is not linear.

Click to shrink...

Yea large games like Horizon, Zelda BotW, Nioh and Nier Automata should all be priced regularly but I think for certain cases the publisher/developer needs to consider the period they're releasing in and the other games also releasing. Personally, I would've sold Nier and Nioh for lower prices than Horizon and Zelda to make them more attractive purchases but maybe executives and market analysts feel like the games are different enough that the discounted price isn't warranted.

No, that's silly. Let's base the price of games on the actual cost to develop. TLG should be like $200 since it was in development for so long. COD games should be $20 since they're just reskinned versions of the prior year's release. Etc.

Click to shrink...

Sarcasm? Are you saying enthusiasts should be responsible for the hangups that occur during development? It's not our fault problems occurred with TLG, FFXV an MGSV. If those games were priced according to your logic, continuations in the franchise would likely never happen or be green lit because previous installments sold terribly. I don't foresee many people buying $200 games. Ultimately people determine the value of games(for better or worse) by voting with their wallets.

 

[Braaier]

No, that's silly. Let's base the price of games on the actual cost to develop. TLG should be like $200 since it was in development for so long. COD games should be $20 since they're just reskinned versions of the prior year's release. Etc.

 

[KnackOfAllTrades]

You're going to see whatever price the publisher thinks is best for the game.
If they can get away with $60 and think customers will support it, it's going to be $60.
If $40 is the best way to reach more customers (and potentially be more profitable), that's the way they'll go.

And as soon as someone starts sticking a $70 price tag on games (in the US) and the general consumer continues to buy it, $70 will be the new standard.

Honestly shocked that Rockstar hasn't tried this already. They could totally get away with it.

 

[Fuhgeddit]

Yeah, the crate BS I just ignore. Customization has definitely become less fun since they introduced that. Before you could get good stuff as random drops, now everything good is in crates. I bought 5 or 10 keys once and got nothing but useless shit, so I'm done with that.

Click to shrink...

It's so random too. I really hate getting rare from them that I already have and they are for cars I do not use.

 

[Deleted member 4247]

It's so random too. I really hate getting rare from them that I already have and they are for cars I do not use.

Click to shrink...

Yep. If they would just let me outright buy the stuff I want they'd be getting more money from me. I'd pay for goal explosions, wheels and stuff. But I won't pay for a miniscule chance of getting what I want, and a much larger chance of getting some shit I'll never use. So instead they get nothing (except when they release some cool car).

But I guess it's working for them.

 

[Dr. Caroll]

No, that's silly. Let's base the price of games on the actual cost to develop. TLG should be like $200 since it was in development for so long. COD games should be $20 since they're just reskinned versions of the prior year's release. Etc.

Click to shrink...

You have to be joking. Every new Call of Duty campaign has a campaign that took hundreds of people and tens of millions of dollars to create. Upwards of 75% of the game's budget if some claims about SP/MP budget splits are to be believed. They are incredible expensive and time consuming to make. TLG was a relatively low budget Japanese game which was in development for a long time. Call of Duty is a AAA spectacle that burns millions of dollars for every twenty minutes of gameplay.

 

[Deleted member 2099]

No, $60 is fine. I'd even pay more for single player games and less for online only games.

Click to shrink...

Likewise! Thinking the same thing.

 

[Deleted member 679]

Not at all, and it's really unfair to compare third party publishers to Sony. Sony takes 30% from a digital sale, so a $60 Bethesda game sold on PSN will actually get them $42. Not sure if there are any more costs on top of that, but let's assume there aren't. When Sony sells a new release they own at $40 on PSN, they get all the $40. In this example, they're only making $2 less than a $60 Bethesda game. It's absurd to expect them to price match this, especially considering that Sony isn't exactly offering The Last of Us Part II at that price, but much lower budget titles.

 

[Braaier]

You have to be joking. Every new Call of Duty campaign has a campaign that took hundreds of people and tens of millions of dollars to create. Upwards of 75% of the game's budget if some claims about SP/MP budget splits are to be believed. They are incredible expensive and time consuming to make. TLG was a relatively low budget Japanese game which was in development for a long time. Call of Duty is a AAA spectacle that burns millions of dollars for every twenty minutes of gameplay.

Click to shrink...

So both in development for years. $500 each