• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Deleted member 2595

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,475
Lol. Depending studio and budget and scope it should be 80, 60 or 40. I think in some cases even 100 would be justifiable but no one would ever do that. Yet.

Edit: i guess linear at 100 would have to be insanely long so maybe not.
 

Umbra_Witcher

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
269
Albuquerque, NM
no, absolutely not. the reason those games are cheaper are because they are remakes/reboots. i think people who judge the price of a game for the hours they get out of it are ridiculous.
 

Mac Dalton

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
286
No. rather multiplayer only games could be priced at 39,99. But it is a free market. nobody is forced to pay anything... For me 59 $ is a fair price for good entertainment like Horizon .

39$ was a great price for Uncharted the lost... (btw price of a new AAA Game in Europe is 69 Euro = 80$)
 

OhMyZach

Member
Oct 27, 2017
407
Your use of 'linear' is interesting as Dishonored 2 or The Evil Within 2 aren't the same type of linear as Wolfenstein: The New Colossus or The Last Guardian. Especially Dishonored 2 with it's multiple characters and replay built into the game. I feel like Bethesda's games struggle because of the marketing and the timing of the releases. It's a competitive year and you have to do something unique ( a la Nier: Automota) or invest in some marketing.
 

ArkhamFantasy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,550
Sales likely wouldnt increase enough to offset the lost revenue. Single Player audiences are shrinking, if anything the prices should go up for the lack of sales they get.

I think more realistically, they're going to have to either find ways to make the games cheaper, or find ways to increase play time because gamers clearly see play time as value. Thats why so many games are moving to open world, i think devs should also take a look at Zero Escape model of making new scenarios with reused assets that way the player replays the game enough to see the game as a good value, rather than a single 10-15 hour playthrough which the market doesnt see as a good value.
 

Blackflag

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,968
I mean Sony is doing that with a few games this generation(Ratchet&Clank,Last Guardian and now Shadow of Colossus), Bethesda linear games are struggling with sales. What do you guys think? Linear games with 10-15 hour campaign without multiplayer and coop should target for a $39.99 for a standard price?

Yes, if your goal is to have companies entirely cease making them. It's already starting to happen at the 60 dollar price point.
 

OniluapL

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,000
I think there should be more games at $40. I mean, scale down the budget and the price, and maybe something like the Evil Within 2 would be more profitable than at $60 (even more so because I think horror game fans are less concerned with graphics?).
Of course it wouldn't be the case with all games - Naughty Dog's franchises have the amazingly high production values as a selling point, so scaling down budget would be counter-productive (although they actually did a sucessful $40 game), but... I think maybe it's an idea worth considering.
 

Thrill_house

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,631
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.
 

Baliis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
539
Only if you want loot boxes and DLC galore to cover the cost difference. $60 is already too low for the cost of developing many games
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,172
United States
No way. I think my single player games are usually chopped up into enough chunks of dlc already. Id rather support the few good single player gamess with the full 60 than watch the quality and quantity of single player games drop.
 
OP
OP
gueras

gueras

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
746
Well last Black Friday we saw games launched in september,october even in november heavily discounted in bf 30-40 Bucks. So If they can do that 30-60 days after launch. Maybe the could use a low pricepoint to get a better launch. I love single player games and i would pay more. But i want them to survive this New market.
 

Deleted member 24540

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,599
Single player games don't have the long-term benefit of microtransactions like games as services do, so to compete with those you need as much of an upfront payment as possible.
 

shoemasta

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,028
Its not really possible. The only $40 games are "smaller" games like stand alone expansions and remakes.
 

Bionicman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
703
I think it would be better if the industry adopts Ninja Theory's AA approach to linear single player games. Worked pretty well for them.
 

Falchion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
40,980
Boise
I mean I would love cheaper games but I don't think that's likely to happen with most big budget games. I do love when we get smaller scope games like Hellblade which are like $30 for a 6-10 hour experience.
 

daniel77733

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,639
NO. I had no problem paying $60/$48 GCU for The Evil Within 2 and Wolfenstein 2. Finished TEW2 two weeks ago and currently in the final area of Wolfenstein 2 in which im already at around 18-20 hours. Will easily surpass 20 hours for me. Every time a reviewer mentions how long it took them to finish the game, I know that im getting at least double if not more simply because I play on HARD with Aim Assist OFF and im not speed running the game. Reading that some finished Wolfenstein 2 in 8 hours or less tells me that they were speed running the game on EASY with Aim Assist ON. Will never listen to these reviewers because with every game that I happen to also play, they're always way off.
 

Dubloon7

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
150
I think all linear story-driven games (e.g. Uncharted series) are without a doubt a MAX $30. no use returning to the game and $30 covers the fee of like a 2-hour long movie at the theater.

The Last Guardian had more gameplay than uncharted, and I don't think deserves to be called the linear story driven garbage Uncharted is. OP, are you implying ALL videogames that are single player to be classified under this $30 umbrella? Practically every videogame plays like that as it has a start-middle-end to its story
 

Sir Guts

Use of alt account
Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,480
Dropping SP only games to $40 won't do us any good. They will barely cover the development cost and then studios will start dumping them! No thanks, I don't mind $60 since they'll give me a good content at the end. What I really want is from the developers to stop sticking MP in games that doesn't need them…
 

IplayGames4Fun

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 31, 2017
196
I mean Sony is doing that with a few games this generation(Ratchet&Clank,Last Guardian and now Shadow of Colossus), Bethesda linear games are struggling with sales. What do you guys think? Linear games with 10-15 hour campaign without multiplayer and coop should target for a $39.99 for a standard price?
It's a tough call. on one hand they offer much less hours of entertainment then an open world RPG or online game. on the other hand they still cost a ton to make so they would need to sell 33% more copies to turn a profit then they would at 60 bucks
 

Monogatari

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,166
If they are remakes, mid tier games or expansions ala Uncharted Lost Legacy then yes

If they are brand new, top tier, AAA (I hate this phrase) then yes

What is the logic re: linear games being cheaper? Are they supposed to take less effort to make than a copy and paste formulaic open world game?
 

Cantona222

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,136
Kuwait
No no no. Keep them at $60. Publishers are thinking of abandoning this type of games because they cannot make profit out of them (EA and Visceral) so we cannot suggest to cut another 33% from their "non-profit." I want these games to exist.
 

Ahegao

Member
Oct 28, 2017
219
Of course I would like a cheaper price point for games but I'm not sure if that's profitable anymore.
 

Alienous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,606
Games should feel comfortable reducing their prices, yes. $40 for Prey 2 at launch might bring in more total revenue than $60 for the first week and a sharp price decline afterwards.

It shouldn't be a mandate, but it should be something more publishers investigate. The Overwatch model might be a good one to follow - ~$40 for the game, but have a $60 'Day 1 edition' with trivial digital content for the fans who are used to paying that price.
 

MrBS

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,236
I think games should cost whatever the developer/publisher thinks they should and voting with your wallet accordingly to keep prices at a level you are comfortable with.
 

Yarbskoo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,980
$60 is fine as long as there's no microtransactions.

EDIT: Oh, you mean from a business perspective. Okay then yeah, load up them lootboxes.
 

Akela

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,849
If I'm honest, very little of the way the industry is structured feels sustainable to me - budgets are increasing at a constant rate, but the audience isn't. In fact in some places it's probably even decline. Even with SAAS games, companies are still appealing to the same Core audience, they're simply making more money out of the players they've got rather then trying to grow the pool of potential buyers. The fact that the monetisation structure works so well helps to shield these games from the issue that comes from difference in budget growth to audience growth, but companies will be forced to become more and more aggressive to make up for that continuing divergence between budget growth and user growth.

With single player AAA games, that opportunity doesn't exist to begin with. Companies need to figure out some way of making these games sustainable, fast, or they simply won't exist in the future at all. The games are budgeted so that they will be profitable at $60, but that's the old model, and the old model increasingly doesn't work. $40 with the old model won't work either even if it increases the sales, because the increase probably won't make up the loss of the extra $10 for every sale. The fact is, some of these games are essentially doomed to becoming financial failures before production has even begun, because the model doesn't work. I think the only real solutions might be to somehow halt or reverse the budget increase, or trying to somehow get more people to play Core games. But both of those are difficult - the Core audience want the visual fidelity, game lengths and expansive worlds that are causing the budgets to increase so rapidly to begin with, and how does a game company, that only provides software, expand the audience that plays games when none of the hardware manufactures, bar perhaps Nintendo, seam to have any interest whatsoever in expanding the audience past the hardcore, 20-30 male dominated Western demographic? Truth be told I think the issues that are effecting single player games will eventually also begin to effect SAAS games, and the whole thing will probably implode within the next decade or so unless something is done about it. Parts of the industry are beginning to feel a bit like a ticking time bomb.
 

Deleted member 9486

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,867
"Linear games with 10-15 hour campaign without multiplayer and coop" can easily be more expensive in production than whatever random multiplayer shooter is popular at the moment.

Which is why companies like EA make few of those games anymore and say the economics of single player games are challenging.

I think we'll see SP games with big budgets largely diminishing in coming years aside from Sony and Nintendo first party stuff (as those help move consoles) unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

Paquete_PT

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,333
I feel that 49-59€ is the perfect pricing. I don't believe that a slightly decrease in a game's price would lower the developers profit's as I think that more people would buy the games. With games getting bigger and bigger in content (open-world, multiplayer, etc) and discounts happening faster than ever, it gets harder to justify spending 69€ on a linear 12h game on launch day. Specially since there are so many great games to choose from.
Hate to use this example, as I'm sure it just means that I'm part of the problem, but I would instantly buy TEW2 and Wolf2 on launch they if they were in that price range.
If lowering the price would indeed lead to fewer linear games, than I'm fine the way things are.
 

Oliver James

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
7,786
I don't think so, especially with RPGs. Then again, I usually buy just RPGs and they are bang for your buck. I'd hate for these games to be gutted just so they can reach a certain price point.
 

Chirotera

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
4,275
$60 is fine. What I don't want are micro transactions in a game I've already paid full price for. If they want to have their loot boxes, then the game should be substantially cheaper or free.
 

Sevyne

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
529
Do you know how lucky we are that $60 is pretty much the standard/peak in game pricing right now? They're probably cheaper now than they've ever been (in NA at least) while being more expensive than ever to make. I find it kind of absurd for anyone to complain that $60 is too much.
 

Dubloon7

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
150
If you want them for $39? Yes. AA budget and see what happens.
People that didn't buy it for $60, wont buy it for $39 either.

I totally fit in your SPOILER tag. If it's "overpriced" in my mind at MSRP of $60, even when it reaches $20 is not worth my time. I can easily wait for prices to drop to the point I want and they have enough sales of other games to hit my price point where I will bite until said game arrives in my periscope

My price points:

No Mans Sky for $15 is perfect,
Nioh for $20 is perfect
Nier: Automata for $22.50 is nice but I prefer $15 for this type of game
.
.
.
Uncharted 2 - $20
Uncharted 1 - $5
Uncharted 3 - $0
Uncharted 4 - $0
 
Most of the games recently (last 2 years) i buy when they are ÂŁ20 or cheaper. There are exceptions like The Witcher 3 and it's Game of The Year Edition, Destiny 2 (tho this is a gas type not sp) Horizon Zero Dawn or Uncharted 4 .

I'd be happy to buy new sp releases at ÂŁ30 price range but unfortunately in current economics it's not possible due to reasons mentioned many times before.
 

Bulebule

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,805
It depends about the overall quality. If it is a well designed game from throught the game with good gameplay, I don't mind paying the bigger price. However, if the game doesn't offer much gameplay-wise, I rather wait for price drop to 30 - 40.
 

We_care_a_lot

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,157
Summerside PEI
Also consider that a 'non linear' game is usually comprised of heavily recycled assets. Characters have the same face and voice. Enemies are pallate swaps. Quests are generic. Areas are procedurally generated. A linear single player experience often (not always there are exceptions) has more attention to detail etc
 

Dr. Caroll

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,111
This thread is a perfect example of why the current system is unsustainable. Campaigns cost an astronomical amount of money an development time to make. This is a common sentiment that ignores the inescapable reality that these games are costing more and more to make. You price your game at $40. It sells 2 million copies. You're million more in the red. Since the 2008 GFC, gamers have become increasingly conscious of how much a game is "worth". And in this skewed world, incredibly expensive singleplayer content is expected to be somehow cheaper than relatively cheap to make multiplayer content. That's simply not workable. I think there's a general lack of appreciation for how much money and how much time and how many people it takes to make a 7 hour long Call of Duty campaign.

Look at Wolfenstein II. Notice how much padding and content reuse it has? How you revisit the same locations more than once? How they added the dual timelines thing to try and squeeze some replay value for players? All efforts to skimp on costs. Too add more "value". To avoid the dreaded perception that a singleplayer FPS game isn't "worth" the money.
 

Kazoku_

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,398
I don't think it would be a good idea. We're already seeing an increase in predatory practices in full-priced games. (Loot boxes, virtual currency, etc.)

Imagine what the situation would be like if publishers were allowed to argue for these practices in light of the lower point of entry a $39 standard would provide.

No thanks. Keep it at $59 and stop buying VC, people!
 

HebrewHammer

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,524
Chicago
I think Wolfenstein II is a very recent indication that this genre can still warrant a $60 price tag, no?

And by today's standards, yes - I'd consider Wolf II to be linear.