£70 - The "New Normal" for next generation games?

McPhee · 4 Oct 2020 at 18:59

stoofa said:
The only people paying £70 for a game, even on release, are those buying digital at RRP via their debit/credit card.
Right now I could buy £70 worth of PSN credit for £59.70. It's highly unlikely that most stores will charge more than £60 for the physical version of the game at launch.
Wait 3-4 months and physical versions will drop even further and it's certainly not unheard of for digital versions to have price drops in that period of time either.

Demons Souls is £69.99 at most retailers. ~£65 at a couple. But no cheaper than that. Same goes for Destruction All-stars So the new price tag clearly is real. Not quite sure why you're making out like it doesn't exist?

JBeck · 4 Oct 2020 at 19:08

Does anyone have any data regards the profits of a FTP game versus a game such as FIFA, for example at full price?

I mean FIFA will be £70 and will have microtransactions, Apex Legends is free and also has them, if they make as much profit as each other, why aren't all games £70 or why aren't all games FTP?

Raymond Lin · 4 Oct 2020 at 19:24

JBeck said:
Does anyone have any data regards the profits of a FTP game versus a game such as FIFA, for example at full price?

I mean FIFA will be £70 and will have microtransactions, Apex Legends is free and also has them, if they make as much profit as each other, why aren't all games £70 or why aren't all games FTP?

Fifa is an established brand and IP, Apex Legends is a new IP with no licencing to worry about. Out of the gate without a single line of code written FIFA cost money, that might partly contributes the different pricing model, plus traditionally FIFA is a game you buy, not get free. The micro transaction part is not required to play fifa, you can play it fine with friends without it (yes i know Apex you don’t need to pay if you don’t want to either). Apex Legends is following other similarly genre of games, Fortnight being the example that it’s free. Fortnight proved you can be profitable in that genre without an entry fee and to compete in that genre, you need to price accordingly. Can you imagine it cost £70 when Fortnight stays free? FIFA historically needs an entry fee so it would continue to do so. Unless another football game comes out smashes the profit ceiling, just as good and totally free.

I doubt it though since the FIFA brand is very strong, having real player names is a big attraction for the game so for a developer to do that, to buy that rights cost a lot of money and they would want a return on their investment.

Deleted member 77746 · 4 Oct 2020 at 19:48

One way to kill of physical media. Up the price so high people get the download content. Way to go!

Deleted member 77746 · 4 Oct 2020 at 19:50

Raymond Lin said:
I remember Turok on the N64 being silly money, something about expandable cartridge or something.

indeed you are right. £70

Google “turok n64 release price”

Dannyb01y · 5 Oct 2020 at 10:57

JBeck said:
Does anyone have any data regards the profits of a FTP game versus a game such as FIFA, for example at full price?

I mean FIFA will be £70 and will have microtransactions, Apex Legends is free and also has them, if they make as much profit as each other, why aren't all games £70 or why aren't all games FTP?

EA made $1.5 Billion from Ultimate team in the past year across its franchises so not just Fifa. Makes you wonder at what point it would be more profitable to make Fifa free to play. Not sure they can really justify raising the price of the game at those profit margins!

cu3ed · 5 Oct 2020 at 11:46

Bouton Aide said:
indeed you are right. £70

Google “turok n64 release price”

Didnt that come with a memory ex pander for texture etc?

Deleted member 77746 · 5 Oct 2020 at 12:30

cu3ed said:
Didnt that come with a memory ex pander for texture etc?

Probably the red memory cart thing?

Dannyb01y · 5 Oct 2020 at 12:41

Turok 2 used the red jumper pak, it was need to some features of Perfect Dark. Turok 1 was expensive presumably because of using cartridges still when the other consoles switched to cd/dvds.

malachi · 5 Oct 2020 at 13:29

Only 4 N64 games required the Expansion pak to play. But Turok 2 only used the pak for enhancements but wasn't required.

JBeck · 5 Oct 2020 at 19:32

Raymond Lin said:
Fifa is an established brand and IP, Apex Legends is a new IP with no licencing to worry about. Out of the gate without a single line of code written FIFA cost money, that might partly contributes the different pricing model, plus traditionally FIFA is a game you buy, not get free. The micro transaction part is not required to play fifa, you can play it fine with friends without it (yes i know Apex you don’t need to pay if you don’t want to either). Apex Legends is following other similarly genre of games, Fortnight being the example that it’s free. Fortnight proved you can be profitable in that genre without an entry fee and to compete in that genre, you need to price accordingly. Can you imagine it cost £70 when Fortnight stays free? FIFA historically needs an entry fee so it would continue to do so. Unless another football game comes out smashes the profit ceiling, just as good and totally free.

I doubt it though since the FIFA brand is very strong, having real player names is a big attraction for the game so for a developer to do that, to buy that rights cost a lot of money and they would want a return on their investment.

I was just using those two as an example really, not a straight comparison. What I was getting at, which I didn't put across very well, was when does the point come when a FTP game makes as much profit from transactions that a retail game does, making the whole point of why is a retail game not FTP in the first place.

Or something like that.

Dannyb01y said:
EA made $1.5 Billion from Ultimate team in the past year across its franchises so not just Fifa. Makes you wonder at what point it would be more profitable to make Fifa free to play. Not sure they can really justify raising the price of the game at those profit margins!

That was kinda my point, why charge £70 for a game when you make so much on the micro transactions / loot boxes etc, because if the game was FTP from the start surely that would widen the userbase substantially to increase those transactions and perhaps with that extra userbase those transaction sales could possible surpass what they would have made from a smaller userbase purchasing the initial game.

It would be interesting to know if a game has started out as one or the other and either gone pay or FTP and see what the revenue comparison was.

DeliciousStorage · 5 Oct 2020 at 19:44

JBeck said:
That was kinda my point, why charge £70 for a game when you make so much on the micro transactions / loot boxes etc, because if the game was FTP from the start surely that would widen the userbase substantially to increase those transactions and perhaps with that extra userbase those transaction sales could possible surpass what they would have made from a smaller userbase purchasing the initial game.

Why would they only charge for microtransactions if they can have both? Fifa already has an established user base so they don't need to make it free to play. I would guess that they've done the calculations and think the extra revenue from new user microtransactions won't outweigh charging their existing user base full price for the base game.

Plainsong · 5 Oct 2020 at 20:01

EA make more from the microtransactions than they do from the base FIFA game. I mean, why wouldn't they if people continue to lap it up?

JBeck · 5 Oct 2020 at 20:31

DeliciousStorage said:
Why would they only charge for microtransactions if they can have both? Fifa already has an established user base so they don't need to make it free to play. I would guess that they've done the calculations and think the extra revenue from new user microtransactions won't outweigh charging their existing user base full price for the base game.

Because if the game was FTP they would have a larger userbase, meaning more revenue from transactions, as I said in my post.

Plainsong said:
EA make more from the microtransactions than they do from the base FIFA game. I mean, why wouldn't they if people continue to lap it up?

Exactly.

Kreeeee · 5 Oct 2020 at 22:52

Raymond Lin said:
And your point has already been answered, that’s what I am trying to tell, so to save you and I time repeating ourselves, which is exactly what we are doing, wasting our time repeating arguments that’s already been made.

You do know that just because you made your case for your side of the argument, it doesn’t make it fact.

Raymond Lin · 5 Oct 2020 at 23:47

Kreeeee said:
You do know that just because you made your case for your side of the argument, it doesn’t make it fact.

You do know that I never claimed it as fact. It was my side of the argument as you said, sooo what? If you want to disagree, go ahead and state your case, otherwise, what's the point of this besides trolling?

But if you want me to state some facts, I will.

It is a FACT that a Nintendo game cartridge cannot turn into a Microwave
It is a FACT that a GAME on a cartridge functions as a GAME just like Games that comes on a Disc.

I will eat my hat if you can turn a Mario Cartridge into a microwave.

greatash · 6 Oct 2020 at 02:55

Don't think I'll be buying any games at launch - £65-70 is way too much. Can grab a years worth of games on PC for that much.

Since I sold my PS4 in late 2015 after it gathered dust I have missed quite a few PS4 games, some are on ps+ collection like bloodborne and the last guardian and others I will buy like medievil and judgment.

Just worried with the lack of info they may not even be upgraded - I want to play Bloodborne at 60fps not the 25fps PS4 version :cool:

FoxEye · 6 Oct 2020 at 03:09

Will never pay more than £30 for a game. And normally much less than that (for PC games).

eggyoke said:
Big nope from me. It's actually made me sour over the PS5. I was planning on getting one next year sometime but I'm now seriously considering XSX and game pass (especially with the Bethesda acquisition.) I think there's going to be a lot of parents buying the Digital PS5 for their kid not knowing that the standard price for games is £70, and that they can't shop anywhere else.

You're not the only one. I was interested in the PS5 but not really any more. Not now, not in a year's time; at those prices... not ever.

It'll be PC only for me, now. With XBox pass for PC.

Kreeeee · 6 Oct 2020 at 08:05

Raymond Lin said:
It is a FACT that a GAME on a cartridge functions as a GAME just like Games that comes on a Disc.

You seem extremely aggressive about this for some reason, despite there being no one who disagrees with that explicit point.

I really don’t understand why you insist on using the false equivalence logical fallacy to twist the debate you were having with others in this thread.

Raymond Lin · 6 Oct 2020 at 08:22

Kreeeee said:
You seem extremely aggressive about this for some reason, despite there being no one who disagrees with that explicit point.

I really don’t understand why you insist on using the false equivalence logical fallacy to twist the debate you were having with others in this thread.

I am not the one quoted me out randomly and accuse me stating a fact when all I did was offered an opinion. Stop trolling and get back on topic please. I am talking about games, prices and what they are to the end user, a £70 game is a £70 game regardless of the medium it comes in. That is my opinion, if you think a £70 game can be used as a doorstop, fantastic.