Support NeoGAF

[Belthazar]

I've been really enjoying AA games lately, with releases like Kena, Remnant, It Takes Two, The Ascent, etc. I feel like they nicely fit the gap between AAA games and the average indie, while also allowing for bigger risks to be taken with game design.

But the pricing needs to make sense, I would never pay $60 for something like Stranger of Paradise when Square can offer me Final Fantasy VII Remake for the same price, you know what I mean? The value just isn't there. I would definitely consider it at a $40 price point tho... And I feel like a lot of people are on the same boat. In fact, Square seems to be one of the worst offenders in that aspect, being the ones that also tried to charge $60 for Balan Wonderland before reducing the price.

 

[hemo memo]

Even $40 is too much knowing the price will drop significantly just a little later and the opportunity is big of AA appearing in services like PS+ and Gamepass. That’s my opinion.

 

[Nautilus]

Given how fast most games go on sale, alot of these games are given the 60 dollars price tag so that, once they make a sale for said game, it seems more enticing.

That's the biggest reason why AA games from big publishers will hardly be priced below 60.

 

[ReBurn]

A big factor in the price of these games is what it cost to make them. They set a price that helps them recoup the investment but the games don't deliver the value that the price commands. Part of it is also when they release. Kena hit a sweet spot because it released during a dry spell and there wasn't much new to play. But if it would have released alongside Elden Ring, Horizon and GT7 it wouldn't have done well at that price.

 

[Captain Toad]

You guys want games priced at a point to where the risk outweighs the reward and they don't get made at all.

 

[kingfey]

The major issue is defining what constitutes as a $60-$70 game.

Most games take either short, or long time to finish it. Is that why they are expensive? Or Is it the quality? Or is it the budget?

Unless we have clear defining term, we won't really know anything.

 

[KingT731]

A big factor in the price of these games is what it cost to make them. They set a price that helps them recoup the investment but the games don't deliver the value that the price commands. Part of it is also when they release. Kena hit a sweet spot because it released during a dry spell and there wasn't much new to play. But if it would have released alongside Elden Ring, Horizon and GT7 it wouldn't have done well at that price.

Kena was $40 at launch...wdym?

 

[Metnut]

Wait a few months and Stranger of Paradise won’t be $60 anymore. With Elden Ring, Horizon Forbidden West and Triangle Strategy all out right now, by the time I have any time to play that game the price will be fair ($40 or less).

 

[Fbh]

I get your point, and to and extent I guess I agree it's hard to justify $60 for a Ps3 looking game like Strangers in Paradise when you can get something like Horizon and Elden Ring for the same price.
But then again you can just wait for sales. My guess would be Square is counting on the game still selling decently at $60, and the people who would have gotten it if it was $40 will still buy it once it drops to $40 in a few months.

 

[Bonfires Down]

None of the first four game you list have ever been sold at full price. This seems like more of a Square Enix problem. SE has been delusional for a long time, though they are free to price their games however they want. Maybe full price is what makes them the most revenue.

 

[Dane]

None of these games except for FFO were sold at 60.

 

[just_like_that]

im still stunned that i paid £50 for elden ring on the psn store and the content thats there is mind blowing. ratchet and clank at £70 just feels like a rip off. dont get me wrong its a great game and i've plat it in 29 hours but i am 127 hours in elden ring and havent even beat the game yet.

the pricing on some of these games doesnt make sense and should be based on content, not on how good it looks and what the game is utilising the hardware potential etc

 

[Three]

im still stunned that i paid £50 for elden ring on the psn store and the content thats there is mind blowing. ratchet and clank at £70 just feels like a rip off. dont get me wrong its a great game and i've plat it in 29 hours but i am 127 hours in elden ring and havent even beat the game yet.

the pricing on some of these games doesnt make sense and should be based on content, not on how good it looks and what the game is utilising the hardware potential etc

But the issue is that you are equating playtime with price which is actually fine since you should always choose what you want out of a game, but then there are others who value quality/polish. I think The Order 1886 is a good example of a past failed game that had this issue. It was short but it was highly polished with high production value. Not sure it would have been £5 but hard to justify high prices with short play time. I'm sure a lot of people spend 1000s of hours in minecraft but if notch had priced it at £120 back then based on how long he thought people would play it it wouldn't have got anywhere either.

 

[Danjin44]

I don’t look at it that way, if the AA games is good and enjoyable enough like with Triangle Strategy then is worth full price for me.

And if AAA game is not fun then it’s not worth full price doesn’t matter how expensive it’s graphic is.

 

[A.Romero]

I don't care as long as prices eventually come down. I don't mind waiting.