
Sony caused a stir near the start of this console generation when it announced that (most) of its first-party PS5 titles would be priced at $70 going forward, instead of the $60 tag that's been a staple of the market for so many years. Despite some controversy, the Japanese giant hasn't backed down, and as a result, other publishers seem to be pushing for a similar tactic. Prime example: Nintendo just released The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom for $70.
And now, SEGA has suggested that it could follow suit. During the company's latest financial call, the company stated: "In the global marketplace, AAA game titles for console have been sold at $59.99 for many years, but titles sold at $69.99 have appeared in the last year. We would like to review the prices of titles that we believe are commensurate with price increases, while also keeping an eye on market conditions."
Now while this isn't a clear-cut commitment from SEGA, there's no doubt that itself and other big publishers will have been keeping a close eye on the situation with Sony's product pricing — and more recently, Nintendo's. The bottom line here is that if one company can get away with it, you can be damn sure that others will do the same.
The question, then, is whether consumers will start to draw a line. A recent report claimed that higher game prices could be having a negative impact on sales — no kidding! — but it's also argued that higher prices are driving increased revenue.
Could you see SEGA, and potentially other publishers, pumping up the prices on their games? Start questioning everything in the comments section below.
[source videogameschronicle.com]
Comments 33
Like everything in life, vote with you’re pocket (except household bills of course).
I personally don't mind that 10$/€ more for a game if the game is worth that price increase. Problem is that for most games that isn't the case
I always think it's funny that Sony are seen as the ones who normalised this when 2K were the first to raise the price to the mythical £70 mark (which only really effects you if your digital only)
Hey, I appreciate all extra incentives not to buy games at launch, makes it even easier to catch up with the many oldies I want to play.
I think companies would rather a dip in sales if it meant more revenue, but personally I would judge a price tag by the content the game has to offer. I would gladly pay £70 for Zelda TOTK, HZD, God of war Ragnarok, Elden Ring, FH5, Hogwarts Legacy etc. But no way in hell am I paying that for games like Redfall, Cyberpunk 2077, Fifa, Soul Hackers, and any other games that are lacking in content, buggy, perform like crap and missing features.
If Devs want me to pay £70 then they must make sure they have made a quality finished product on release, show they have put some care into their creation before asking money for it.
I dont have a problem with publishers charging what they want for a game as long as over time it decreases in price. I can then choose to wait and buy it on sale.
I mean, I'll pay $70 for Persona 6. No problem.
As I already said somewhere else, SEGA games go on sale very fast at retail, second only to Ubisoft and EA.
Also, many people who buy games day 1 trade it on reseller sites after finishing it, so they may recoup up to 80% of its price.
I don't blame them but on the flip of that coin, they shouldn't be shocked when people like myself buy fewer titles at launch.
Fewer unit sales but more profit at the end. Corporations profiting from excluding gamers seem to be the future of gaming.
Me? I could afford it but refuse to. I won’t pay $70 for any game at launch. I’ll happily wait for a deep discount. These days, for most gamers I just now wait for them to hit $30 on a sale. I got a large enough backlog to play.
I did get Tears of the Kingdom, but I pre-ordered that before the price was announced and they honored me the $60 price.
"SEGA Could Join Sony..."
Whaaaaaaaaat!? Surely not.
"...in Raising Its Game Prices to $70"
Ohhhhh.
Considering I paid well over $70 for Persona 5 on two separate occasions and buy the deluxe versions of Yakuza every time, SEGA is one of the very few publishers that I feel like has earned that extra $10 already.
Just remember, many SNES games broke $70 and $80 price barriers in the early to mid 90's. I remember paying $80 for NBA Live, Final Fantasy and Street Fighter.
The $70 argument will rage on no matter what. My only two cents: unless its a true PlayStation exclusive or Nintendo exclusive, all multiplatform games go on sale within a month. Just pick and choose! Know how to play the market!
@mariomaster96 This exactly like with Jedi Survivor and Redfall. They want 70$ from us when they cant even make a stable launch. ***** off devs.
It's a lot, but then I remember Street Fighter 2 on the Mega Drive was £60, and Vitrua Racing was (I think) £80 or more...in the 90s! This was coming off £1.99 - £3.99 for tape games on the then popular 8-bit Mircos in the UK, the Spectrum and C64.
Cheaper games are always good though, I only buy a new game full price if it's something I really want to play at launch, and I don't pre order. It's really poor to see expensive games launch in a glitchy state, and requiring numerous patches to work properly.
Stay in your lane Sega. Your games don’t warrant that price tag.
They all can charge $150 for all I care 🤷 I still have never payed $70 for any game this generation and I have most of the big releases. Those of us who wait for the games to be heavily discounted not only benefit from a cheaper price but from a fully patched experience!
When a market is in a position where prices are increasing, sales are declining, but revenues are rising, something is very, very, very broken with that market. The industry keeps talking growth, yet makes it clearer that all their profit growth comes from extracting more margin from the same ever smaller group of customers, while not only failing to grow their actual market, but actually facilitating a market contraction. That's the VERY opposite of a healthy market and suggests the "traditional" (console/retail/PC) games market is in a state of serious decline.
@SplooshDmg No, you'll pay $190. $70 + $70 (when they sell the same game again but this time the actual real version), then another $50 for the combined DLC.
Aww too bad, I must say a couple of times their “budget” prices at day 1 got me into buying games I would have normally slept on.
@NEStalgia Oh, wait. I forgot. I'll actually just be playing the F2P gacha Persona 5 on my iPad instead.
Man, I just want news on LAD: Gaiden, LAD 8, Persona 6, any other Persona 5 spin off they’re inevitably making, SMT news, etc rather than “News” about them increasing their prices. How long can Sega keep me waiting for these precious titles?!?
SEGA YOUR GAMES ARE BARELY WORTH $60 TF ARE Y'ALL DOING
@SplooshDmg This is the correct answer.
You feel you have gained some knowledge.
I don't think I can personally name a game that's worth £60, never mind £70.
@NEStalgia It’s basically whales and fanboys mostly buying games at this point except the very biggest ones. Casuals and Regular people are not going to drop $70 on these smaller games.
Unless Sega plans to massively upgrade the quality of their games I won't be paying $70. Nothing they release is worth a $70 price tag. Everything they release still looks and plays like a late PS3-Early PS4 Era game.
There are very few games/studios I will buy a $70 game from... Sony's game I will gladly pay $70 for.
Sorry, Nintendo, I don't not care how good ToTK is. Until you release hardware where I can get higher performance than 720P/20FPS. Your games are not worth the $70... I don't see how any games made on the Switch have a budget so great that you need a $70 price tag to recoup cost.
With Microsoft that a tircky one....
I'd happily pay £70 for a new Yakuza or Persona 6 game. Worth every penny. High quality and with a per hour value of £1 or less.
If Sega did a serious, first-party effort into one of their iconic RPG properties like Skies of Arcadia or Shining Force I could see myself supporting them (even at $70, because if they aren't supported it's a sure thing we'll never, ever see them again). But Sonic, Yakuza, Monkey Ball? I don't even bother with those when they're on sale.
You have to justify the investment to the consumer before you go talking about price hikes. With the exception of the Valkyria Chronicles games (not counting Azure, yet another ill-advised attempt to "mainstream" an SRPG IP), Sega has utterly failed to do that for two decades running, in my humble opinion.
@KaijuKaiser
People seem to forget that gaming is still the cheapest it has ever been. I saw a post that made a splash on Reddit of some store catalog from 1996 that listed new games for 50 dollars and the comments were full of idiots going "oh games were so much cheaper" and they didn't understand no matter how much I tried to explain inflation to them.
@PegasusActual93 What you fail to mention, though, is that once you bought a game, back then, it was yours and was a completed game with actual content. Those games didn’t rely on servers that could shutdown, leaving you with a paper weight you paid money good for. I didn’t have to wait for devs to fix a game I paid for, or add content that they promised would be in the launch version of the game. You didn’t have to buy battle passes or go to an in-game store to unlock cosmetics, you just played the game or used FREE cheat codes. There was no paying to level up faster, so games weren’t designed with that in mind. So yeah, maybe you can argue inflation, but that’s still better than corporate greed any day.
@Shad361 Exactly. There's something very broken about an industry dependent on whales overspending in panicked bursts rather than steady mass market spending patterns. It's not a stable industry at all.
I never buy SEGA games at full price, but still sucks for day one supporters.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...