Support NeoGAF

[ZehDon]

The reason this is happening is because the current gaming environment is massively deflationary to revenues.

Like consider that digital games have made it incredibly easy and cheap to "create" copies of your games and distribute them to willing customers, nowadays, a niche JRPG doesn't have to print like 50k disc copies and pray to hell that they distributed them correctly around the world so all the copies go to customers that want them.

Dev tools have become ubiquitous and largely unified, a 30-something team can create a game that is just as graphically-leading as something a 1000-man studio can do.

So if you want to make a game you can just make it and submit it to a digital platform and it's there for ppl to buy. This has resulted in a massive, MASSIVE increase in the supply of games, and game pricing is clearly being affected by it. Look at big corporations doing %30-40 price cuts mere months after a game is out...

Well, that's just called "competition". Pricing consumers out of the market to make up for lost business is a really fast way to destroy your company. That's called a negative spiral: people don't buy your games because they're too expensive, so you make them more expensive to make up for lost sales, causing you to lose more sales.

As for the competition we're seeing, one element you didn't touch on was that companies are effectively now competing against themselves from two decades ago, and their older titles are winning. Generally, although more significantly in the PC space, we're seeing that the majority of time is being spent on older games - because we've reached a point where games that are even 15 years old are still fully functional current hardware. Xbox's backwards compatibly, for example, means I don't have to accept trash like Dragon Age: The Veilguard - I can literally just play Dragon Age: Origins right now and its costs $5. Thanks to digital distribution and libraries, gamers have access to literally tens of thousands of high quality games. If a game is uniquely its own thing, it can retain a fully active player base and community for decades. Skyrim, Dark Souls, Battlefield 3 - you can pick these games up for the fraction of a cost of a new game. And on PC, those games are often enhanced with community patches and mods to make them arguably better than modern titles. Starfield today has to complete with Morrowind from 20 years ago and the two decades fans have spent making it better.

Today, revenues are often record breaking for modern publishers largely because there aren't that many publishers left, but also because modern games have numerous revenue streams beyond the boxed game. DLC, collectors edition, merchandise, soundtracks, cosmetic "micro" transactions, battle passes - these have become borderline ubiquitous in the industry. When people talk about games needing to be more expensive, I laugh because they've been more expensive than the sticker price for decades. From EA selling multiplayer codes to kill the used game markets, to XP booster micro-transactions in single player Ubisoft titles, gamers have been spending more per title for years because the industry got greedy. And now they've run out of ways to be coy about it so they've stopped trying to hide it.

 

[laynelane]

Today, revenues are often record breaking for modern publishers largely because there aren't that many publishers left, but also because modern games have numerous revenue streams beyond the boxed game. DLC, collectors edition, merchandise, soundtracks, cosmetic "micro" transactions, battle passes - these have become borderline ubiquitous in the industry. When people talk about games needing to be more expensive, I laugh because they've been more expensive than the sticker price for decades. From EA selling multiplayer codes to kill the used game markets, to XP booster micro-transactions in single player Ubisoft titles, gamers have been spending more per title for years because the industry got greedy. And now they've run out of ways to be coy about it so they've stopped trying to hide it.

There's also the newest one (and it's catching on fast) - pay to play the game "early" (either on its own or through purchase of a more expensive edition of the game). Every time I think we've reached the limit on ways to charge more for games - another one shows up. I think there's no doubt that the increased prices of games will have zero impact on all these monetization practices too.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

This was such a bizarre line of argument by both regulators. Are businesses just supposed to put pricing down on hold forever following acquisition? It's not like they force people to pay for GP, there's other options to play games.

 

[Heisenberg007]

This was such a bizarre line of argument by both regulators. Are businesses just supposed to put pricing down on hold forever following acquisition? It's not like they force people to pay for GP, there's other options to play games.

Other options like buying games, for which they just raised the prices to $80, right? RIGHT?

 

[DeepEnigma]

This was such a bizarre line of argument by both regulators. Are businesses just supposed to put pricing down on hold forever following acquisition? It's not like they force people to pay for GP, there's other options to play games.

Weird "rebuttal."

 

[laynelane]

This was such a bizarre line of argument by both regulators. Are businesses just supposed to put pricing down on hold forever following acquisition? It's not like they force people to pay for GP, there's other options to play games.

I interpreted that a bit differently. A business is free to expand through acquisitions, but the cost of that decision should not be directly passed on to consumers. Regulators are (in theory) supposed to be looking out for the interests of consumers (ie. the general public), after all.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Weird "rebuttal."

I mean they were concerned that the price of a service would go up as if it wouldn't anyway? Weird concern tbh

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

I interpreted that a bit differently. A business is free to expand through acquisitions, but the cost of that decision should not be directly passed on to consumers. Regulators are (in theory) supposed to be looking out for the interests of consumers (ie. the general public), after all.

If the cost of that investment results in more value added to the service, I would expect them to increase the price. It's what businesses does

 

[LordBlodgett]

Actively discouraging people from buying your consoles is a new move

 

[laynelane]

If the cost of that investment results in more value added to the service, I would expect them to increase the price. It's what businesses does

Yes, that's obviously acceptable to you. However, it isn't the regulators' jobs to determine that value. It's to protect consumer interests - some of who may not agree with your opinion.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Yes, that's obviously acceptable to you. However, it isn't the regulators' jobs to determine that value. It's to protect consumer interests - some of who may not agree with your opinion.

Expressing concern about a service increasing in price isn't protecting consumers though. Consumers are free to determine what they deem worthy of spending their money on.

Moot point anyway as it their concern didn't matter in the end.

 

[John Wick]

lol....2TB XSX costs more than a PS5 Pro

I always said Pro was fairly priced as Sony aren't making a killing on it. Looks like the 2Tb XSX has vindicated the price of the Pro.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I mean they were concerned that the price of a service would go up as if it wouldn't anyway? Weird concern tbh

The concern (rightly so) was that the cost would increase because of the acquisition - which may or may not have increased at that point otherwise, or to the same extent.

And they were correct.

Tiers were changed, price was increased, and day-one games were removed from the $15 tier, just before Call of Duty Black Ops 6 launched.

 

[Mistake]

I refuse to participate. I have plenty of games already that I should get through, so this trend of ever increasing prices can die on the hillside. I cut back on other industries that did the same already

 

[laynelane]

Expressing concern about a service increasing in price isn't protecting consumers though. Consumers are free to determine what they deem worthy of spending their money on.

Moot point anyway as it their concern didn't matter in the end.

I think of it like this: if corporations were free to spend as they wish on expanding and there were no deterrents to passing that along to customers - that is exactly what they would do. Look outside of just gaming and see how this could majorly impact the general public.

As well, their concern did matter in the end because MS committed to not raising the cost of Game Pass due to the acquisition. It was a sticking point and they resolved it at the time.

Microsoft insists Game Pass prices won't increase over Activision Blizzard acquisition

Microsoft recently asserted in a response to the CMA's Notice of Possible Remedies that Game Pass prices won't increase as a result of its acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

www.shacknews.com

 

[DenchDeckard]

I still can't believe this is real a day later. Series S touching Switch 2 prices, X touching PS5 and Pro prices. It's like a joke, but the punchline is only on M$.

It's literally bonkers. I cant wrap my head around it. Totally fubared.

 

[Radical_3d]

It's literally bonkers. I cant wrap my head around it. Totally fubared.

They probably know their demand is inelastic.

 

[DenchDeckard]

They probably know their demand is inelastic.

Absolutely. Literally giving up and trying to fleece anyone who actually would want an Xbox. I have no idea who that is now though.

 

[Radical_3d]

Absolutely. Literally giving up and trying to fleece anyone who actually would want an Xbox. I have no idea who that is now though.

People that still want the best deal in gaming. I hate GP but I gotta admit that for a user that is not a collector is flat out the most economic option. Even if they'd increase the price another 100€$.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

I think of it like this: if corporations were free to spend as they wish on expanding and there were no deterrents to passing that along to customers - that is exactly what they would do. Look outside of just gaming and see how this could majorly impact the general public.

As well, their concern did matter in the end because MS committed to not raising the cost of Game Pass due to the acquisition. It was a sticking point and they resolved it at the time.

Microsoft insists Game Pass prices won't increase over Activision Blizzard acquisition

Microsoft recently asserted in a response to the CMA's Notice of Possible Remedies that Game Pass prices won't increase as a result of its acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

www.shacknews.com

That concern would be valid if they we're gaining a monopoly on something like electricity or the like, not some games which can be purchased on other platforms and purchased separately outside of GP.

They told them they wouldn't, but it was raised anyway. How is the CMA to determine whether it was as a result of the acquisition or not?

As I said, strange concern.

 

[DenchDeckard]

People that still want the best deal in gaming. I hate GP but I gotta admit that for a user that is not a collector is flat out the most economic option. Even if they'd increase the price another 100€$.

The only way this works is if everyone puts their prices up. Including games. I wouldn't buy an Xbox now though. I'd juat go pc and get it over with.

 

[Dr. Suchong]

Best. Generation. EVER!!!!!
Xbox just keeps on winning!!!

 

[laynelane]

That concern would be valid if they we're gaining a monopoly on something like electricity or the like, not some games which can be purchased on other platforms and purchased separately outside of GP.

They told them they wouldn't, but it was raised anyway. How is the CMA to determine whether it was as a result of the acquisition or not?

As I said, strange concern.

Arguing with me about this is pointless. It's not my opinion on what regulators do, it's what they actually do. The situation where MS would raise prices was a concern that needed to be addressed before the deal went through. That is factual information. The FTC is already following up on the raising of prices, but who knows if that will go anywhere.

I don't think it's a strange concern to not give corporations carte blanche to do whatever they want at the expense of the general population or to somehow think a software/gaming company should be treated differently than an electricity corporation. You think it's okay in this situation. Let's just agree to disagree. Take care.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Arguing with me about this is pointless. It's not my opinion on what regulators do, it's what they actually do. The situation where MS would raise prices was a concern that needed to be addressed before the deal went through. That is factual information. The FTC is already following up on the raising of prices, but who knows if that will go anywhere.

I don't think it's a strange concern to not give corporations carte blanche to do whatever they want at the expense of the general population or to somehow think a software/gaming company should be treated differently than an electricity corporation. You think it's okay in this situation. Let's just agree to disagree. Take care.

You took this up with me, it was just my opinion on their concern! All the best

 

[Woopah]

I never expected a PS5 price drop before GTA6 released. I've held pretty firm that I thought the first price drops would happen in 2026 and now I'd say the earliest I would really expect them is holiday season 2026.

I think Sony's forecast for the year just got massively reduced, which might be the only reason they don't increase the price in the US.

If they sold 18 million units last year WITH the launch of the Pro and the anniversary editions... They're in for a rough year even without a price increase. I think we're looking at 11-13 million units this year, unless they can capture some Xbox market share and even then you're only looking at a couple million more max.

But then you also know that 2026 is going to be a better fiscal year.

It'll be interesting to see if Sony tries to drop Venom into November, so close to Yotei or if the game will have been cancelled with the passing of Tony Todd and the strike and a focus on Wolverine. I could also see it ending up a Q1 game before GTA6 comes out. Then you have Saros and Wolverine coming out in the summer and fall respectively.

Agree with most of this, bit am a bit more optimistic on their sales. I think 15-16 million PS5s is possible (though of course still dependent on what happens with the US price). And yes I see Venom, Saros and Wolverine coming next year.

Maybe there could be another Sony game in H2 CY 2025, apart from Lost Souls Aside and GoY.

 

[laynelane]

You took this up with me, it was just my opinion on their concern! All the best

It's a discussion board and I do like hearing various perspectives - for example, I did take note of your point that a person could simply choose another option in the MS/Game Pass example. All the best to you too and thank you for the civility.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

Holy shit that is a HUGE increase, wtf.

Major amounts of currency is being printed.

 

[Astray]

Well, that's just called "competition". Pricing consumers out of the market to make up for lost business is a really fast way to destroy your company. That's called a negative spiral: people don't buy your games because they're too expensive, so you make them more expensive to make up for lost sales, causing you to lose more sales.

Yep.

This entire thing of pricing at $70 (and now $80) for what's essentially the same product is not very conducive to building up your IP at all. I think we are seeing less and less breakout hits at $70.

The big issue for Western (especially US-based) devs is their costs have been quite inflationary in the last decade or so. Ages of politicians of all parties printing cash to get out of political jams have really fucked up all kinds of industries.

As for the competition we're seeing, one element you didn't touch on was that companies are effectively now competing against themselves from two decades ago, and their older titles are winning. Generally, although more significantly in the PC space, we're seeing that the majority of time is being spent on older games - because we've reached a point where games that are even 15 years old are still fully functional current hardware. Xbox's backwards compatibly, for example, means I don't have to accept trash like Dragon Age: The Veilguard - I can literally just play Dragon Age: Origins right now and its costs $5. Thanks to digital distribution and libraries, gamers have access to literally tens of thousands of high quality games. If a game is uniquely its own thing, it can retain a fully active player base and community for decades. Skyrim, Dark Souls, Battlefield 3 - you can pick these games up for the fraction of a cost of a new game. And on PC, those games are often enhanced with community patches and mods to make them arguably better than modern titles. Starfield today has to complete with Morrowind from 20 years ago and the two decades fans have spent making it better.

Excellent point.

It's my opinion that bullying companies into mass-scale backcompat has been one of the biggest consumer Ws in recent history.

Contrary to what people think, companies benefit greatly when no backcompat is happening (look at how PS4 and Switch successfully launched largely using remasters and ports of past products).

The more backcompat we get, the more we win. It's that simple.

Today, revenues are often record breaking for modern publishers largely because there aren't that many publishers left, but also because modern games have numerous revenue streams beyond the boxed game. DLC, collectors edition, merchandise, soundtracks, cosmetic "micro" transactions, battle passes - these have become borderline ubiquitous in the industry. When people talk about games needing to be more expensive, I laugh because they've been more expensive than the sticker price for decades. From EA selling multiplayer codes to kill the used game markets, to XP booster micro-transactions in single player Ubisoft titles, gamers have been spending more per title for years because the industry got greedy. And now they've run out of ways to be coy about it so they've stopped trying to hide it.

Yep, that too.

Another excellent point.

 

[memoryman3]

It's literally bonkers. I cant wrap my head around it. Totally fubared.

What's wrong with the Series S touching Switch 2 prices? You are getting more capable hardware for a lower price.

It's also still £50-£100 cheaper than the Switch 2 here in the UK.

 

[DenchDeckard]

What's wrong with the Series S touching Switch 2 prices? You are getting more capable hardware for a lower price.

It's also still £50-£100 cheaper than the Switch 2 here in the UK.

It's gone up in price. That's the problem lol

 

[Radical_3d]

The only way this works is if everyone puts their prices up. Including games. I wouldn't buy an Xbox now though. I'd juat go pc and get it over with.

I don't think everybody needs to rise their prices to see the value on GP. Oblivion and Expedition, this month's hot topics, are there. As well as many others.

 

[chromatic9]

Guess the BOM for these consoles is quite steep, they tried cutting price to no success so they only have so long to stop the losses. Wonder if the GTA 6 delay impacts it as well, I'm sure they get the info earlier and know they can't ride the GTA train until next year at best so they put the prices for a while.

 

[PeteBull]

Actively discouraging people from buying your consoles is a new move

Yups, it would be different if xbox was market leader/had any kind of exclusives/most powerful console on the market, something of value.
Its basically this situation:

 

[StereoVsn]

If the cost of that investment results in more value added to the service, I would expect them to increase the price. It's what businesses does

The whole point of the gov argument was that the consolidation is reducing competition. That would result in ability of Microsoft to raise prices so that was going to be one of the requirements for getting the acquisition through.

And what are we seeing now, precisely that, price increases across the board. Microsoft's market consolidation and mismanagement is resulting into higher prices charged to its customers.

 

[Hector Hall]

I always said Pro was fairly priced as Sony aren't making a killing on it. Looks like the 2Tb XSX has vindicated the price of the Pro.

PS5 Pro is fairly priced in the US, but not so much in Europe and Japan.

The cheap hardware tones are over, in any case, we seem to be back in the early mid 80s,

 

[LavitzSlambert]

The whole point of the gov argument was that the consolidation is reducing competition. That would result in ability of Microsoft to raise prices so that was going to be one of the requirements for getting the acquisition through.

And what are we seeing now, precisely that, price increases across the board. Microsoft's market consolidation and mismanagement is resulting into higher prices charged to its customers.

Microsoft becoming the largest publisher is basically the best thing that could happen to them, and I have no doubt this is the leverage they need to increase their profits on the software side while convincing their investors it's a good thing to (largely) exit the low margin hardware business. They can sustain their core audience with premium first party hardware, and outlast smaller devs and publishers that may go bust in the next few years. Being a publisher and platform holder will give them unbelievable amounts of power to influence the industry.

I know the rhetoric on this forum is that Phil Spencer is a bumbling idiot, but the current game plan is working well for them as a business. Too few people know that Matt Booty is the incompetent one that should be blamed for poor XGS output and quality. The devs themselves don't like the guy, nor should customers.

 

[Neo_game]

This means this gen is going to last for many more years. 2TB SX is too expensive. How did anyone is Microsoft think people will buy it. It makes PS5 Pro looks good.

 

[Hector Hall]

Microsoft becoming the largest publisher is basically the best thing that could happen to them, and I have no doubt this is the leverage they need to increase their profits on the software side while convincing their investors it's a good thing to (largely) exit the low margin hardware business. They can sustain their core audience with premium first party hardware, and outlast smaller devs and publishers that may go bust in the next few years. Being a publisher and platform holder will give them unbelievable amounts of power to influence the industry.

I know the rhetoric on this forum is that Phil Spencer is a bumbling idiot, but the current game plan is working well for them as a business. Too few people know that Matt Booty is the incompetent one that should be blamed for poor XGS output and quality. The devs themselves don't like the guy, nor should customers.

I don't think they will be a plattform holder much longer. If their new hardware is indeed a PC they won't be a platform holder anymore. As for the general business you are right, they are going to be the western Tencent, specially if they can get their grips in yet another publisher. But with some practices as killing the phisical format or pricing strategy IDK if that's a good thing. In any case between their games on Playstation and now lifting their prices so much, their old Xbox ecosystem is about to explode.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Agree with most of this, bit am a bit more optimistic on their sales. I think 15-16 million PS5s is possible (though of course still dependent on what happens with the US price). And yes I see Venom, Saros and Wolverine coming next year.

Maybe there could be another Sony game in H2 CY 2025, apart from Lost Souls Aside and GoY.

No chance it does 15+

That would require only a 17% reduction YoY and we know it's not getting a price drop this year.

 

[tTHANOSs]

People that still want the best deal in gaming. I hate GP but I gotta admit that for a user that is not a collector is flat out the most economic option. Even if they'd increase the price another 100€$.

Ehh it being the best deal in gaming is not a fact. It's just opinion.

 

[LordCBH]

Too few people know that Matt Booty is the incompetent one that should be blamed for poor XGS output and quality

Matt Booty has been nothing but a worthless ghoul for years now.

 

[StereoVsn]

Microsoft becoming the largest publisher is basically the best thing that could happen to them, and I have no doubt this is the leverage they need to increase their profits on the software side while convincing their investors it's a good thing to (largely) exit the low margin hardware business. They can sustain their core audience with premium first party hardware, and outlast smaller devs and publishers that may go bust in the next few years. Being a publisher and platform holder will give them unbelievable amounts of power to influence the industry.

I know the rhetoric on this forum is that Phil Spencer is a bumbling idiot, but the current game plan is working well for them as a business. Too few people know that Matt Booty is the incompetent one that should be blamed for poor XGS output and quality. The devs themselves don't like the guy, nor should customers.

This is why that merger shouldn't have been allowed as it resulted in less competition and higher pricing for customers.

 

[GHG]

I don't think everybody needs to rise their prices to see the value on GP. Oblivion and Expedition, this month's hot topics, are there. As well as many others.

There is no value in getting the worst possible experience possible while playing those games on console.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I couldn't imagine being this much of a cuck for a $3 trillion mega-conglomerate (or any corporation, for that matter).

Also where do they keep getting this "largest publisher" tagline from? GTA decimates any of MS's IP individually, and Nintendo's 1P have much bigger profit margins on average. And a few of SIE's IP have more general cultural cache (games, TV, film collectively) than any of MS's aside Minecraft (which MS purchased).

Even now, the only way that tagline holds weight is going by amount of $$$ spent acquiring studios & pubs. On that front, MS probably are the 'biggest publisher in the world'.

 

[SABRE220]

Yeah thats a great idea, your market share for the console market is in the shitter and you raise prices for your base console equal to the competitions pro and your mini console close to the ps5 digital....they really don't give a shit about their console hardware at this point.

 

[LavitzSlambert]

This is why that merger shouldn't have been allowed as it resulted in less competition and higher pricing for customers.

It's probably still too early to tell. Without the Zenimax and AB acquisitions, Xbox would be in an even more dire state right now. I would argue their position now is better than the one we'd have been in if they faded into complete irrelevance (or left the industry entirely), leaving only Sony and Nintendo. The biggest positive of Microsoft's current strategy is that they will actually need to compete with Valve on PC.

 

[StereoVsn]

It's probably still too early to tell. Without the Zenimax and AB acquisitions, Xbox would be in an even more dire state right now. I would argue their position now is better than the one we'd have been in if they faded into complete irrelevance (or left the industry entirely), leaving only Sony and Nintendo. The biggest positive of Microsoft's current strategy is that they will actually need to compete with Valve on PC.

It doesn't matter where Xbox would be. It's one of the biggest corporations in the World. Microsoft's mismanagement shouldn't have been rewarded by allowing them almost unlimited license to acquire 3rd party publishers.

They are irrelevant as far as console competition goes even with the acquisition. That's on them. Allowing market consolidation leads to shitty situations for both employees as well as customers.

 

[semiconscious]

It doesn't matter where Xbox would be. It's one of the biggest corporations in the World. Microsoft's mismanagement shouldn't have been rewarded by allowing them almost unlimited license to acquire 3rd party publishers.

They are irrelevant as far as console competition goes even with the acquisition. That's on them. Allowing market consolidation leads to shitty situations for both employees as well as customers.

this...

 

[L11ghtman]

This is a wild move for a box nobody is buying anyway. I'm fine with them as a publisher of third party content though. So far they're one of the few major publishers releasing killer single player FPS titles. Sony isn't and most others are live service games. That said I think it sucks they bought the studios they bought. Consolidation and exclusives are anti consumer. The fact that they're not all exclusive is a bug not a feature… Microsoft isn't altruistic. They're just bad at selling hardware.