Why is the price point so high?

[Gluck]

In my country the game is £49.99. Can anyone with some business knowledge tell me why an offline splayer game would be so high? I feel like if it was £39.99 or a similar price point, it would actually generate more sales and revenue. I am a massive fromsoft fan and have played all their games, but I find myself having to wait until this game goes on sale.

[Viper]

Thats not high. Its normal pricing. You must not buy a lot of games.

[xCrossFaith]

Uhm... Is this your first ever game or something? Because that's been a industry standard for at least a literal decade

[Gluck]

If you check my profile you'll note that this is certainly not my first game. I can understand charging more for a game that will feature continued support/updates, or that offers online services. But I don't understand such a high price point for an entirely single-player experience. I wonder how many more people would buy it if it were just 20% cheaper, and I feel like that would translate to significantly more revenue for the publisher/devs. Just because £49.99 is a new inflationary standard maximum price doesn't mean that all games are following it (check the steam top-sellers list).

[Gluck]

Instead of weird ad-hominems about my library and experience I'd be really interested if anyone has any insights or evidence about how retail pricing of videogames affects units sold and/or gross revenue.

[An Irate Walrus]

Originally posted by Gluck:

If you check my profile you'll note that this is certainly not my first game. I can understand charging more for a game that will feature continued support/updates, or that offers online services. But I don't understand such a high price point for an entirely single-player experience. I wonder how many more people would buy it if it were just 20% cheaper, and I feel like that would translate to significantly more revenue for the publisher/devs. Just because £49.99 is a new inflationary standard maximum price doesn't mean that all games are following it (check the steam top-sellers list).

Chrono Trigger was 80 USD at launch in 1995. Single player experiences have always been at the standard price-point for games; "games as service" is a cancer that has taught consumers to buy incomplete experiences on the promise that further updates will be delivered.

Games cost money, time, and human hours to make. That outlay has to be returned.

[Gluck]

Originally posted by An Irate Walrus:

Originally posted by Gluck:

If you check my profile you'll note that this is certainly not my first game. I can understand charging more for a game that will feature continued support/updates, or that offers online services. But I don't understand such a high price point for an entirely single-player experience. I wonder how many more people would buy it if it were just 20% cheaper, and I feel like that would translate to significantly more revenue for the publisher/devs. Just because £49.99 is a new inflationary standard maximum price doesn't mean that all games are following it (check the steam top-sellers list).

Chrono Trigger was 80 USD at launch in 1995. Single player experiences have always been at the standard price-point for games; "games as service" is a cancer that has taught consumers to buy incomplete experiences on the promise that further updates will be delivered.

Games cost money, time, and human hours to make. That outlay has to be returned.

I don't think games as service is a bad thing, if the service is of high quality. Of course that varies between devs and games. There are plenty of games with constant support and updates that have done a great job at keeping their audience.

Of course they have to pay for the development costs. Perhaps I should rephase my question: If you reduce the price point of your game, doesn't that translate to more units sold, and possibly more overall revenue?

[xCrossFaith]

Originally posted by Gluck:

If you check my profile you'll note that this is certainly not my first game. I can understand charging more for a game that will feature continued support/updates, or that offers online services. But I don't understand such a high price point for an entirely single-player experience. I wonder how many more people would buy it if it were just 20% cheaper, and I feel like that would translate to significantly more revenue for the publisher/devs. Just because £49.99 is a new inflationary standard maximum price doesn't mean that all games are following it (check the steam top-sellers list).

A literal decade old, if not more, is not by any means a "new inflationary standard" it's simply how it has been since gaming became popular

Also keep in mind there are shorter, more simple games with the same pricing, or even more

[Gluck]

Originally posted by xCrossFaith:

Originally posted by Gluck:

If you check my profile you'll note that this is certainly not my first game. I can understand charging more for a game that will feature continued support/updates, or that offers online services. But I don't understand such a high price point for an entirely single-player experience. I wonder how many more people would buy it if it were just 20% cheaper, and I feel like that would translate to significantly more revenue for the publisher/devs. Just because £49.99 is a new inflationary standard maximum price doesn't mean that all games are following it (check the steam top-sellers list).

A literal decade old, if not more, is not by any means a "new inflationary standard" it's simply how it has been since gaming became popular

Also keep in mind there are shorter, more simple games with the same pricing, or even more

Most games weren't £49.99 a decade ago. But I don't want to get drawn into arguments about inflation because it's so dull. I was just wondering if reducing the price could increase revenue by virtue of units sold.

But since I made this post I thought about it, and I suppose publishers initially set the price high, and then monitor sales and offer a sale when they think decreasing the price point will increase revenue. This probably depends on the games reception, word of mouth, and protracted sales over time. A game like Elden Ring stayed at a high price for a long time because its positive reception justified a high price and fostered continued high sales at this price point.

I suppose it's promising that Lies of P is already dropping significantly down the charts, and has a relatively tame reception. It will undoubtedly go on sale sooner rather than later, and I ought to hold my money until that point. It does look like a good game for me and I'd like to play it, but I don't want to pay against the odds.

[xCrossFaith]

Originally posted by Gluck:

Originally posted by xCrossFaith:

A literal decade old, if not more, is not by any means a "new inflationary standard" it's simply how it has been since gaming became popular

Also keep in mind there are shorter, more simple games with the same pricing, or even more

Most games weren't £49.99 a decade ago. But I don't want to get drawn into arguments about inflation because it's so dull. I was just wondering if reducing the price could increase revenue by virtue of units sold.

But since I made this post I thought about it, and I suppose publishers initially set the price high, and then monitor sales and offer a sale when they think decreasing the price point will increase revenue. This probably depends on the games reception, word of mouth, and protracted sales over time. A game like Elden Ring stayed at a high price for a long time because its positive reception justified a high price and fostered continued high sales at this price point.

I suppose it's promising that Lies of P is already dropping significantly down the charts, and has a relatively tame reception. It will undoubtedly go on sale sooner rather than later, and I ought to hold my money until that point. It does look like a good game for me and I'd like to play it, but I don't want to pay against the odds.

New games in 2013 were definetly 50-60€ at release, at least the bigger ones

I don't really know why you are surprised about this since it has been a not common, but standard practice since a reaaaaally long time ago, release game at full price, wait a bit, start doing sales, of course lower prices will translate to more sales, but that's with every game out there

I don't know man... This whole thing of being weireded out by such a common everyday practice in this industry is just a bit weird ._.

Anyway, if you don't want to pay full price you can always wait for sale or get the game through a key site (honestly I pay full release price for very few games as well)

[Gluck]

Originally posted by xCrossFaith:

Originally posted by Gluck:

Most games weren't £49.99 a decade ago. But I don't want to get drawn into arguments about inflation because it's so dull. I was just wondering if reducing the price could increase revenue by virtue of units sold.

But since I made this post I thought about it, and I suppose publishers initially set the price high, and then monitor sales and offer a sale when they think decreasing the price point will increase revenue. This probably depends on the games reception, word of mouth, and protracted sales over time. A game like Elden Ring stayed at a high price for a long time because its positive reception justified a high price and fostered continued high sales at this price point.

I suppose it's promising that Lies of P is already dropping significantly down the charts, and has a relatively tame reception. It will undoubtedly go on sale sooner rather than later, and I ought to hold my money until that point. It does look like a good game for me and I'd like to play it, but I don't want to pay against the odds.

New games in 2013 were definetly 50-60€ at release, at least the bigger ones

I don't really know why you are surprised about this since it has been a not common, but standard practice since a reaaaaally long time ago, release game at full price, wait a bit, start doing sales, of course lower prices will translate to more sales, but that's with every game out there

I don't know man... This whole thing of being weireded out by such a common everyday practice in this industry is just a bit weird ._.

Anyway, if you don't want to pay full price you can always wait for sale or get the game through a key site (honestly I pay full release price for very few games as well)

Yes, I've decided that I'll wait for a sale.

[kyu bey]

Buy PC gamepass & be done with it since you want to play now?

[Deathwing1306]

The game's playtime is fitting for the price, it might even be too cheap for such an experience and playtime.

Resident Evil 3 Remake was selling for 60€ as well at the yime of it's release I think and the game is basically like 6-7 hours, if you don't want to explore every single corner, it can be probably done even under 5 hours.

This game took me around 30-40 hours for my first playthrough and I also did the bad ending as my first ending and this particular ending is the only ending out of the 3 endings which will not give you the very final boss fight because of lore reasons.

I completed the game 3 times, did 100% achievements and I am at 74 hours waiting for the DLC...

[Krazy Wallet]

I didn't notice it being different from other installments. The Dark Souls franchise, Sekiro, Elden Ring, and Armored Core games all released at this price to my knowledge. I can't say for other souls-like games as I didn't get them at release, but I'd say most games release at this price.

[An Irate Walrus]

Originally posted by Gluck:

Originally posted by An Irate Walrus:

Chrono Trigger was 80 USD at launch in 1995. Single player experiences have always been at the standard price-point for games; "games as service" is a cancer that has taught consumers to buy incomplete experiences on the promise that further updates will be delivered.

Games cost money, time, and human hours to make. That outlay has to be returned.

I don't think games as service is a bad thing, if the service is of high quality. Of course that varies between devs and games. There are plenty of games with constant support and updates that have done a great job at keeping their audience.

Of course they have to pay for the development costs. Perhaps I should rephase my question: If you reduce the price point of your game, doesn't that translate to more units sold, and possibly more overall revenue?

Reducing the price point absolutely can result in more units sold-through; the counterbalance to this is that you have to move a lot more units at the reduced price to meet the same profit margin the original price was projected to produce.

You have to remember that business operates on both sides: consumers want a good deal, and they should actively seek one, but shareholders want a return on their investment, and their capital is the only reason a lot of products ever see the light of day.

Mind, I'm not pro-rich-♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. I'm English faculty, and every day I'm reminded that half my admin failed upward into their paychecks despite having no marketable skills--but there's also a reality to business that usually means "this should cost less" doesn't work out in practice.

[Kalaban]

bait