Take-Two CEO Argues That Players Are Ready for $70 Games

I've been known to pay more than double that for some games. I paid $150 for the Star Wars The Old Republic Collector's Edition and I got my money's worth out of it. I played that game extensively for 7 years. I bought the $80+ Mass Effect 3 N7 Collector's Edition and once again, I think I got my money's worth. If the game has enough replay value and enough content, I don't mind paying a bit more. However, my expectations are pretty high for games that are over $30 or $40.
 
Dan_D said:
I've been known to pay more than double that for some games. I paid $150 for the Star Wars The Old Republic Collector's Edition and I got my money's worth out of it. I played that game extensively for 7 years. I bought the $80+ Mass Effect 3 N7 Collector's Edition and once again, I think I got my money's worth. If the game has enough replay value and enough content, I don't mind paying a bit more. However, my expectations are pretty high for games that are over $30 or $40.
Click to expand...

Special editions are different, you usually get something extra like collectibles etc. But I understood what you meant.
 
Burticus said:
Special editions are different, you usually get something extra like collectibles etc. But I understood what you meant.
Click to expand...

Well, even if I hadn't gotten anything extra with it, I think I got my money's worth. 7 years of solid content and countless hours of game time played and enjoyed. I don't mind paying more if I actually get more. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case.
 
Dan_D said:
Well, even if I hadn't gotten anything extra with it, I think I got my money's worth. 7 years of solid content and countless hours of game time played and enjoyed. I don't mind paying more if I actually get more. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case.
Click to expand...
I'd probably have never bought Mass Effect if it cost $70. Of course in hindsight I know it would've been worth it, but $70 is a giant barrier to entry, which I think looses the gaming industry more sales than what they gain by the $10 hike. If they sell 20% less copies for $70 they are already in the red compared to just settling for $60.
 
They want to jump on the bandwagon suggested by those who would pay extortionate prices for graphics cards, who are far from mainstream.
Failing to see people will permanently jump hobbies when its this difficult and expensive to game, and enjoy the experience after being milked.
I feel incredibly lucky I got a 3090 when I did, and that was after waiting nearly 3 months for a 3080 - seeing it would be impossible if I didnt act fast.
Its terrible to watch whats happening since.

What PC gaming needs is good news, not a worsening of the situation.
We can only hope there will be enough fabs to produce enough next gen gfx cards and there arent any more messed up Gaming company CEOs.
 
MadMummy76 said:
I'd probably have never bought Mass Effect if it cost $70. Of course in hindsight I know it would've been worth it, but $70 is a giant barrier to entry, which I think looses the gaming industry more sales than what they gain by the $10 hike. If they sell 20% less copies for $70 they are already in the red compared to just settling for $60.
Click to expand...

They don't sell less copies, once demand dries up at the high price they drop it, takes longer but they make more in the end I think, you will only sell a certain number of your game, you just have to wait it out to get the game at the price that's fair to you, they can always drop the price, it's harder to raise it.

I do feel that what epic does, giving away games for free is not realy working for me, I grabbed most of them, but I don't think I even played one of them so far, and not just epic, I have games on steam I don't even know how I got them, but I sure as hell did not buy them.
 
Denpepe said:
They don't sell less copies,
Click to expand...
In the initial surge, they do sell less copies. They might not sell less in the entire lifecycle of the product, but that's up to debate.

once demand dries up at the high price they drop it, takes longer but they make more in the end I think, you will only sell a certain number of your game, you just have to wait it out to get the game at the price that's fair to you, they can always drop the price, it's harder to raise it.
Click to expand...
It's not that simple they can't just drop the price to $60 and expect sales to go back up. People who buy games on release do it out of fomo. If you already missed the release window fomo is no longer a factor, so it does not matter how long you wait. I'll sure as hell not buy a $70 game for $60 6 months after release. Even if I would've been perfectly willing to pay $60 for it when it came out. At that point I'm waiting until it hits $20. If it never hits that price, then well they are not getting a penny out of me. It's one thing to ask $70 for a brand new game, but entirely other to ask $60 or $50 for an old one. Speaking of old, COD:MW despite being 18 months old, is still listed at €60, which is about $70 anyway. **** em. I wanted to play the game, but not at that price, certainly not now. $20 or bust now. I could've got it on release for $50-60 I'd have bought it then and there. Now it's a loose - loose situation.

I do feel that what epic does, giving away games for free is not realy working for me, I grabbed most of them, but I don't think I even played one of them so far, and not just epic, I have games on steam I don't even know how I got them, but I sure as hell did not buy them.
Click to expand...
I have zero interest in free games. I did not redeem a single game they were giving away. The games that were of interest to me, I already owned. Free is free my ***. My time is not free, and my data is not free.
 
Peter_Brosdahl said:
I'll occasionally pay full price and even pre-order in some cases, but it's pretty rare. Usually only happens a few times a year. I did that for Cyberpunk and well, you know, and I'll likely get RE8 at launch. Other than that, I'm having a hard time of thinking of what else is coming out in 2021 I'm waiting for. I don't mind though if the game delivers on its promises. I do admit that $70 is getting up there for me but considering I remember paying $20-$30 back in the 80s, and $40-$50 in the 90s, it's not that much of a jump.

edit: I forgot that I am waiting to see how the Mass Effect remasters turn out but I'll wait for reviews before purchasing.
Click to expand...
Same. Last year I bought Doom Eternal, F1 2020, Project CARS 3, Cyberpunk 2077, and Demon's Souls (PS5) at full price. So 5 out of the 30'ish games I bought last year were at full price. Even the new games I bought when I finally got my PS5 at Christmas were on sale. Immortals: Fenyx Rising was 50% off when I bought it on PS5.
Zarathustra said:
I'm just going to remind everyone of that time Gabe Newell told us that in this age of digital distribution, where each incremental unit costs next to nothing to produce and distribute, games make MORE money the lower you set the price.

When you lower the price you almost always make up for lost per unit revenue by greater sales.

Despite this they keep setting the price higher. Why? Lack of imagination? Fear? Pride?

Truth is, if they cut the price of the $70 game to just $7, they'd sell more than 10 times more units, and since there is no unit cost of goods sold, they'd actually make more money launching at $7 than at $70.
Click to expand...
This is what baffles me with Activision still selling 10-year old Call of Duty games for full price. There still seems to be a demand for the older titles, and I'd imagine they would make free money if they sold them at at least -75% during sales. There is no need to push people toward the newer entries since it is obviously still one of the most popular video game franchises out there and people are going to buy the new one regardless.
 
Zarathustra said:
I'm just going to remind everyone of that time Gabe Newell told us that in this age of digital distribution, where each incremental unit costs next to nothing to produce and distribute, games make MORE money the lower you set the price.

When you lower the price you almost always make up for lost per unit revenue by greater sales.

Despite this they keep setting the price higher. Why? Lack of imagination? Fear? Pride?

Truth is, if they cut the price of the $70 game to just $7, they'd sell more than 10 times more units, and since there is no unit cost of goods sold, they'd actually make more money launching at $7 than at $70.
Click to expand...
If you set the price of Cyberpunk 2077 to $7 you'd need to sell 90 million copies of it in just December to break even with a $60 price. That's not realistic. The Gabe examples were older games that were heavily discounted, of course then you get more revenue the chepaer you set the price. Which is exactly what I was referring to in my previous post. People don't buy older games at $50-60, but they do in droves for $5-10.
 
MadMummy76 said:
If you set the price of Cyberpunk 2077 to $7 you'd need to sell 90 million copies of it in just December to break even with a $60 price. That's not realistic. The Gabe examples were older games that were heavily discounted, of course then you get more revenue the chepaer you set the price. Which is exactly what I was referring to in my previous post. People don't buy older games at $50-60, but they do in droves for $5-10.
Click to expand...
Ja, with pricing you have to follow the demand curve to maximize profits.
 
MadMummy76 said:
If you set the price of Cyberpunk 2077 to $7 you'd need to sell 90 million copies of it in just December to break even with a $60 price. That's not realistic. The Gabe examples were older games that were heavily discounted, of course then you get more revenue the chepaer you set the price. Which is exactly what I was referring to in my previous post. People don't buy older games at $50-60, but they do in droves for $5-10.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but Cyberpunk 2077 is kind of a way hyped up outlier too.

I think Gaben's model can work for newer titles, but not if they are hyped up to the point where price elasticity of demand breaks down and everyone is buying the title regardless of price.

(I mean, I still haven't bought it, as I want to be able to get a GPU I can actually tun it on first, but...)
 
Zarathustra said:
Well, yeah, but Cyberpunk 2077 is kind of a way hyped up outlier too.

I think Gaben's model can work for newer titles, but not if they are hyped up to the point where price elasticity of demand breaks down and everyone is buying the title regardless of price.

(I mean, I still haven't bought it, as I want to be able to get a GPU I can actually tun it on first, but...)
Click to expand...
I think for new games the "right" price to maximize profits is around $40. I don't think it's even at $30, as you already have to sell twice as many copies then to break even. And of course investors want returns now, all the time. They prefer a quick hit and run on whales, than a slower ROI.
 
There was only one company I could accept a pre-order from and that was CDPR.
But they have demonstrated you should never pre-order.
I barely touched the game, I'm waiting until it is well patched.

I wont dispute many people have loved it, I enjoyed the short experience I had before I stopped playing.
I want to see what it should be, first time round.
 
AntiQuark said:
There was only one company I could accept a pre-order from and that was CDPR.
But they have demonstrated you should never pre-order.
I barely touched the game, I'm waiting until it is well patched.

I wont dispute many people have loved it, I enjoyed the short experience I had before I stopped playing.
I want to see what it should be, first time round.
Click to expand...
Exactly the same for me as well with it but I'll still occasionally take chances for some pre-orders when I have the $$$ to spare on such things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top