The inevitable price increase of video games was something the gaming public dreaded. As of 2022, the majority of Triple-A releases, for better or for worse, have increased from $60 to $70. This increase was a long time coming as $60 was the norm for the better part of two generations. But as worlds became larger, characters more realistic, mechanics more in-depth, and engines more capable, with it came rising costs. Budgets ballooned and development time was lengthened at the tail end of the PS4 and Xbox One era.
Games were becoming exponentially more expensive and taking longer to make. Something had to give. Just because it was inevitable doesn’t mean it didn’t sit well with the masses. While $70 games are beginning to become the norm, it seems to be starting a disheartening trend. A widening gap between Triple-A, the middle market, and the Indie scene as well as a potential divide between established franchises and new Intellectual Properties.
Next Gen Pricing
The 9th generation of consoles has had a rough go of things. The PS5 and Xbox Series X|S launched in the midst of a global pandemic in 2020. The economic fallout still currently affecting the world coupled with the rise in retail prices was a proverbial double whammy for consumers. If one were able to obtain a next-gen console due to chip shortages and supply chain disruptions, they’d have to shell out $10 more than they did just a year before to play the latest and greatest titles on the market.
While it’s still early on in the 9th generation, the price increase seems to be creating this unintended shift in consumer practice. While established franchises and series still seem to be flourishing, newer IPs seem to be faltering. Titles like God of War Ragnarok, The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, and Diablo VI have sold historically well while the likes of Forspoken, The Callisto Protocol, and Wild Hearts all underperformed in one way or another.
God of War Ragnorok’s Sales Figures
Granted, this could come down to quality. The Resident Evil 4 Remake lived up to its predecessor and then some whereas Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty was a solid but predictable Souls-Like similar to Team Ninja’s previous work in the genre. Typically, if a game reviews well, most of the time that reflects in higher-than-average sales. But almost 3 years into the 9th generation, there hasn’t been that surprise hit that usually peppers the Triple-A landscape outside of established, world-renowned franchises or developers.
The Top 20 Best-Selling Games of 2022 are as follows:
1. Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare II
2. Elden Ring
3. Madden NFL 23
4. God Of War: Ragnarök
5. LEGO Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga
6. Pokémon: Scarlet/Violet
7. FIFA 23
8. Pokémon Legends: Arceus
9. Horizon II: Forbidden West
10. MLB: The Show 22
11. Mario Kart 8
12. Call Of Duty: Vanguard
13. Gran Turismo 7
14. Kirby and the Forgotten Land
15. NBA 2K23
16. Sonic Frontiers
17. Gotham Knights
18. Minecraft
19. Nintendo Switch Sports
20. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
Out of the top 20 highest-grossing video games of last year, only two titles are even tangentially new IPs, that being Elden Ring and Gotham Knights. The former is one of the most anticipated titles of all time from legendary developers From Software that would go on to win multiple Game of The Year awards. The latter drew parallels to the highly revered Arkham series, so it’s not a surprise it sold well despite its less-than-stellar reception.
Elden Ring’s Sales Figures
One would have to go back to 2017 to find an outlier, Player Unknown’s Battleground. Granted, most “best-selling games of the year” lists include the likes of Call of Duty or FIFA but usually peppered within said lists are titles like Days Gone, Watch Dogs, or Back 4 Blood that break the mold in one way or another. With an increase in standard pricing across the board, there’s a potential for a harder shift towards more established and “safe” gaming purchases in the future.
Why invest $70 in a new game that might not be as consistent as a new Pokémon game or the latest iteration of NBA 2K? This isn’t just a question the gaming public poses but also publishers and, most importantly, their shareholders. The legal battle that was recently settled over Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard revealed to the public just how expensive game development has become. The proverbial straw that broke the $60 game’s back.
Price and Consequences
According to redacted documents revealed in court, The Last of Us Part II cost Sony upwards of $220 million with Horizon Forbidden West having a budget of $212 million. That investment clearly paid off with The Last of Us Part II selling well over 10 million copies and Forbidden West outselling its predecessor with close to 9 million copies shipped. But what happens when that investment doesn’t pay off?
Games fail all the time. Titles like Too Human cost upwards of $100 million and flopped so badly, it’s partially responsible for its development studio going bankrupt. But the financial world in 2008 is far more different than in 2023. Would a publisher be willing to pump over $200 million into a project with unknown expectations? Or would it be a smarter investment to divert that money to a project with an install base and pedigree? On the flip side of that question, was Sony only willing to allocate that much money to proven developers making sequels to successful titles?
Redacted Court Document From Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard
There are many examples of developers or publishers going out of their comfort zone to try something new that ultimately fails for one reason or another. Take Gearbox and Battleborn, for example. After three solid and successful Borderlands titles, the team pivoted toward this new concept of a Hero Shooter. Although Battleborn’s due failure was more due to its competition with Overwatch than its actual quality, it failed nonetheless. Gearbox went back to the safety of the Borderlands franchise and has been there ever since 2016.
But for as many failures, there are equal or more successes. Naughty Dog has gone from Crash Bandicoot to The Last of Us. Hello Games started with Joe Danger and jumped to No Man’s Sky. Tango Gameworks went from The Evil Within to Hi-Fi Rush. And while there are failures along the way when developers expand their repertoire, there’s at least some rope given to them by publishers in many instances. With expanding budgets leading to an increase in retail price that could skew overall consumer purchasing habits, there’s little room for error nowadays. A perfect example might be Microsoft’s decision to internally cancel both new IPs The Coalition was currently working on in favor of Gears 6, a potentially more lucrative venture.
Joe Danger and No Man’s Sky / Hello Games
This says nothing about the Live Service genre which seems to be plagued with half-finished and underbaked releases that aren’t priced accordingly. An increase in pricing from $60 to $70 would be much easier to swallow if it meant the banishment of monetization elements such as microtransactions or unfinished games masquerading as Live Service titles. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Titles such as Redfall or Battlefield 2042, priced at $70 at launch, have been some of the biggest gaming disasters in recent memory. To spend $70 of one’s hard-earned income for a title that requires over a year of constant updates just to be on par with its competition isn’t going to assuage consumers. It undoubtedly makes things worse in that regard. But the Triple-A market, for how influential it is in the overall success of the industry, isn’t the only one making video games.
Rise of the Indies
Independently funded video games have always existed in one capacity or another. Some Atari 2600 titles were made by a single individual in a matter of months. Indie games, as they’re constituted today, really started gaining steam in the mid to late aughts with titles like Limbo, Fez, Bastion, and Braid. Spectacular titles that gave Triple-A outings a run for their money with half the manpower and cost. As software like Blender and Unity became widely accessible, it allowed any aspiring programmer, designer, or developer to make the game of their dreams.
With the big studios sinking millions of dollars and years of time into a single release, the Indie scene has been able to take advantage of the gap in releases. And console manufacturers have as well. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all have entire divisions or partnerships with various Indie publishers and developers, dedicating Nintendo Directs or States of Play to upcoming Indie darlings. Look at any upcoming game release schedule and Indies almost outnumber Triple-A releases 2:1.
That’s not to say that all Indie titles are hits or tailored to the mainstream audience Triple-A titles cater to. But the combination of availability and a lower price point is making Indies far more desirable than before. Within the past few years, Indie titles have seen unprecedented success in both financial and critical aspects. Cuphead has sold millions of copies since its launch, even spawning an entire TV show. Undertale has been heralded as one of the greatest games ever made. Minecraft might be the most successful Indie title ever, selling over 230 million copies. Titles like Celeste, Stray, Hades and It Takes Two have been nominated for Game of the Year, with the latter snatching the award away from heavy hitters such as Resident Evil, Metroid, and Ratchet & Clank.
So with Indies being able to sustain the fun factor comparable to their Triple-A brethren at a fraction of the price, a similar question to before can be posed that further complicates things. If a hypothetical disparity between established franchises and new IPs is expanded due to a price increase, how much does it widen when Indie titles are brought into the mix? If a consumer is more likely to spend $70 on Call of Duty as opposed to Atomic Heart, how more likely are they to grab a title like Neon White for $50 less instead? Taking the risk on any new IP is easier at $20-$30 as opposed to $70, especially if that game turns out to be less than stellar. This gap may be bridged with the reestablishing of the middle market.
Right in the Middle
This overarching scenario has happened before in the games industry. While there did exist smaller niche titles made by a handful of individuals, once gaming hit the mainstream, Triple-A releases were more often than not accompanied by middle-market titles. These were comparable games in similar genres. Created by relatively sized teams, they didn’t quite have the same production value or budget but were still competent enough titles. Middle Market games really rose to prominence towards the tail end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth generation of consoles.
Titles published by the likes of THQ, Midway, or Acclaim that weren’t as high quality as Triple-A releases but certainly not made by a single developer sinking the majority of their disposable income into a dream project. They fell somewhere, well, in the middle. And for a time, they thrived, acting as fun alternatives to some of the heavy hitters being released throughout the sixth generation of consoles. While some titles were considered “shovelware” or movie tie-in games, some are considered cult classics today.
Stubbs The Zombie in Rebel Without A Pulse / Wideload Games
As the 7th generation dawned, HD gaming and online connectivity became the norm. And with it, so to did increased development costs and timelines. The Triple-A scene expanded as the middle market shrank, leaving a void that would be filled by the aforementioned indie developers. The games industry works in cycles like this as the middle market clawed it’s way back into relevance as these dynamics balanced out during the 8th generation.
Publishers like Focus Entertainment and the revival of THQ Nordic continue to pump out fun and notable titles that don’t break either their banks or their customers. Quality titles like Evil West, A Plague Tale: Innocence, Atlas Fallen, Remnant II, Battle Chasers: Nightwar, and many others offer a cheaper but no less fun alternative to big-name Triple-A titles. But even with the industry evening itself out in recent years, the gradual increase of gaming as a hobby isn’t something that will subside anytime soon. Quite the opposite.
Indie games that started out at $15-$20 now cost closer to $30 with the aforementioned middle-market titles jumping from $40 to $50. And while it might take another generation or so to get there, price increases across the board are inevitable. With engines getting more powerful, ambitions higher than ever, and the advent of AR and VR becoming more viable as the years go on, the cycle is set to continue. So is there light at the end of the tunnel? Or at least a light consumers can afford? Well, there might be a fairly new solution for the rising costs of games today.
The Netflix of Gaming
Despite Xbox’s tumultuous history of not really being good at much, Game Pass is one of its most unanimously praised innovations. The Netflix-like gaming subscription service allows players to pay one monthly fee and have access to a plethora of games big and small. While not perfect, it’s a blueprint for game delivery in the future, physical copies be damned. Sony has followed suit, with PlayStation Plus Premium.
While not as robust as Game Pass, it still offers PlayStation players access to a multitude of current and retro games, all for a low monthly fee. Even Nintendo is getting in on this style of service, offering Game Trials of popular titles exclusively for Nintendo Switch Online members alongside a library of NES, SNES, N64, GameBoy Advance, and SEGA Genesis titles.
Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack
While these services offer a lot of bang for one’s buck, they’re not the perfect answer to the increasing price of releases. Only select new titles launch day-in-date on some of these services. With other publishers also dipping their toes in this game subscription pool like EA and Ubisoft, there hasn’t been one, catch-all service that covers the gamut of new titles released. And the way the industry is structured, that hypothetical service probably won’t exist anytime soon if at all. Although if Sea of Stars is anything to go by, the industry is moving towards some sort of a solution, however short or long-term it might be.
The Triple-A market is by no means the only sect of video games. The middle market and indie scene produce some of the best games around, some of which make it into Game of the Year discussions. The industry ebbs and flows all the time. If the $70 price hike causes less Triple-A creativity, the middle and indie markets will pick up the slack. And as Indie devs and series move from the small time to the mainstream, new titles slide in to take their place.
This ecosystem has had cyclical peaks and valleys in years past but with the advent of subscription services like Game Pass, things might begin to change. While the $70 release will become normalized just as the jump from $50 to $60 was, something will eventually have to give. Whether it’s the scaling down of Triple-A projects or a full transition to a subscription service of some kind, the video game industry might need to come up with a solution sooner rather than later.
