PS5 and Xbox Series X: is it right for the price of games to increase?

Index

History of the price of video games How much does it cost to make a video game New sales models The release of PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X will bring with it an increase in the price of games. We've actually known this for months, since 2K Games announced plans to sell NBA 2K21 with a $ 10 increase for nextgen versions over current consoles. The definitive confirmation came from the event dedicated by Sony to PS5 a few days ago, from which it emerged that games like Demon's Souls and Destruction AllStars will cost us 79.99 euros. A price at which it is reasonable to imagine that other productions will also line up, establishing a new sales standard for the so-called triple-A titles.

From the point of view of consumers, the increase in the price of video games obviously entails a negative consequence for their pockets, justified by the software houses with the constant increase in the development costs of video games. An increase that many agree is a consequence of the market request to enjoy ever larger and longer and longer titles, benefiting in the case of the new consoles also fully benefiting from the beauties offered by ray tracing, 4K at 60 frames per second, and so on.

The approach of the new generation and the ideas offered by the last few days oblige us at this point to make some reflections: is it right that the games for PS5 and Xbox Series X increase in price? Are there really no other alternatives, neither for producers nor for consumers? Until a few days ago the answer would have been only one, but as we are about to see in the last few hours an alternative scenario has taken on more and more substance.

History of the price of video games

Before trying to answer the questions with which we closed the introduction, let's see what the history of the price of video games is. So let's jump back exactly thirty years to 1990, when Kick Off II for Amiga was sold for 49,000 lire. In the catalog we found online, however, we discover that Leisure Suit Larry at 69,000 lire and Space Quest III at 79,000 lire were also available for the same platform. A quick passage on an online calculator that takes into account inflation tells us that the ratio between the lira at the time and the current euro is almost one to one, from which it follows that for what was the purchasing power in the 1990 games were practically sold at the current price, in some cases even for a little more. Going even further back, we find Space Invaders for Atari 2600: at its release (1981) it was sold for 41,750 lire, with inflation adjustment equal to the beauty of over 85 euros today.

At this point you will already be thinking that since those years the video game market has gone through a boom that has brought computers and consoles to many homes around the world, thus compensating for the growing development costs. This is certainly true, just as it is also true that video games have grown enormously from the point of view of content and complexity of realization. Indies have shown us that with reduced budgets it is still possible to do wonders by accepting some compromises, but for AAA titles the demand is always that of having top content and technique. Furthermore, the installed base can only expand to a certain physiological point, and for the most expensive titles now even being able to count on millions of consoles around the world does not seem to be enough.

Without going too far back in time, in fact, it is enough to consider how long it has been since AAA games are sold for 69 euros: the price of video games has not increased for about fifteen years, but their production cost has risen in the meantime. In part, the "fault" is also of us gamers, more and more eager to be able to play games that last as long as possible, allowing us only in this way to amortize our expenses satisfactorily. The first The Last of Us lasted fifteen hours, the sequel twenty-five. Yet, if you think about it, already imagining a duration of only ten to fifteen hours a video game already has a price / entertainment time ratio significantly higher than that of the cinema, where the cost of a ticket in the last fifteen years has instead increased and not even a little. The price freeze at 69 euros is what actually caused the birth of particularly expensive collector's editions, season passes and microtransactions. Not that you want to justify the incorrect behavior of some in the use of the latter, mind you, but in some cases resorting to these solutions has become the only way to survive. Will paying 10 euros more help to avoid them? Not entirely, but the direction could become that at least for some: if Cory Barlog, director of God of War thinks so, at least a little we can trust.

How much does it cost to make a video game

Having ascertained that the prices of video games for consumers have remained unchanged for some time in the face of an increase in their technological and content complexity, let's see in 2020 how much it costs to develop a video game. It is clear that the total sum varies depending on the title, as a game created by a single independent developer cannot be compared with an AAA that works on hundreds of people.

The budget spent to make a video game is not an aspect that developers and publishers often like to talk about, so we are forced to base our reasoning on a series of estimates and rumors. In 2015, for example, the construction of Metal Gear Solid V cost Konami $ 80 million, for a work of about three years. Considering that The Last of Us 2 has seen a commitment from Naughty Dog that lasted six years, it is reasonable to think that its development cost has clearly exceeded 100 million dollars. Development only, without considering all the other costs including marketing, for triple-A titles often in relation one to one with the costs of making the game.

Accounts that would return with those made in June by Shawn Layden, former boss of SIE Worldwide Studios according to whom the production costs of an AAA title have already reached the current generation between 80 and 150 million dollars. The future sees a further rise with the arrival of the nextgen, as "4K, HDR and world-making don't come cheap". These are the words of Layden, according to whom the extreme volatility of construction costs is destined to inevitably collide with the request by the players to always be able to pay the same price. A solution according to Layden himself could be to limit the duration of AAA games, returning as some time ago to games of a duration that is around fifteen hours with shorter development times, but which focus on the quality of the overall experience compared to an eighty-hour game where the broth is stretched with obvious fillers.

Even by gamers, reflection is therefore necessary. Expecting more and more and always at the same cost is not a sustainable model for any sector, and in the gaming sector it has now been like this for more than ten years. Those who truly love electronic entertainment should rightly criticize developers when it is right, while also learning to support and reward them when they deserve it. Screaming in the face at the first opportunity due to alleged greed does not help anyone. Add to this the fact that we often reject the day one purchase, the primary source of livelihood for the market, waiting for a price drop that will sooner or later arrive, with some exceptions.

New models of sales

Until a few days ago our discussion would have started towards a conclusion where the increase in the price of video games to 79 euros seemed to be the only way currently feasible. The facts of the last few hours, however, have pushed hard on the accelerator pedal of one of the alternative strategies, actually already implemented for some time by one of the main competitors in the game. We are talking about the acquisition of Zenimax by Microsoft, with which the Redmond company has forcefully relaunched the Xbox Game Pass model. By completely breaking down any reasoning about the price of a single title, the idea is in fact to propose a "Netflix of video games" to which you can subscribe monthly to immediately access a catalog containing even the newest games.

An idea which everyone has thought of as the model has spread to other areas of entertainment, but which in reality only Microsoft can afford to manage with the strength of its own health in the economic sphere. It was in fact the enormous liquidity (over 130 billion) available to Satya Nadella and her company that allowed an investment of 7.5 billion dollars in an investment that could prove to be successful in the coming years. With a catalog of AAA titles available immediately, Game Pass becomes something extremely attractive, without the Redmond company necessarily having to focus on an exclusivity policy. Indeed, with a total opening also towards the PC market, the idea would be precisely to bring your titles on as many platforms as possible, thanks to the Game Pass model. Why release the next Fallout only on Xbox Series X, when players will be able to find it as a subscription at no additional cost, instead being forced to spend 79 euros to play it on PlayStation 5? With such a situation, the market would seem obliged to move towards the world of services, thus completely abandoning the idea of ​​buying and owning a video game.

For Sony, at this point, to propose a new model things get more complicated. Last week Jim Ryan made it clear that new releases will never arrive on a subscription service, as unsustainable as a model for the Japanese company. "We want to create bigger and better games and we hope to make them even more persistent", these are the words of Ryan, from which we can deduce that the policies on PlayStation 5 will remain the same as those adopted up to now, focusing on exclusives from the increasingly high impact destined to give value to the PlayStation ecosystem.

We are therefore facing a real crossroads, where Microsoft and Sony will go with the nextgen to differentiate themselves in terms of offer not only for what concerns the nature of the titles available, but also (and we would say mainly) with regard to commercial policies. It will obviously be the market that will decide which model will be the most successful, with the awareness of being able to count on a diversification from which it can still benefit.