Sure, but someone had to bite the bullet and announce their price changes first. Video games are weird in that they just never really change price much. It was bound to generate some flak.
Sure, but someone had to bite the bullet and announce their price changes first. Video games are weird in that they just never really change price much. It was bound to generate some flak.
I'm not typically one to defend billion dollar corporations treating us as cattle, but on an hours-of-use-per-dollar cost basis video games have got to be one of the most efficient ways to spend...
I'm not typically one to defend billion dollar corporations treating us as cattle, but on an hours-of-use-per-dollar cost basis video games have got to be one of the most efficient ways to spend money on entertainment. $30 for a 2 hour movie or $80 for a game you'll spend years playing? I guess it depends on the game but at this point I'm probably in the fractions of a penny per hour range for my overall game expenditure.
I think the only game I've spent more than a few weeks playing is a cheap Tower Defence game I can't even remember the name of. I don't disagree with your actual point about value for money, but...
$80 for a game you'll spend years playing?
I think the only game I've spent more than a few weeks playing is a cheap Tower Defence game I can't even remember the name of.
I don't disagree with your actual point about value for money, but some people don't re-play games. I don't, generally, re-watch movies or re-read books either.
Depends on the game too. I just paid £45 ($60) for Clair Obscur which is cheap* and frankly even the 4-5 hours I've put into it have more than justified that price tag. Meanwhile Dragon Age: The Veilguard was free on PSN last month and I thought that was a bit expensive for the dull and derivative experience that provided.
* AAA console games are already around £70 in the UK, eg: Assassin's Creed Shadows or Doom Dark Ages pre-orders are both £69.99/$90 right now. Yes, there are always discounts after a while but still.
Where do you live that a movie ticket is $30? Even buying a movie on disc, only the newest 4K versions or steelbooks typically reach that price near me.
$30 for a 2 hour movie
Where do you live that a movie ticket is $30? Even buying a movie on disc, only the newest 4K versions or steelbooks typically reach that price near me.
I think my local cinema is $28 for a single adult ticket on the fancy special extra-large screens, but that’s Australian dollars, so take with a grain of salt. The currency-exchange would place...
I think my local cinema is $28 for a single adult ticket on the fancy special extra-large screens, but that’s Australian dollars, so take with a grain of salt.
The currency-exchange would place that at ~$18 USD but the big-mac-index implies the gap should be a lot smaller (closer to ~$22 USD equivalent), so I think cinemas here might actually be pretty pricey.
Where I am for regal after taxes and fees it usually ends up being $28 or so. Other theaters can be more in the $20 range but I don’t think $30 is crazy in the US.
Where I am for regal after taxes and fees it usually ends up being $28 or so. Other theaters can be more in the $20 range but I don’t think $30 is crazy in the US.
My local mainstream cinema in Bristol UK is £9 for a movie, £5 on Mondays. Or unlimited movies for £16.99/month. It's crazy how out of whack these prices are relative to how other things are...
My local mainstream cinema in Bristol UK is £9 for a movie, £5 on Mondays. Or unlimited movies for £16.99/month.
It's crazy how out of whack these prices are relative to how other things are comparitvely priced within the anglosphere.
I haven't been to a movie in a long time. I guess I figured ticket, popcorn, beer, Whoppers, probably comes to $30? Edit i just looked it up our local spot is only $11 for the ticket.
I haven't been to a movie in a long time. I guess I figured ticket, popcorn, beer, Whoppers, probably comes to $30?
Edit i just looked it up our local spot is only $11 for the ticket.
This depends. Last of us is short game with big price tag, for example (it's still a great game!). On the other hand you can get Witcher 3 for next to nothing and that is easily 100+ hours game...
This depends. Last of us is short game with big price tag, for example (it's still a great game!). On the other hand you can get Witcher 3 for next to nothing and that is easily 100+ hours game (I'd even say almost 200 hours).
The point is if the game is good, I will pay for it.
Why do prices have to change? We need to hold someone accountable if they were lying to us that our economy is one in which prices always decrease as competition finds better ways of doing things....
Why do prices have to change? We need to hold someone accountable if they were lying to us that our economy is one in which prices always decrease as competition finds better ways of doing things.
Sarcasm aside, I wonder if we’re getting more value for the money? The last aaa game I played was call of duty slime monsters from the planet zorgon and it was nowhere near as fun as cod ii or modern warfare (the real first one). And I’ll fight anybody who says a better game has yet been made than Portal, except maybe Portal 2.
It’s not technically, they are. Tariffs only apply to physical goods being imported. This is as much because the idea of a digital good is too new for import laws.
It’s not technically, they are. Tariffs only apply to physical goods being imported. This is as much because the idea of a digital good is too new for import laws.
On one hand, games have been about $60 for 20 years, starting with the Xbox 360 and PS3 eras (according to some random site I found, I was 6 so I don't even really remember those releases), which...
On one hand, games have been about $60 for 20 years, starting with the Xbox 360 and PS3 eras (according to some random site I found, I was 6 so I don't even really remember those releases), which is about $100 today... but on the other hand, I feel like I've had fewer and fewer reasons to buy AAA titles in the past 5+ years and raising their prices will just push me away more, especially when games like Baldur's Gate 3 aren't even $60.
All things told, games have been dropping in price for decades when compared against inflation. I think EarthBound on the SNES had an MSRP of $80 back in the day.
All things told, games have been dropping in price for decades when compared against inflation. I think EarthBound on the SNES had an MSRP of $80 back in the day.
Earthbound was also made up of a bespoke ROM chip that had to be specially manufactured for it, and included a battery and a RAM chip for save data, plus an additional chip for anti-piracy...
Earthbound was also made up of a bespoke ROM chip that had to be specially manufactured for it, and included a battery and a RAM chip for save data, plus an additional chip for anti-piracy measures. It was also published in a big box with a guidebook if I remember correctly. Compare that to today where the most expensive way to publish games is a single off the shelf flash chip programmed at assembly, and most games don’t need any manufacturing because they are just files downloaded off of a server.
But I feel that with every time people talk about these they pretend that every game is the same price. They are not and never have been. Games are priced at what people think they are worth. Thats how even objectively terrible retro games can become ludicrously expensive through simple rarity. The reason why the upper level of video game prices haven’t gone up is simply because nobody was confident that enough people would buy if they did that and it would hurt their bottom line.
But that’s not the whole picture either. Games don’t only cost $60 for everyone. Publishers know there are people who are willing to pay extra for their games and that is why they capitalize on that for “special” or “collectors” editions.
Even with these cost I am fairly sure that modern games are more expensive to create. The cost of modern AAA game development is insane and IMO don't really make better games than innovative indie...
Earthbound was also made up of a bespoke ROM chip that had to be specially manufactured for it, and included a battery and a RAM chip for save data, plus an additional chip for anti-piracy measures. It was also published in a big box with a guidebook
Even with these cost I am fairly sure that modern games are more expensive to create. The cost of modern AAA game development is insane and IMO don't really make better games than innovative indie titles. Too much focus is on graphical fidelity as opposed to game play and aesthetics which are the things that makes for memorable and high quality games. In general I think digital goods should be (almost) free since they can be infinitely reproduced at a negligible cost. However, that isn't really the way the economy is structured currently.
Triple A only had a $60 sticker price. In actuality, you'd at least spend another 20 to participate. Either through battle passes or some other trite MTX. The price of games being $60 for so long...
Triple A only had a $60 sticker price. In actuality, you'd at least spend another 20 to participate. Either through battle passes or some other trite MTX.
The price of games being $60 for so long has done little to prevent record growth and profits.
One could argue that the $60 guarantee forced publishers to nickel and dime customers, but I'd wager this price hike won't stop the psychological manipulation to squeeze you for extra dollars in any way regardless.
Any and all defense of the price increase seems to come from the same studios that see their profits slump precisely because of those predatory practices that now come to bite them.
I'm ok with $80 dollars if the value proposition was fair, but it isn't. It already very often isn't at $60, let alone 80.
Baldur's Gate 3 is an excellent example. It made a hefty profit at a fair price and the industry tries to discredit them by arguing consumers shouldn't expect similar levels of quality. But up the prices go. For worse experiences. Games that point you towards or flat out open up a real money shop the moment you boot into the menu.
I don't trust the price hikes one bit.
I'll treat it like anything else. If I'm being honest, I probably would pay 80 for well established stuff like the next mainline Zelda or Mario (which tend to have zero MTX and at worst some...
I'll treat it like anything else. If I'm being honest, I probably would pay 80 for well established stuff like the next mainline Zelda or Mario (which tend to have zero MTX and at worst some decent paid expansions). But not for many other titles. I still do have enough of a backlog to spend years playing through without buying anything new.
In addition to backlog, sales, indies, and replayability just kill the idea of buying games at $80 for me. I have money, but I've found the price I'm willing to pay, even for a game I want, is...
In addition to backlog, sales, indies, and replayability just kill the idea of buying games at $80 for me. I have money, but I've found the price I'm willing to pay, even for a game I want, is right around $30. I'm normally just as happy to start another Hollow Knight Steel Soul 100% attempt as I am to boot up something new.
This is my exact opinion. I grew up a gamer but I have long, long, long since made my peace with the notion that AAA companies sucked the joy out of gaming. If you say AAA, I hear: overpriced,...
This is my exact opinion. I grew up a gamer but I have long, long, long since made my peace with the notion that AAA companies sucked the joy out of gaming. If you say AAA, I hear: overpriced, always online, battle passes, loot creates. I know there are a ton of AAA titles that don't do the things, but I just gave up on the mainstream gaming industry as not having much alignment with what I want from a game.
All of my favorite games of the last few decades have been indie, and that tracks: indie developers build things they're passionate about, and there trying to earn success. AAA titles (tend to) build things that have been optimized for profit by non-gamers with 0 interest in the franchise.
So if they want to creep price to while creeping value down, I'm okay with that
Don't get me wrong - I wish it could be different. But over my life I've seen so many gaming franchises succeed so much that they become big business and turn to financially successful shit.
Annoying at it is, Nintendo has more justification than Microsoft and Xbox though. I've said so many times that Nintendo isn't really competing on the same playing field as Microsoft and Sony....
Annoying at it is, Nintendo has more justification than Microsoft and Xbox though. I've said so many times that Nintendo isn't really competing on the same playing field as Microsoft and Sony. They:
A) Have a HUGE number of highly beloved exclusive franchises that are basically the face of video games to non-gamers. (Seriously, Mario is basically the mascot for gaming as a whole.)
B) Have a strong reputation for releasing consistently quality first-party titles. The games are well polished and in a "complete" state on release (note: not counting Pokémon in this), and consistently score fairly high on Metacritic. They're not known for cash-grabs and/or microtransactions. I can't recall any Nintendo release having a disastrous launch in the vein of Assassin's Creed Unity or Cyberpunk 2077.
C) Develop their consoles with families ecifically in mind. Which is a small thing, but it means more security for parents since there's minimal extra setup to ensure their kids have a safe gaming experience. Also, they'll be the first brand a non-gamer parent will think of when wanting to buy their kid a console.
They've carved a unique niche in the gaming market that no other company really touches or handles quite as well. They've spent decades earning customer loyalty, and they'll have guaranteed customers just based on any one of the above reasons. And the Xbox doesn't have any of that.
Doesn't seem like Sony has followed suit, although they may just be lagging behind. EDIT: Seems like Sony did a marked price increase about two weeks ago in several regions. Not in the US, but...
Doesn't seem like Sony has followed suit, although they may just be lagging behind.
EDIT: Seems like Sony did a marked price increase about two weeks ago in several regions. Not in the US, but that may not be far behind.
I remember reading the prediction a few months back that GTA6 would the be game to break that $80 threshold and then everyone else would follow suit. Seems the timeline has moved up a bit given...
I remember reading the prediction a few months back that GTA6 would the be game to break that $80 threshold and then everyone else would follow suit. Seems the timeline has moved up a bit given the convenient excuse that tariffs provide.
Xbox Series S 512 - $379.99 (up from $299.99) Xbox Series S 1TB - $429.99 (up from $349.99) Xbox Series X Digital - $549.99 (up from $449.99) Xbox Series X - $599.99 (up from $499.99) Xbox Series...
Xbox Series S 512 - $379.99 (up from $299.99)
Xbox Series S 1TB - $429.99 (up from $349.99)
Xbox Series X Digital - $549.99 (up from $449.99)
Xbox Series X - $599.99 (up from $499.99)
Xbox Series X 2TB Galaxy Special Edition $729.99 (up from $599.99)
Xbox Wireless Controller (Core) - $64.99
Xbox Wireless Controller (Color) - $69.99
Xbox Wireless Controller - Special Edition - $79.99
Xbox Wireless Controller - Limited Edition - $89.99 (up from $79.99)
Xbox Elite Wireless Controller Series 2 (Core) - $149.99 (up from $139.99)
Xbox Elite Wireless Controller Series 2 (Full) - $199.99 (up from $179.99)
Xbox Stereo Headset -$64.99
Xbox Wireless Headset - $119.99 (up from $109.99)
Honestly with the rise of the Steam Deck and other pc handhelds, and even the proliferation of gaming laptops, it seems like the line between consoles and pc has been blurring for some time and...
Honestly with the rise of the Steam Deck and other pc handhelds, and even the proliferation of gaming laptops, it seems like the line between consoles and pc has been blurring for some time and the market is getting more competitive than ever. I'm definitely biased towards pc but these prices do not look all that appealing when you can buy similar or better performance for cheaper elsewhere and not be locked into the Xbox ecosystem.
Is there any argument to be made that considering how precarious and underpaid of a job in game development can be, it is only fair that prices for games (particularly AAA) rise? Although, I’m...
Is there any argument to be made that considering how precarious and underpaid of a job in game development can be, it is only fair that prices for games (particularly AAA) rise?
Although, I’m afraid that a lot of the money will still go to manager, executives, and shareholders...
Edit:
What are the chances that GTA VI will be sold for $100?
I reckon that the market and labor economics of video game development are very similar to those of filmmaking: prestigious, unstable, high-risk, high-reward. In film, breakout success really...
I reckon that the market and labor economics of video game development are very similar to those of filmmaking: prestigious, unstable, high-risk, high-reward.
In film, breakout success really hinges on a small handful of key players. Since film is high-risk, studios and investors move to minimize risk, so they want people with proven track records of success. James Cameron gets paid well because he consistently delivers billion-dollar films: people like him are few and in extremely high demand. Executives are basically being compensated for the track records they bring. There is an extreme scarcity in opportunities to develop an executive track record, so the executive labor supply is tiny and fiercely bid over, driving up compensation.
The prestige of both industries creates a massive oversupply of non-executive labor who dream of working in those industries. They accept lower pay for the supposed privilege of living their passion.
It's hard for a game developer to negotiate better pay and working conditions when there's a hundred-block-long line of game developers who grew up playing video games and dream of working in the industry.
(My personal opinion is that people obviously shouldn't work in an industry they hate, but at the same time, they shouldn't let passion blind them to economic realities.)
This is a very important point that you’re making here. I made this mistake. I “followed my passions”, and now I’m 35, poor, and unable to get an education or better job opportunities. It’s...
My personal opinion is that people obviously shouldn't work in an industry they hate, but at the same time, they shouldn't let passion blind them to economic realities.
This is a very important point that you’re making here. I made this mistake. I “followed my passions”, and now I’m 35, poor, and unable to get an education or better job opportunities. It’s difficult to be a realist when the “opportunities are all out there”. Ultimately, one has to accept that the safest route is to get into a career that “pays the bills”, and work on passion projects on the side, hoping that luck (it mostly depends on luck) will get you where you want to go.
If tariffs are instituted in the US, eating into companies' profit margins in the US, and they respond by increasing prices all over the world, I can only feel like the money we are paying is...
If tariffs are instituted in the US, eating into companies' profit margins in the US, and they respond by increasing prices all over the world, I can only feel like the money we are paying is subsidizing american political insanity. Videogame industry jobs were precarious before and that didn't incentivize any company to change the status quo.
Companies will charge per country they think they can charge that country. Otherwise the implication would be that beforehand the US was subsidizing the rest of the world.
Companies will charge per country they think they can charge that country. Otherwise the implication would be that beforehand the US was subsidizing the rest of the world.
But it wasn't. In general, all prices are higher in Europe. After the increase, base Xbox prices are still 5% higher in Europe compared to the US, at today's exchange rate (as per the PDFs linked...
But it wasn't. In general, all prices are higher in Europe. After the increase, base Xbox prices are still 5% higher in Europe compared to the US, at today's exchange rate (as per the PDFs linked in the official announcement).
I don't disagree companies get to charge whatever they want, but don't tell me it's a good thing that will reflect into better pay for developers. It absolutely won't. I'll keep spending 100% of my gaming budget on indie developers, which seems like a more efficient way to help the industry in the way I want.
Aren't the Europe prices with VAT whereas the US prices don't include sales tax? $600 Xbox Series X would be roughly $660 after taxes for me. And I would only get 1 year of warranty whereas the EU...
Aren't the Europe prices with VAT whereas the US prices don't include sales tax? $600 Xbox Series X would be roughly $660 after taxes for me. And I would only get 1 year of warranty whereas the EU version would have 2 years of warranty.
But that value must factor in the profit margin loss caused by tariffs. In particular if Xbox components keep being manufactured in China, the price didn't increase nearly enough for the US to...
But that value must factor in the profit margin loss caused by tariffs. In particular if Xbox components keep being manufactured in China, the price didn't increase nearly enough for the US to make up for the tariffs, whereas nothing changed in the EU to make the Xbox any more costly (at least not yet) but the price increased anyway.
Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. If the warranty is that valuable to you, be consoled by the fact that the median income in the US is 2.3x that in my country (as of 2024), so relative to purchasing power we're actually overpaying wildly for it!
The European prices were raised such that they're still quite a lot higher, though. A Series X is 699€, which is nearly $800 USD. The EU version's increased warranty is because of EU legislation...
The European prices were raised such that they're still quite a lot higher, though. A Series X is 699€, which is nearly $800 USD.
The EU version's increased warranty is because of EU legislation that mandates it for all products in this class. It certainly doesn't account for a sufficiently large difference in costs for Microsoft to justify the cost difference on its own, and the US could just as easily pass similar consumer-protection legislation.
A Series X is 599€ actually. The 699€ one is a special edition and comparable to the $729 one in the US. Taking VAT out of the equation* means the 699€ one is more like 599€ going into Microsoft's...
A Series X is 599€ actually. The 699€ one is a special edition and comparable to the $729 one in the US. Taking VAT out of the equation* means the 699€ one is more like 599€ going into Microsoft's pockets which converts to $677. Compared to $729, this means Microsoft actually charges the EU less than it charges the US.
For the 599€ one, the math is 485€ compared to $599, so again less in the EU.
* Assuming those prices do include VAT already and assuming a 19% VAT rate.
It's your lucky day as the complete edition of GTA IV is on sale for $10.50CAD right now. I'd say that's a great price for the best entry in the GTA series... /joke
What are the chances that GTA IV will be sold for $100?
It's your lucky day as the complete edition of GTA IV is on sale for $10.50CAD right now. I'd say that's a great price for the best entry in the GTA series...
Price increases aren’t inherently fair or unfair. You have the right to sell products you make at whatever price you want to. Developers can charge what they wish, and the market will bear what it...
Price increases aren’t inherently fair or unfair. You have the right to sell products you make at whatever price you want to.
Developers can charge what they wish, and the market will bear what it will. If truly most people cannot afford a price increase, then you’d make more money keeping it at $60 and companies will follow after the stats show higher drops in demand than the increased margin.
Ever increasing profits to the point of becoming the largest profitable form of media hasn't seen any remuneration for actual developers. I sincerely doubt this will change a thing. Nor should it...
Ever increasing profits to the point of becoming the largest profitable form of media hasn't seen any remuneration for actual developers. I sincerely doubt this will change a thing. Nor should it be necessary when you look at the already ridiculous revenues and profits.
I’m an out-of-touch outsider, but my guess is that the game development job market doesn’t get better. I expect AI to increase inequality, because hits can be written by smaller teams, along with...
I’m an out-of-touch outsider, but my guess is that the game development job market doesn’t get better. I expect AI to increase inequality, because hits can be written by smaller teams, along with a lot more games that don’t get enough of an audience to make money.
I doubt anyone is vibe coding the next Balatro. Game design is a wickedly complex field, in part due to how many domains are involved.The creativity that makes the best games truly stand apart...
I doubt anyone is vibe coding the next Balatro. Game design is a wickedly complex field, in part due to how many domains are involved.The creativity that makes the best games truly stand apart requires a human with a vision and the skills to execute on that vision.
I was thinking about the large teams building game assets at a scale that’s out of reach for indy developers. Will that still be a thing? Perhaps small teams will be able to build games that look...
I was thinking about the large teams building game assets at a scale that’s out of reach for indy developers. Will that still be a thing? Perhaps small teams will be able to build games that look like they were done by a big team.
Sort of like procedural generation, but with AI enhancements.
The revolution with transformer-based deep learning is probably not killing any 3D modelling, rigging, or animation jobs. I doubt the demand for game stuff is fully saturated, so if there are...
The revolution with transformer-based deep learning is probably not killing any 3D modelling, rigging, or animation jobs. I doubt the demand for game stuff is fully saturated, so if there are productivity improvements then we could expect bigger games.
The argument is there, but this is indeed the reality. I've had a total of one Cost of living raise in my entire career. 3% in the heights of COVID. The pay was great for me so no need to pity me,...
Although, I’m afraid that a lot of the money will still go to manager, executives, and shareholders...
The argument is there, but this is indeed the reality. I've had a total of one Cost of living raise in my entire career. 3% in the heights of COVID.
The pay was great for me so no need to pity me, but you only see these record numbers if you get paid in stocks.
Another thought: I want to see how this new trend will influence the purchase habits os customers, and if cheaper indie titles and old classics, particularly on platforms like Steam and GOG, will...
Another thought: I want to see how this new trend will influence the purchase habits os customers, and if cheaper indie titles and old classics, particularly on platforms like Steam and GOG, will see an uptick in sales.
I wish we could know how many people will be priced out of video games as a hobby in the near future. I’m certainly one of them. I can occasionally buy a heavily discounted game on Steam, and emulate a bunch of others on the side, but that’s it. And forget about dedicated gaming hardware.
I still can't get over that there are $70 games out there, so these price increases are wild to me. But I also gave up on AAA gaming a few years ago, there are just too many great classic games to...
I still can't get over that there are $70 games out there, so these price increases are wild to me. But I also gave up on AAA gaming a few years ago, there are just too many great classic games to spend so much money on new games that are often half baked. It also feels like this console generation has been the most underwhelming one ever, with barely any exclusive games on either platform, so it's ever crazier to be raising prices this late into the game.
All that said, as someone who has bough a console every generation since I was a kid, I'm out come next generation.
I have a serious question: what are the Xbox exclusives? You would think this is an easy question to answer. However, after looking at several articles, they all seem to be basing it on console...
I have a serious question: what are the Xbox exclusives?
You would think this is an easy question to answer. However, after looking at several articles, they all seem to be basing it on console exclusives. Pretty much every game I looked up was available for Windows.
The thing is, the Xbox's biggest competitor isn't Nintendo or Sony, it's the PC gaming scene.
A gaming console basically serves as an "entry price". One of the main draws of any console is the exclusive titles that you can't get on any other device. If a console has multiple games you want that are totally exclusive, then it becomes easier to justify buying the console, and from there it's easy to justify buying other non-exclusive games. If all the games you want are available on other devices you own though, there's no point in buying that console.
That's part of why Nintendo is able to raise their prices. They have some of the most famous exclusives in all of gaming, which among other factors such as a reputation for quality first-party releases and family-oriented approach to their console design, guarantees steady customers.
The Xbox doesn't have that leverage though. Microsoft actually has inverse incentive to prioritize Xbox since they'll make even more money selling games for Windows too. And PCs have a broader appeal than just gaming, meaning most people will own one on top of a console. If someone owns a PS4 and a PC, they'll just buy Starfield for PC instead of buying an Xbox and Starfield. They'll wait for it to go on sale on Steam, too.
There's already little incentive to specifically buy an Xbox, raising the prices will make it worse. I feel like Microsoft is basically sabotaging Xbox with this move.
Xbox isn't really separate from Microsoft. While Sony's divisions are extremely independent, it's not uncommon for an Xbox employee to go work on Azure or Windows then come back. Some of the big...
Xbox isn't really separate from Microsoft. While Sony's divisions are extremely independent, it's not uncommon for an Xbox employee to go work on Azure or Windows then come back. Some of the big shots behind early Halo games' net code later worked on Microsoft's cloud projects.
While it might be a bad move from a shifting consoles perspective, that doesn't seem to be a problem for Microsoft. If someone signs up for game pass with Windows or Xbox, they're making money either way.
I'm already purchasing mostly indie games while waiting for AAA titles to go on sale for 50%. It's the exceedingly rare big budget game (e.g. Jedi series games, BG3) where I can't wait for the...
I'm already purchasing mostly indie games while waiting for AAA titles to go on sale for 50%. It's the exceedingly rare big budget game (e.g. Jedi series games, BG3) where I can't wait for the sale.
Besides, the indie games are the ones that introduce almost all novelty into the field. As a gamer, I prefer depth, quality, and emergent gameplay over quantity and the flashiest graphics.
I couldn't give a damn about the latest FPS, extraction shooter, JRPG, etc.
It is batshit crazy that 50% off AAA will soon be 40 USD or more.
For me, it's a combination of "cash grab" and "that seems like a very stupid move". Just considering the scope and bloat of MS (and all AAA studios/publishers) it feels like every game needs to be...
For me, it's a combination of "cash grab" and "that seems like a very stupid move".
Just considering the scope and bloat of MS (and all AAA studios/publishers) it feels like every game needs to be a chash grab to survive.
Like, I could have gotten Avowed for ZAR1200. A 100hr RPG at 75% positive ratings and mixed/middling reviews. But for about that price I got Haste (180), Blue Prince (270), World of Goo 2 (200), Tavern Talk (150), Star Vaders (200), Skin Deep (175) and Shedule 1 (170) (no, I don't have a problem of buying too many games). And that is current pricing. If it was new price money, would easily add a delux Expedition 33. And from all the studios who's games I listed, I think Obsidian might be the only one at risk of loosing money. Or just being shut down, even if they made money.
Add to that, the output and business of MS studios over the last few years. After Halo, Starfield, Redfall, current state CoD/Overwatch/Diablo and the Minecraft side projects (Legends and Dungeons), a quality experience is definitely not guaranteed for a full price. And even if it is a quality experience, there is a real risk that the studio will just be shut down to save a few bucks. So what's the point of getting invested in an interesting new IP or studio like HI Fi Rush or Arkane Austin. It's also well reported that the new CoD has AI generated assets so I'm expecting wild inconsistencies in their work going forward. And combined with the companies fondness of firing people, there are no assurances that my money will every see the people who's efforts made that game possible.
And lastly, this is tone deaf to an almost comical degree. When games jumped from 60 to 70, people were pissed but we dealt with it. And it was the first big jump after a long period of the $60 standard. But that was 5 years ago and before the current age of insanity. Everyone knows we at at the edge of massive economic gauntlet. It was easy to forget that money is a transient resource. Money is food, rent, healthcare, entertainment, labour, transport, time. Plenty of allegories about the rich man in the desert because that wealth is only worth what it can buy. And entertainment luxuries are worth a lot less when necessities are going to be so expensive.
Its not just a problem customer side. Its plain idiotic as a strategy and it speaks to major issues from leadership. Could go on about it forever, and deleted a big segment on speculative markets and how the internet broke the stock market. But long story short, I don't see how Gamepass, Activision and a few small wins are going to overcome the cost of a failed hardware division, all the historic losses and a dozen major games in active development.
I have a kind of third feeling more like "not sure it's a good idea to try raise prices in a saturated market." I do think it's correct to say that the price of games hasn't kept up with...
I have a kind of third feeling more like "not sure it's a good idea to try raise prices in a saturated market." I do think it's correct to say that the price of games hasn't kept up with inflation, but it also makes a lot of sense they haven't. They're almost free to duplicate, not necessities, and in a crowded market. Those factors often drop prices, not raise them. Even in real dollars DVDs, and even Blu-rays, are still cheaper than VHSs were by a huge amount, but I don't see people claiming that buying a movie should be $200 to keep up with price inflation relative to VHS.
The market so far has survived largely on that the potential audience has grown substantially. So even in the face of rising development costs it was possible to offset this through a combination of good per-unit margins and scaling up the number of units. The problem now though is competition. They can't keep pushing more units so now they need to increase price.
To me it kind of reads as desperate, like how when an MMO gets bought out by one of those graveyard publishers they get more aggressive with monetization to try to scrape the last little bits of meat off the dying husk they've acquired. It didn't seem like Xbox was doing particularly great this console generation to begin with and now they're going to increase prices? Can the market really sustain that or will the customers just go to the abundant competition? Who are increased prices going to attract?
Nintendo opened the gates for everyone to finally up the price of games. Not even slightly surprising that everyone will follow suit.
Well, that and ya know. the very unnecessary 10% tariffs that get slapped onto everything.
Sure, but someone had to bite the bullet and announce their price changes first. Video games are weird in that they just never really change price much. It was bound to generate some flak.
I'm not typically one to defend billion dollar corporations treating us as cattle, but on an hours-of-use-per-dollar cost basis video games have got to be one of the most efficient ways to spend money on entertainment. $30 for a 2 hour movie or $80 for a game you'll spend years playing? I guess it depends on the game but at this point I'm probably in the fractions of a penny per hour range for my overall game expenditure.
I think the only game I've spent more than a few weeks playing is a cheap Tower Defence game I can't even remember the name of.
I don't disagree with your actual point about value for money, but some people don't re-play games. I don't, generally, re-watch movies or re-read books either.
Depends on the game too. I just paid £45 ($60) for Clair Obscur which is cheap* and frankly even the 4-5 hours I've put into it have more than justified that price tag. Meanwhile Dragon Age: The Veilguard was free on PSN last month and I thought that was a bit expensive for the dull and derivative experience that provided.
* AAA console games are already around £70 in the UK, eg: Assassin's Creed Shadows or Doom Dark Ages pre-orders are both £69.99/$90 right now. Yes, there are always discounts after a while but still.
Where do you live that a movie ticket is $30? Even buying a movie on disc, only the newest 4K versions or steelbooks typically reach that price near me.
I think my local cinema is $28 for a single adult ticket on the fancy special extra-large screens, but that’s Australian dollars, so take with a grain of salt.
The currency-exchange would place that at ~$18 USD but the big-mac-index implies the gap should be a lot smaller (closer to ~$22 USD equivalent), so I think cinemas here might actually be pretty pricey.
Where I am for regal after taxes and fees it usually ends up being $28 or so. Other theaters can be more in the $20 range but I don’t think $30 is crazy in the US.
Some parts of the country are up there for sure, but it’s definitely not the norm in the US.
I’m in a very expensive area and tickets are $15, $10 if you’re on the loyalty programs.
My local mainstream cinema in Bristol UK is £9 for a movie, £5 on Mondays. Or unlimited movies for £16.99/month.
It's crazy how out of whack these prices are relative to how other things are comparitvely priced within the anglosphere.
I haven't been to a movie in a long time. I guess I figured ticket, popcorn, beer, Whoppers, probably comes to $30?
Edit i just looked it up our local spot is only $11 for the ticket.
This depends. Last of us is short game with big price tag, for example (it's still a great game!). On the other hand you can get Witcher 3 for next to nothing and that is easily 100+ hours game (I'd even say almost 200 hours).
The point is if the game is good, I will pay for it.
Why do prices have to change? We need to hold someone accountable if they were lying to us that our economy is one in which prices always decrease as competition finds better ways of doing things.
Sarcasm aside, I wonder if we’re getting more value for the money? The last aaa game I played was call of duty slime monsters from the planet zorgon and it was nowhere near as fun as cod ii or modern warfare (the real first one). And I’ll fight anybody who says a better game has yet been made than Portal, except maybe Portal 2.
I wonder if digital downloads could technically be tariff free.
It’s not technically, they are. Tariffs only apply to physical goods being imported. This is as much because the idea of a digital good is too new for import laws.
On one hand, games have been about $60 for 20 years, starting with the Xbox 360 and PS3 eras (according to some random site I found, I was 6 so I don't even really remember those releases), which is about $100 today... but on the other hand, I feel like I've had fewer and fewer reasons to buy AAA titles in the past 5+ years and raising their prices will just push me away more, especially when games like Baldur's Gate 3 aren't even $60.
All things told, games have been dropping in price for decades when compared against inflation. I think EarthBound on the SNES had an MSRP of $80 back in the day.
Earthbound was also made up of a bespoke ROM chip that had to be specially manufactured for it, and included a battery and a RAM chip for save data, plus an additional chip for anti-piracy measures. It was also published in a big box with a guidebook if I remember correctly. Compare that to today where the most expensive way to publish games is a single off the shelf flash chip programmed at assembly, and most games don’t need any manufacturing because they are just files downloaded off of a server.
But I feel that with every time people talk about these they pretend that every game is the same price. They are not and never have been. Games are priced at what people think they are worth. Thats how even objectively terrible retro games can become ludicrously expensive through simple rarity. The reason why the upper level of video game prices haven’t gone up is simply because nobody was confident that enough people would buy if they did that and it would hurt their bottom line.
But that’s not the whole picture either. Games don’t only cost $60 for everyone. Publishers know there are people who are willing to pay extra for their games and that is why they capitalize on that for “special” or “collectors” editions.
Even with these cost I am fairly sure that modern games are more expensive to create. The cost of modern AAA game development is insane and IMO don't really make better games than innovative indie titles. Too much focus is on graphical fidelity as opposed to game play and aesthetics which are the things that makes for memorable and high quality games. In general I think digital goods should be (almost) free since they can be infinitely reproduced at a negligible cost. However, that isn't really the way the economy is structured currently.
Triple A only had a $60 sticker price. In actuality, you'd at least spend another 20 to participate. Either through battle passes or some other trite MTX.
The price of games being $60 for so long has done little to prevent record growth and profits.
One could argue that the $60 guarantee forced publishers to nickel and dime customers, but I'd wager this price hike won't stop the psychological manipulation to squeeze you for extra dollars in any way regardless.
Any and all defense of the price increase seems to come from the same studios that see their profits slump precisely because of those predatory practices that now come to bite them.
I'm ok with $80 dollars if the value proposition was fair, but it isn't. It already very often isn't at $60, let alone 80.
Baldur's Gate 3 is an excellent example. It made a hefty profit at a fair price and the industry tries to discredit them by arguing consumers shouldn't expect similar levels of quality. But up the prices go. For worse experiences. Games that point you towards or flat out open up a real money shop the moment you boot into the menu.
I don't trust the price hikes one bit.
I'll treat it like anything else. If I'm being honest, I probably would pay 80 for well established stuff like the next mainline Zelda or Mario (which tend to have zero MTX and at worst some decent paid expansions). But not for many other titles. I still do have enough of a backlog to spend years playing through without buying anything new.
In addition to backlog, sales, indies, and replayability just kill the idea of buying games at $80 for me. I have money, but I've found the price I'm willing to pay, even for a game I want, is right around $30. I'm normally just as happy to start another Hollow Knight Steel Soul 100% attempt as I am to boot up something new.
It depends on the game and person. I spent $560 to play FF7 Rebirth and thought it was worth every penny.
I'm not above that either. I spent hundreds on Elden Ring and its collector's editions. Exceptions aside, most triple A is just messy.
This is my exact opinion. I grew up a gamer but I have long, long, long since made my peace with the notion that AAA companies sucked the joy out of gaming. If you say AAA, I hear: overpriced, always online, battle passes, loot creates. I know there are a ton of AAA titles that don't do the things, but I just gave up on the mainstream gaming industry as not having much alignment with what I want from a game.
All of my favorite games of the last few decades have been indie, and that tracks: indie developers build things they're passionate about, and there trying to earn success. AAA titles (tend to) build things that have been optimized for profit by non-gamers with 0 interest in the franchise.
So if they want to creep price to while creeping value down, I'm okay with that
Don't get me wrong - I wish it could be different. But over my life I've seen so many gaming franchises succeed so much that they become big business and turn to financially successful shit.
Annoying at it is, Nintendo has more justification than Microsoft and Xbox though. I've said so many times that Nintendo isn't really competing on the same playing field as Microsoft and Sony. They:
A) Have a HUGE number of highly beloved exclusive franchises that are basically the face of video games to non-gamers. (Seriously, Mario is basically the mascot for gaming as a whole.)
B) Have a strong reputation for releasing consistently quality first-party titles. The games are well polished and in a "complete" state on release (note: not counting Pokémon in this), and consistently score fairly high on Metacritic. They're not known for cash-grabs and/or microtransactions. I can't recall any Nintendo release having a disastrous launch in the vein of Assassin's Creed Unity or Cyberpunk 2077.
C) Develop their consoles with families ecifically in mind. Which is a small thing, but it means more security for parents since there's minimal extra setup to ensure their kids have a safe gaming experience. Also, they'll be the first brand a non-gamer parent will think of when wanting to buy their kid a console.
They've carved a unique niche in the gaming market that no other company really touches or handles quite as well. They've spent decades earning customer loyalty, and they'll have guaranteed customers just based on any one of the above reasons. And the Xbox doesn't have any of that.
Doesn't seem like Sony has followed suit, although they may just be lagging behind.
EDIT: Seems like Sony did a marked price increase about two weeks ago in several regions. Not in the US, but that may not be far behind.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/esatdedezade/2025/04/14/playstation-5-price-increase-a-sign-of-things-to-come/
I remember reading the prediction a few months back that GTA6 would the be game to break that $80 threshold and then everyone else would follow suit. Seems the timeline has moved up a bit given the convenient excuse that tariffs provide.
Thanks, Nintendo! ❤️ /s
Official source here for all regions, but they're separated into PDF's:
https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/console/may-2025-pricing-updates
This is nuts, those are huge price hikes. I’ve been gaming all my life and the rule was that console prices go down over its lifetime, not up.
Guarantee that if the tariffs go away, even tomorrow, there will be no price drop.
Price Stickiness / Nominal Rigidity
Safe bet. Prices never go down. Not unless we hit deflation somehow (which would be catastrophic for everyone).
Honestly with the rise of the Steam Deck and other pc handhelds, and even the proliferation of gaming laptops, it seems like the line between consoles and pc has been blurring for some time and the market is getting more competitive than ever. I'm definitely biased towards pc but these prices do not look all that appealing when you can buy similar or better performance for cheaper elsewhere and not be locked into the Xbox ecosystem.
Is there any argument to be made that considering how precarious and underpaid of a job in game development can be, it is only fair that prices for games (particularly AAA) rise?
Although, I’m afraid that a lot of the money will still go to manager, executives, and shareholders...
Edit:
What are the chances that GTA VI will be sold for $100?
I reckon that the market and labor economics of video game development are very similar to those of filmmaking: prestigious, unstable, high-risk, high-reward.
In film, breakout success really hinges on a small handful of key players. Since film is high-risk, studios and investors move to minimize risk, so they want people with proven track records of success. James Cameron gets paid well because he consistently delivers billion-dollar films: people like him are few and in extremely high demand. Executives are basically being compensated for the track records they bring. There is an extreme scarcity in opportunities to develop an executive track record, so the executive labor supply is tiny and fiercely bid over, driving up compensation.
The prestige of both industries creates a massive oversupply of non-executive labor who dream of working in those industries. They accept lower pay for the supposed privilege of living their passion.
It's hard for a game developer to negotiate better pay and working conditions when there's a hundred-block-long line of game developers who grew up playing video games and dream of working in the industry.
(My personal opinion is that people obviously shouldn't work in an industry they hate, but at the same time, they shouldn't let passion blind them to economic realities.)
This is a very important point that you’re making here. I made this mistake. I “followed my passions”, and now I’m 35, poor, and unable to get an education or better job opportunities. It’s difficult to be a realist when the “opportunities are all out there”. Ultimately, one has to accept that the safest route is to get into a career that “pays the bills”, and work on passion projects on the side, hoping that luck (it mostly depends on luck) will get you where you want to go.
If tariffs are instituted in the US, eating into companies' profit margins in the US, and they respond by increasing prices all over the world, I can only feel like the money we are paying is subsidizing american political insanity. Videogame industry jobs were precarious before and that didn't incentivize any company to change the status quo.
Companies will charge per country they think they can charge that country. Otherwise the implication would be that beforehand the US was subsidizing the rest of the world.
But it wasn't. In general, all prices are higher in Europe. After the increase, base Xbox prices are still 5% higher in Europe compared to the US, at today's exchange rate (as per the PDFs linked in the official announcement).
I don't disagree companies get to charge whatever they want, but don't tell me it's a good thing that will reflect into better pay for developers. It absolutely won't. I'll keep spending 100% of my gaming budget on indie developers, which seems like a more efficient way to help the industry in the way I want.
Aren't the Europe prices with VAT whereas the US prices don't include sales tax? $600 Xbox Series X would be roughly $660 after taxes for me. And I would only get 1 year of warranty whereas the EU version would have 2 years of warranty.
But that value must factor in the profit margin loss caused by tariffs. In particular if Xbox components keep being manufactured in China, the price didn't increase nearly enough for the US to make up for the tariffs, whereas nothing changed in the EU to make the Xbox any more costly (at least not yet) but the price increased anyway.
Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. If the warranty is that valuable to you, be consoled by the fact that the median income in the US is 2.3x that in my country (as of 2024), so relative to purchasing power we're actually overpaying wildly for it!
The European prices were raised such that they're still quite a lot higher, though. A Series X is 699€, which is nearly $800 USD.
The EU version's increased warranty is because of EU legislation that mandates it for all products in this class. It certainly doesn't account for a sufficiently large difference in costs for Microsoft to justify the cost difference on its own, and the US could just as easily pass similar consumer-protection legislation.
A Series X is 599€ actually. The 699€ one is a special edition and comparable to the $729 one in the US. Taking VAT out of the equation* means the 699€ one is more like 599€ going into Microsoft's pockets which converts to $677. Compared to $729, this means Microsoft actually charges the EU less than it charges the US.
For the 599€ one, the math is 485€ compared to $599, so again less in the EU.
* Assuming those prices do include VAT already and assuming a 19% VAT rate.
It's your lucky day as the complete edition of GTA IV is on sale for $10.50CAD right now. I'd say that's a great price for the best entry in the GTA series...
/joke
Where was the joke?!
The OP was intending to refer to the upcoming GTA VI, not the 17 year old GTA IV.
Ah, thanks - I completely missed that.
Whoops. Haha. 🤣 Will edit.
Price increases aren’t inherently fair or unfair. You have the right to sell products you make at whatever price you want to.
Developers can charge what they wish, and the market will bear what it will. If truly most people cannot afford a price increase, then you’d make more money keeping it at $60 and companies will follow after the stats show higher drops in demand than the increased margin.
Ever increasing profits to the point of becoming the largest profitable form of media hasn't seen any remuneration for actual developers. I sincerely doubt this will change a thing. Nor should it be necessary when you look at the already ridiculous revenues and profits.
Also, I don't doubt a $100 GTA VI for a minute.
I’m an out-of-touch outsider, but my guess is that the game development job market doesn’t get better. I expect AI to increase inequality, because hits can be written by smaller teams, along with a lot more games that don’t get enough of an audience to make money.
I doubt anyone is vibe coding the next Balatro. Game design is a wickedly complex field, in part due to how many domains are involved.The creativity that makes the best games truly stand apart requires a human with a vision and the skills to execute on that vision.
I was thinking about the large teams building game assets at a scale that’s out of reach for indy developers. Will that still be a thing? Perhaps small teams will be able to build games that look like they were done by a big team.
Sort of like procedural generation, but with AI enhancements.
The revolution with transformer-based deep learning is probably not killing any 3D modelling, rigging, or animation jobs. I doubt the demand for game stuff is fully saturated, so if there are productivity improvements then we could expect bigger games.
The argument is there, but this is indeed the reality. I've had a total of one Cost of living raise in my entire career. 3% in the heights of COVID.
The pay was great for me so no need to pity me, but you only see these record numbers if you get paid in stocks.
Another thought: I want to see how this new trend will influence the purchase habits os customers, and if cheaper indie titles and old classics, particularly on platforms like Steam and GOG, will see an uptick in sales.
I wish we could know how many people will be priced out of video games as a hobby in the near future. I’m certainly one of them. I can occasionally buy a heavily discounted game on Steam, and emulate a bunch of others on the side, but that’s it. And forget about dedicated gaming hardware.
I still can't get over that there are $70 games out there, so these price increases are wild to me. But I also gave up on AAA gaming a few years ago, there are just too many great classic games to spend so much money on new games that are often half baked. It also feels like this console generation has been the most underwhelming one ever, with barely any exclusive games on either platform, so it's ever crazier to be raising prices this late into the game.
All that said, as someone who has bough a console every generation since I was a kid, I'm out come next generation.
I have a serious question: what are the Xbox exclusives?
You would think this is an easy question to answer. However, after looking at several articles, they all seem to be basing it on console exclusives. Pretty much every game I looked up was available for Windows.
The thing is, the Xbox's biggest competitor isn't Nintendo or Sony, it's the PC gaming scene.
A gaming console basically serves as an "entry price". One of the main draws of any console is the exclusive titles that you can't get on any other device. If a console has multiple games you want that are totally exclusive, then it becomes easier to justify buying the console, and from there it's easy to justify buying other non-exclusive games. If all the games you want are available on other devices you own though, there's no point in buying that console.
That's part of why Nintendo is able to raise their prices. They have some of the most famous exclusives in all of gaming, which among other factors such as a reputation for quality first-party releases and family-oriented approach to their console design, guarantees steady customers.
The Xbox doesn't have that leverage though. Microsoft actually has inverse incentive to prioritize Xbox since they'll make even more money selling games for Windows too. And PCs have a broader appeal than just gaming, meaning most people will own one on top of a console. If someone owns a PS4 and a PC, they'll just buy Starfield for PC instead of buying an Xbox and Starfield. They'll wait for it to go on sale on Steam, too.
There's already little incentive to specifically buy an Xbox, raising the prices will make it worse. I feel like Microsoft is basically sabotaging Xbox with this move.
Xbox isn't really separate from Microsoft. While Sony's divisions are extremely independent, it's not uncommon for an Xbox employee to go work on Azure or Windows then come back. Some of the big shots behind early Halo games' net code later worked on Microsoft's cloud projects.
While it might be a bad move from a shifting consoles perspective, that doesn't seem to be a problem for Microsoft. If someone signs up for game pass with Windows or Xbox, they're making money either way.
I'm already purchasing mostly indie games while waiting for AAA titles to go on sale for 50%. It's the exceedingly rare big budget game (e.g. Jedi series games, BG3) where I can't wait for the sale.
Besides, the indie games are the ones that introduce almost all novelty into the field. As a gamer, I prefer depth, quality, and emergent gameplay over quantity and the flashiest graphics.
I couldn't give a damn about the latest FPS, extraction shooter, JRPG, etc.
It is batshit crazy that 50% off AAA will soon be 40 USD or more.
For all you guys saying it's crazy that games are $80 - do mean in the sense of "woah, inflation is wild" or, like, "this is an unfair cash grab?"
For me, it's a combination of "cash grab" and "that seems like a very stupid move".
Just considering the scope and bloat of MS (and all AAA studios/publishers) it feels like every game needs to be a chash grab to survive.
Like, I could have gotten Avowed for ZAR1200. A 100hr RPG at 75% positive ratings and mixed/middling reviews. But for about that price I got Haste (180), Blue Prince (270), World of Goo 2 (200), Tavern Talk (150), Star Vaders (200), Skin Deep (175) and Shedule 1 (170) (no, I don't have a problem of buying too many games). And that is current pricing. If it was new price money, would easily add a delux Expedition 33. And from all the studios who's games I listed, I think Obsidian might be the only one at risk of loosing money. Or just being shut down, even if they made money.
Add to that, the output and business of MS studios over the last few years. After Halo, Starfield, Redfall, current state CoD/Overwatch/Diablo and the Minecraft side projects (Legends and Dungeons), a quality experience is definitely not guaranteed for a full price. And even if it is a quality experience, there is a real risk that the studio will just be shut down to save a few bucks. So what's the point of getting invested in an interesting new IP or studio like HI Fi Rush or Arkane Austin. It's also well reported that the new CoD has AI generated assets so I'm expecting wild inconsistencies in their work going forward. And combined with the companies fondness of firing people, there are no assurances that my money will every see the people who's efforts made that game possible.
And lastly, this is tone deaf to an almost comical degree. When games jumped from 60 to 70, people were pissed but we dealt with it. And it was the first big jump after a long period of the $60 standard. But that was 5 years ago and before the current age of insanity. Everyone knows we at at the edge of massive economic gauntlet. It was easy to forget that money is a transient resource. Money is food, rent, healthcare, entertainment, labour, transport, time. Plenty of allegories about the rich man in the desert because that wealth is only worth what it can buy. And entertainment luxuries are worth a lot less when necessities are going to be so expensive.
Its not just a problem customer side. Its plain idiotic as a strategy and it speaks to major issues from leadership. Could go on about it forever, and deleted a big segment on speculative markets and how the internet broke the stock market. But long story short, I don't see how Gamepass, Activision and a few small wins are going to overcome the cost of a failed hardware division, all the historic losses and a dozen major games in active development.
The latter. For me. I see some spread in the comments here.
I have a kind of third feeling more like "not sure it's a good idea to try raise prices in a saturated market." I do think it's correct to say that the price of games hasn't kept up with inflation, but it also makes a lot of sense they haven't. They're almost free to duplicate, not necessities, and in a crowded market. Those factors often drop prices, not raise them. Even in real dollars DVDs, and even Blu-rays, are still cheaper than VHSs were by a huge amount, but I don't see people claiming that buying a movie should be $200 to keep up with price inflation relative to VHS.
The market so far has survived largely on that the potential audience has grown substantially. So even in the face of rising development costs it was possible to offset this through a combination of good per-unit margins and scaling up the number of units. The problem now though is competition. They can't keep pushing more units so now they need to increase price.
To me it kind of reads as desperate, like how when an MMO gets bought out by one of those graveyard publishers they get more aggressive with monetization to try to scrape the last little bits of meat off the dying husk they've acquired. It didn't seem like Xbox was doing particularly great this console generation to begin with and now they're going to increase prices? Can the market really sustain that or will the customers just go to the abundant competition? Who are increased prices going to attract?