21 votes

2K Games breaks gaming's de facto $60 (USD) price ceiling, announces MSRP for next-gen NBA 2K21 as $70

17 comments

  1. [5]
    Pistos
    Link
    A major turnoff for me re: NBA 2K is that they shut down the online servers quite soon for a given release, something like 3 years after. Furthermore, you can't even play [some] single player...

    A major turnoff for me re: NBA 2K is that they shut down the online servers quite soon for a given release, something like 3 years after. Furthermore, you can't even play [some] single player modes, because those modes still connect to the servers to sync in-game currency totals. In other words, they essentially brick your game in N years, for some small number N. The actual game itself is just fine, I think it's a very good sports game series, but I just can't put up with bad behaviour like that. I'm not interested in purchasing installments every 1 or 2 years.

    19 votes
    1. [4]
      vord
      Link Parent
      A far less unethical method for them to take would just be a rolling-update title with recurring DLC, like a F2P MMO might do. I used to be anti-DLC, but if it's used well it can alleviate these...

      A far less unethical method for them to take would just be a rolling-update title with recurring DLC, like a F2P MMO might do.

      I used to be anti-DLC, but if it's used well it can alleviate these kinds of problems.

      9 votes
      1. [2]
        Omnicrola
        Link Parent
        Sports games aren't really my thing, but they do seem like a very sensible use case for DLC. Keep improving the base game (graphics, controls, etc) but offer each year as an "expansion". Could do...

        Sports games aren't really my thing, but they do seem like a very sensible use case for DLC. Keep improving the base game (graphics, controls, etc) but offer each year as an "expansion".

        Could do some creative things like play the 2010 sportsball team against the 2019 sportsball team.

        5 votes
        1. imperialismus
          Link Parent
          When I was a kid I played FIFA 2000 on the PS1. It had a large number of ‘classic’ teams, so you could do things like pit West Germany’s 1974 world cup squad against Brazil ‘70, or Manchester...

          Could do some creative things like play the 2010 sportsball team against the 2019 sportsball team.

          When I was a kid I played FIFA 2000 on the PS1. It had a large number of ‘classic’ teams, so you could do things like pit West Germany’s 1974 world cup squad against Brazil ‘70, or Manchester United’s then-current 2000 squad.

          I think the problem is licensing fees. Modern FIFA games have a much slimmer selection of classic players. I imagine the cost of licensing current players has risen, and Cristiano Ronaldo is gonna sell a lot more copies than Franz Beckenbauer. Players/teams probably license their likeness for games on the assumption that they can get more money come next year when the next game releases.

          4 votes
      2. Saigot
        Link Parent
        I think hitman's model would apply wonderfully to sports games. You'd buy the base game (standard price at first, but free/cheap after a few instalments come out) every couple years for the...

        I think hitman's model would apply wonderfully to sports games. You'd buy the base game (standard price at first, but free/cheap after a few instalments come out) every couple years for the graphical/engine improvements then pay 15$ or so for each yearly update containing the latest and greatest players and such. I think many people would call this DLC, but I'd call it more an episodic payment scheme.

        As a disclaimer sports games are not something I really play.

        1 vote
  2. [8]
    TheJorro
    (edited )
    Link
    I'm not opposed to games going up in MSRP to account for increased production costs, inflation, etc., if it means they can dial back on the microtransactions, DLC, and cosmetic items that have...

    I'm not opposed to games going up in MSRP to account for increased production costs, inflation, etc., if it means they can dial back on the microtransactions, DLC, and cosmetic items that have filled up games increasingly this past decade to generate that extra revenue.

    But Take-Two and the NBA 2K series are the last things I would trust. This has been the single most money-grubbing game series out there for multiple years now, offering such wonderful things as unskippable in-game ads (that are opt-out by default), have a paywall for upgrading your custom characters' terrible stats, and force as many microtransactions and corporate advertising into the games as possible.

    It sucks because I like buying sports games for the very, very, very few years my local city's sports teams actually do well, and considering we're the reigning champs in the NBA, it really sucks that buying the only NBA game on the market means I have to cross other lines about advertising and predatory capitalism since that's how extreme it has become with these games.

    18 votes
    1. [2]
      vord
      Link Parent
      The problem is that just won't ever happen. All that other stuff is out of Pandora's box, so even if it reduces slightly initially it'll dial right back up shortly. If anything, this just opens...

      I'm not opposed to games going up in MSRP to account for increased production costs, inflation, etc., if it means they can dial back on the microtransactions, DLC, and cosmetic items that have filled up games increasingly this past decade to generate that extra revenue.

      The problem is that just won't ever happen. All that other stuff is out of Pandora's box, so even if it reduces slightly initially it'll dial right back up shortly.

      If anything, this just opens the doors to further increasing DLC and other prices too.

      I guess I don't have much skin in this... Not much of a sports guy and I've stopped buying AAA games on release years ago, I'll just have to wait longer to hit a reasonable price point. Not like I have a backlog of 50+ other titles to play through.

      10 votes
      1. Grzmot
        Link Parent
        Correct. Why would they decrease MTX when they already know people will buy them? These companies have no interest in acting ethically, or morally. They will take all they can, so if they can sell...

        Correct. Why would they decrease MTX when they already know people will buy them? These companies have no interest in acting ethically, or morally. They will take all they can, so if they can sell you a $100 game with lootboxes, MTX etc. well then they fucking will.

        People will still buy this game because people buying sports games aren't the kind to complain about it, but this is just a testing run and we can expect the AAA price to rise if this experiment succeeds.

        5 votes
    2. [5]
      Overzeetop
      Link Parent
      Yeah, this is the same thing we said about cable TV back in the day. It's was okay that they charged more, and increased their rates regularly, because cable channels didn't have commercials.

      I'm not opposed to games going up in MSRP to account for increased production costs, inflation, etc., if it means they can dial back on the microtransactions, DLC, and cosmetic items that have filled up games increasingly this past decade to generate that extra revenue.

      Yeah, this is the same thing we said about cable TV back in the day. It's was okay that they charged more, and increased their rates regularly, because cable channels didn't have commercials.

      3 votes
      1. TheJorro
        Link Parent
        I don't think the issue there was the pricing model so much as it was that it reversed its course entirely on a main selling point.

        I don't think the issue there was the pricing model so much as it was that it reversed its course entirely on a main selling point.

        4 votes
      2. [4]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [3]
          Grzmot
          Link Parent
          If MSRP increases, other sources of revenue won't decrease, you'll just have a $100 game with lootboxes.

          If MSRP increases, other sources of revenue won't decrease, you'll just have a $100 game with lootboxes.

          1 vote
          1. [3]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. [2]
              Grzmot
              Link Parent
              We don't? How did you get that idea from my comment?

              We don't? How did you get that idea from my comment?

              1. [2]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. Grzmot
                  Link Parent
                  But how would that make a game that sells you valid expansions after launch an unviable business method?` My point was that if the $60 ceiling is broken, companies, especially publicly traded...

                  But how would that make a game that sells you valid expansions after launch an unviable business method?`
                  My point was that if the $60 ceiling is broken, companies, especially publicly traded companies will do just that while continuing to use every other avenue of gaining revenue because that is their job.

                  1 vote
  3. [4]
    Kuromantis
    (edited )
    Link
    Partially related thread Unfortunately one of the requirements for the thread linked was free DLC and no microtransactions, which is not a guarantee here.

    Partially related thread

    Unfortunately one of the requirements for the thread linked was free DLC and no microtransactions, which is not a guarantee here.

    4 votes
    1. [3]
      Nyeogmi
      Link Parent
      A framing I see a lot, including in that thread, is that game prices rise to accommodate increased production costs. Is there any evidence at all that this is the case? I think it's true that...

      A framing I see a lot, including in that thread, is that game prices rise to accommodate increased production costs. Is there any evidence at all that this is the case?

      I think it's true that production costs are increasing, but Take-Two made a 43% gross profit last year. Software development costs were only 16% of net revenue. They aren't struggling and they aren't spending very much of the money they make on programmers.

      6 votes
      1. [2]
        Kuromantis
        Link Parent
        I'm not gonna pretend I know, I don't really follow the gaming industry. I would imagine it's more related to inflation (according to Extra Credits, the 60$ tag is 15 years old, and according to...

        I'm not gonna pretend I know, I don't really follow the gaming industry. I would imagine it's more related to inflation (according to Extra Credits, the 60$ tag is 15 years old, and according to this site, that's 80 dollars now.

        3 votes
        1. Jedi
          Link Parent
          Half-Life (which came out in 1998) was $50 at launch, not exactly $60, but damn close. Also nearly $80 after inflation.

          Half-Life (which came out in 1998) was $50 at launch, not exactly $60, but damn close. Also nearly $80 after inflation.

          2 votes