I had to drop my “under 5 bucks” rule because games don’t drop that low anymore. 10-15 is where it’s at now, for better and for worse

Charging anything is tricky.

I'm comparing it to what I could be getting for free, either with torrents or emulators.

Most games being released aren't even worth my time, let alone my money.

CEO and C-suite bonuses are the biggest budgetary fat that never gets cut and is fundamentally what the excessive costs are paying for. If you want better sales, cut the wage and bonuses to said roles who do the least work and reap the most reward.

Better to say, they are compared to good games priced at 10 to 15.

I've got to be honest, the price of a game is probably the least important factor on whether I make a full price purchase.

I'm not going to rush out and buy something I've no real interest in. I can count on one hand the number I've made this generation. On PS2 I'd be grabbing something every week or two, but now I just can't get excited for the latest and greatest updates on old formulas. Half the time I buy just to encourage them to make more games like that, like I did with Talos Principle 2, Astro Bot and Split Fiction.

I might pick it up later if I feel inclined, or see it on a decent discount. Like Clair Obscur, that I picked up for £29 in a sale just because I remembered it existed and fancied something to play over the winter holiday.

Because youre overinflated executive and managerial budgets dont justify the fucking price when games like Hollow Knight, Jump Ship, and Stardew Valley are 10x better.

Each year there are only a few new AAA games that are worth full price. People be buying indie or older games on discount.

Why buy new bugged COD when you can pick up fixed up No Mans Sky?

25 bucks? That‘s cute. AAA studios are charging $80 for remakes or $250 for DLC packages. They‘re out of their minds.

Pretty much only play free to play games and never buy anything.

Would be interesting to see the stats for revenue by game, price by volume. If someone charges 300 for a game that no one bought. Then it shouldn't count, hypothetically.

...until GTA6 comes out, then all bets are off.

The game must be a GOTY contender or I'm not gonna pick it up at full price. I have no issues paying up for a new, unique experience that sounds exciting. Games I know I like, but rehash an old formula land on the wishlist until they are 30% off. Games that look cool, are recommended, but I'm not sure I will like them land on the wishlist and need to be below $20 when I buy.

With these simple rules I still have too many unplayed and unfinished games in my library, so... yeah.. you gonna have to take some risks to win big.

My rule is I'm only willing to pay a dollar for every expected hour of play, so you can imagine I buy few things at full price.

The last two games I paid full price for were Elden Ring and Mandragora. I am far more likely to pay full price for an indie title that I'm excited about than anything else, because as an artist myself, I fully understand the impact of a pre-purchase on an indie studio.

What's that? Capitalism fixing problems?

Checkmate atheists.

Always compare value and price.

More often than not, AA games seem to come with a AAA price tag.

As much as it’s great to shit on triple A games, this is quite bad for the industry as a whole. Devs cannot price their game above $15 without being held to an absurdly high standard, which makes budgeting for game development extremely difficult for smaller studios. If we want the AA scene to expand and give us more great games as we’ve seen in the past few years, that’ll need to change.

I like some Indy titles but I’m getting sick of the side scrollers

“gAmeS aRe tOo ExpEnsiVe tHesE Days!” paid $70 for a major release in 1999, also paid $70 for a major release in 2025