Support NeoGAF

[Lunatic_Gamer]

Sega Sammy CEO Haruki Satomi and CFO Koichi Fukazawa were asked about the possibility of raising game prices during a Q&A session following the publication of the company’s full-year earnings in April.

“In the global marketplace, AAA game titles for console have been sold at $59.99 for many years, but titles sold at $69.99 have appeared in the last year,” Sega said in a newly published English transcript of the event.

“We would like to review the prices of titles that we believe are commensurate with price increases, while also keeping an eye on market conditions.”

Sega suggests it could become the latest publisher to raise game prices to $70 | VGC

Company to “review the prices of titles that we believe are commensurate with price increases”…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[Mister Wolf]

Good luck with that. No one is going to pay $70 for Yakuza and most of the other shit they put out. Maybe Atlus games like Persona because of the loyal fanbase but that's it.

 

[hemo memo]

Other than SMT/Persona, I wouldn’t pay 70$. Not even for Yakuza as much as I like it because it will drop in price very fast.

 

[cireza]

They are already selling overpriced shit. Sonic Origins was never worth the price asked for.

 

[ManaByte]

 

[Edgelord79]

Companies reserve the right to raise prices as much as they want.

I reserve the right to wait for a sale or buy used.

 

[Big Baller]

 

[Mr Hyde]

I love Sonic but 70 buckaroo's for a blue speed freak jumping on a trampoline? How about fuck no?

 

[Nicktendo86]

Yeah, good luck with that Sega

 

[Dick Jones]

Elaborate. The first to 70 was not Sony so...

 

[T4keD0wN]

Theyve already doubled their prices in most of the eastern europe last year, its coming. I wonder if the amerian price increase will reflect on ours and theyll double them again here. I dont see anyone spending 30-40% of their monthly income on one of their games.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Their games aren't exactly AAA. I don't think it works to ask higher prices for their portfolio. Sonic Frontiers I think started to take off when discounted.

 

[jroc74]

Elaborate. The first to 70 was not Sony so...

Exactly.

This is even in the article:

"In August 2020, Take-Two’s NBA 2K21 became the first current-gen game to be priced at $70. Sony and Activision quickly followed suit by charging $70 for big new releases,"

I think Sony was 3rd behind Take 2 and Activision. The Sony article came out after the one for Activision:

Activision keen on setting a $70 base price for PS5 and XSX games- Republic World

www.republicworld.com

PlayStation confirms its PlayStation 5 games will cost up to $70 / £70 | VGC

While some smaller or family titles will cost less…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[BlackTron]

I'm surprised they weren't the first ones to do it

 

[JCK75]

This is the moment when publishers need to know their worth, there are games worthy of $70 but it's a very select few.
What I enjoy about most indie devs is they understand this concept.

 

[Naked Lunch]

Ill gladly play $70 for an Outrun or Sega Rally Collection...
but this is Sega so its never happening.

 

[Spyxos]

I like many of the Sega games, but not exactly many of their games would be worth $70 for me. Like a Dragon: Ishin was very hard to resell because the interest was so low and i had to sell it for the half.

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

And the used market becomes more and more attractive.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Thanks for nothing SONY

 

[Mephisto40]

They havnt made anything thats worth that kind of money in years

 

[nightmare-slain]

Only titles I'd pay that much for are Persona/Shin Megami Tensei. If they announced Persona 6 today they could have 140 no problem.

Seriously, who the hell is paying $/£/€70 for games? I might have paid full price for Diablo 4 Ultimate Edition but that's a one off. The vast majority of games I've bought recently haven't been over 30-40.

 

[Agent_4Seven]

There's no universe where Sonic games are worth $70, let alone $60 or $50. Yakuza is very niche series and simply won't sell as well with raised prices.

I would argue that none of the games made by SEGA are worth $70... well, maybe except really good ATLUS games which imho are worth $70, provided it's not 5th re-release of 10-12 year old game, actually a new game and if you're into Persona series. Persona games aren't releasing even every 2-3 years so I'd personally be okay with paying $70 once in 5-6 years for just one game, $60 for Yakuza / Judgment games

 

[DEAD ORIGINAL]

Thanks for nothing SONY

read the rest of the comments

 

[GHound]

Sega pushing for the earliest form of NFT known to man. That good ol' "No Fucking Thanks."

 

[Gudji]

 

[ReBurn]

People acting like $70 this gen isn't cheaper in real money than when games went to $60 in 2005.

 

[JackMcGunns]

Elaborate. The first to 70 was not Sony so...

The were the first of the big 3

 

[jroc74]

read the rest of the comments

Read? We don't do that here.

The were the first of the big 3

So now Take 2 and Activision don't count?

Sega doesn't even make consoles so....

 

[JackMcGunns]

Read? We don't do that here.


So now Take 2 and Activision don't count?

Sega doesn't even make consoles so....

Take 2, Activision and Sony were all complicit, the $70 games were literally on the same release schedule. There was no gap. They were not on the list of publishers who publicly announced they would NOT follow this model, but you want to argue annoucement dates as if these things aren't planned WAAAAY in advance.

 

[Dick Jones]

The were the first of the big 3

And?

 

[Saber]

Sonic games are certainly not 70$, let alone 60$. No wonder their recent games couldn't last a week before heavy discounts.

 

[JackMcGunns]

And?

And that answers your question. You're defending Sony as if they weren't complicit. They all rasied the price to $70 for the quarter. Who announced it first doesn't really matter, these things are planned and talked about in board meetings well in advance. The only Publishers not guilty are the ones who went against it.

 

[AJUMP23]

Inflation is theft.

 

[StereoVsn]

They can raise the prices but I can also wait for 6 months, have Sega patch up their games and then buy the titles for a large discount.

I don't think I will pay $70 even for Yakuza mainline title or Persona. Well...maybe, if I get them on PC and snag a discount from GMG, Fanatical, etc...

 

[rofif]

Only makes sense. Inflation destroyed the value of 60$ long time ago.

 

[Dick Jones]

And that answers your question. You're defending Sony as if they weren't complicit. They all rasied the price to $70 for the quarter. Who announced it first doesn't really matter, these things are planned and talked about in board meetings well in advance. The only Publishers not guilty are the ones who went against it.

I was asking ManaByte why he posted the photo and you defended his honour instead while he stayed silent.

If who announced it first doesn't matter then we can all blame Xbox and Nintendo for the 70 bucks games because they are complicit. Interesting

Edit: Coincidentally I'm sure your recent posting happened while Manabyte is offline.

 

[jroc74]

Take 2, Activision and Sony were all complicit, the $70 games were literally on the same release schedule. There was no gap. They were not on the list of publishers who publicly announced they would NOT follow this model, but you want to argue annoucement dates as if these things aren't planned WAAAAY in advance.

And that answers your question. You're defending Sony as if they weren't complicit. They all rasied the price to $70 for the quarter. Who announced it first doesn't really matter, these things are planned and talked about in board meetings well in advance. The only Publishers not guilty are the ones who went against it.

Post A: Thanks Sony.

Post B: Sony wasn't the first.

You: doesn't matter.

Sony being complicit isn't the point....them not being first is....when ppl still act like they were first.

I don't get why some ppl still like to blame Sony for $70 games.

 

[Ar¢tos]

They can raise them to 100$ for all I care. I'm not buying their games until they are discounted to under 20$.
Paying more to be a beta tester? Those days are long gone.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

 

[Gambit2483]

Sonic Frontier's sales only picked up when you heavily dropped the price (which are still discounted).

Get a clue SEGA.

 

[JackMcGunns]

Post A: Thanks Sony.

Post B: Sony wasn't the first.

You: doesn't matter.

Sony being complicit isn't the point....them not being first is....when ppl still act like they were first.

I don't get why some ppl still like to blame Sony for $70 games.

Ok, thanks Sony/Activision/Take 2. Will you sleep better now?

 

[Team Andromeda]

read the rest of the comments

Ok Jim

 

[Majormaxxx]

Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.

Also, post Cyberpunk, never preorder.

 

[nush]

I'm surprised they weren't the first ones to do it

£70 in the uk anyway...

 

[jroc74]

Ok, thanks Sony/Activision/Take 2. Will you sleep better now?

Will you sleep better?

Since you wanna defend ppl blaming Sony.

All some of us did was being facts, not feelings.

 

[Disco Dave]

I haven't paid full price for a Sega game since the Dreamcast.

They are cheeky bastards if they slap a £70 price on some of the shitè they pump out now.

 

[BlackTron]

£70 in the uk anyway...

Back in the day all games were pricey, my copy of Mario RPG was $80USD. Of course we mean first to have the balls to challenge the pricing convention in present day.

I think it worked well for Nintendo and aging Switch (uh, Wii U) games because with inflation they could just fail to lower the price and there's the price cut. They put their investments into those games long ago and are just riding it out. Aside from having lower costs on more efficiently made new games anyway. New games on other systems don't really have that luxury and were under more pressure to raise the price, especially when they need to grab all they can in the game launch window before its value tanks.

 

[Justin9mm]

Companies reserve the right to raise prices as much as they want.

I reserve the right to wait for a sale or buy used.

It will just be wait for sale, the way its going. When physical copies eventually get phased out in the future, I'll probably just be gaming a year or so behind, no way am I paying those new release digital prices.

 

[JackMcGunns]

Will you sleep better?

Since you wanna defend ppl blaming Sony.

All some of us did was being facts, not feelings.

Because Sony was complicit in that decision:

"When the PlayStation 5 and next-gen Xbox consoles arrive this November, the next-gen version of "NBA 2K21" will cost $70 — a precedent-shattering shift in the price model that the games industry has used for console games for more than 10 years.

"$69.99 may be the new standard pricing for next gen titles," NPD Group video games analyst Mat Piscatella said of the announcement.

That change was seemingly confirmed by Sony on September 16 when the company announced a $70 price ceiling for PS5 games.


"Our own Worldwide Studios titles will be priced from US$49.99 to US$69.99 on PS5," Sony Interactive Entertainment CEO and president Jim Ryan said on the PlayStation Blog.


Facts over feelings eh?

 

[TrueLegend]

They should sell it for 120 dollars for stupid people who buy broken games and thus sustain the trend of broken launches. They should absolutely charge bucketload of money... I support them.