- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
The controversial boss of Embracer Group has discussed the topic of increasing the price of video games beyond $70 amid rising development costs and a brutally competitive market.
Lars Wingefors, who has laid off thousands of staff, shut multiple studios, and sold off subsidiaries in the last financial year, told GI.biz that pushing the price of video games higher is something Embracer has discussed, and that doing so would mean more video games would be released.
“I’m not saying you can’t increase the price,” Wingefors told the site. "But the reality is no one has tried it. If you create an enormous role-playing game, for example, with 100 or 150 hours of gameplay, very polished, and a unique experience, would the consumer be willing to pay more? If they would, they would have more products potentially coming to market. But no one tried it.
“It’s something we have been discussing, but we are currently sticking to the practice of the industry. Would it be that one [company] one day that tries to increase pricing? That remains to be seen.”
The triple-A video game industry collectively raised the price of its video games with the launch of the current console generation in 2020, but in recent months the $70 price point has become the topic of much discussion amid the industry’s ongoing struggles. Recent data points to gamers tending to favor older, live service games, such as Fortnite, Roblox, and Call of Duty, leaving less room for new, full price games.
Indeed, Embracer has seen a number of high-profile flops, including the recently released horror revival Alone in the Dark, which Wingefors said was “a big investment” that “didn’t catch enough consumers”.
“I think the industry is facing the same problem as all other industries, with inflation and rising costs of game development,” Wingefors added. "And it’s been hard to increase pricing [in] premium PC/console. The pricing of those products has been the same for many years, which means that the margin to succeed is less, and on top of that, there is a higher cost of capital. Ultimately when you make big investments or games, you need to play with teams you are very confident in, or with IPs you own or control, and have the full financial income.
“On top of that, the consumers have more content than ever to choose from. They love to engage in established IPs they’ve been playing before, which means it’s harder to have them trying out new things or new IPs. It’s just something we’re all facing. It’s a reality which we have been adapting to over the past year, and we will continue to adapt to that reality.”
"The pricing of those products has been the same for many years… Wingefors’ comments suggest Embracer is waiting for another video game company to go first, essentially, before it follows suit with a price hike. But what company could justify such a move, which would likely be met with a backlash from gamers?
Rockstar is currently the subject of debate around this topic, with the Take-Two-owned company preparing to release GTA 6 late 2025. Rockstar has yet to announce a price for GTA 6, or how the game will be sold, but there are few other games that would move the needle quite as much as this behemoth.
In November 2023, Take-Two boss Strauss Zelnick said video game frontline prices “are still very, very low” compared to other forms of entertainment “because we offer many hours of engagement”.
“The value of the engagement is very high,” Zelnick added. “So, I think the industry, as a whole, offers a terrific price-to-value opportunity for consumers. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the industry has pricing power or wants to have pricing power. However, there is a great deal of value offered.”
I feel like all that will happen is players will continue to move to non-AAA alternatives, or wait longer periods for discounts, or maybe platforms like game pass where they can just play a lot of the new games right away just by having the sub. $70 alone is already very expensive.
Yeah, I was going to say, the higher the price the longer I’m willing to wait for a discount.
I’ve already got an insane backlog to play through anyway.
Most new “AAA” are already more than $70 for the full game anyway. So idk what they’re talking about. Maybe boosting the base game cost up from 70, so the full game is 200?
Depends. I think this is a fair assumption for many games, but if you think people are going to stop buying the latest CoD or Madden or TES6 (whenever that comes out) every single year just because the games suddenly cost $200 for the deluxe edition, i think you’re greatly overestimating the average gamer’s self control.
It’s not even that everybody is going to stop buying games new, but especially given how tight money is for a lot of people right now, pushing the prices further up will force a lot of people to pursue alternatives for all but the releases they care the most about. I think enough people won’t buy more expensive games that these companies will not see the increased profits they expect from raising the prices.
I’ll do $15 tops. Take it or leave it.
Jokes on them, I don’t have any modern consoles, and I don’t but games off epic. By the time they hit steam, they’re a few years old and have been discounted. If they do release to steam, I’m a patient man. That’s what summer and winter sales are for.
Dont care about their bullshit. I pretty much only buy games years post release anyway, when theyre on sale
I buy a game maybe once a year in physical form. My next game will probably be FFVII Part 3. We’ll see how it goes as this stage in my life I have few franchises that I’d consider paying full price for. If its a digital only game, enter #patientgamer