Calling video games "expensive" at $70 is all relative. One new triple-A game is pricier than a few months of Netflix or HBO Max, it's true. But, if video games are your primary hobby, you’re guaranteed to spend much less than, say, equestrians, sailing enthusiasts, or gearheads. And, unlike oats or gasoline, games don't deplete as you play.
Recently, I’ve been beginning to branch out into filmmaking, and have started buying the necessary equipment to shoot projects on my own. Compared to the cost of a camera, lenses, lighting equipment, and more (even at the hobbyist level), gaming consoles and software are relatively inexpensive.
The difference is that gaming is a hobby. The camera gear I’m buying is so that I can incorporate video work into my career (and, as the closure of Waypoint last week reminded me, the media landscape is so shaky that you really do need to have a backup plan). When I buy a game, it’s because I’m hoping to have some fun. Though I like keeping up with the latest releases (and have to keep up with a certain amount of them for this job) a new looter shooter is something the average person can easily go without. Over the years, when my friends have been hard pressed for cash, consoles tend to be the first thing to get pawned.
But, assuming they hold onto their PS5, asking the average person to spend $70 on gaming means that they’re just going to buy fewer games. That’s what Sony found recently. The PlayStation manufacturer reported record high revenue in fiscal year 2022, but 39 million less units of software sold than in FY2021. That shift also broadly aligns with the ongoing change from most triple-A games retailing for $60 up toward $70. If the goal is to bring in more revenue to compensate for the rising costs of development, that goal is being accomplished, just for fewer, more successful games. Earlier this year, for example, I was interested in checking out Forspoken, but at $70, I was priced out of my curiosity, and I suspect that higher price point meant that many players were less willing to take a chance on a new IP with middling reviews.
It’s also important to note that when games cost $70, they really cost more than that. The last triple-A game I bought was Dead Space, which was priced at $69.99. With tax, I actually spent $74.20. My wife and I typically set aside $150 each month for each of us to spend on whatever we want, so if I get one triple-A video game a month, that’s half my fun budget. Assuming I don’t spend money on anything else, I could get two. In a month where multiple triple-A games come out, I’m going to get left behind.
Everyone has their own budgets, and not everyone can afford $150 in spending money; others can afford much more. But, in a world where Xbox Game Pass exists, it’s hard to not feel like you’re massively overpaying when you shell out $70 for one game. When I saw that Star Wars Jedi: Survivor was retailing for $69.99, I opted to just download Minecraft Legends instead. It wasn’t the game I wanted, necessarily, but it doesn’t cost me anything more than what I've I already paid.
With much of the world dealing with higher prices for basic necessities, it’s hard to not feel like a significant portion of the audience is getting priced out. Gamers may want to keep up, but their wages haven't.