[Daeda01]

As the title says, thoughts on this?

These developers have been trying to find ways to suck as much money out of us as possible and blaming "tariffs" as a convenient excuse is just a slap in the face. The fact that we don't even get physical copies of the thing we buy, the content isnt really ours...just rented, and pushing out half ass garage...yeah

[Tattico83]

There are so many cheap games out there that I don't think it's worth getting the new ones that just came out for $80.

[zx10guy]

I'm going to get some flack on this. But the wallet sucking started well before the recent events. It started when consoles ruined the online gaming market that was dominated by PCs. As soon as software companies realized the cash cow online gaming is, the nickel and diming began. I miss the days where dedicated servers were a thing along with open customizations that didn't have a fee or charge tied to it. But dedicated servers and customizations are a thing of the past now.

[NickyC]

Huge open world games like RDR2, Witcher 3, GTA V, etc. are worth it and more so. Knowing what I know now, I'd have no problem paying $500 for games like RDR2 and Witcher 3 because they are just GOAT games. Between the two I have close to 800 hours played. It is extremely difficult to find another form on entertainment for that hour/dollar ratio.

Take another game I've played for nearly 4k hours over an 11 year time period, that being Battlefield 4 (some 64 players servers are still fully populated and I play a few nights a week to this day!). With all DLC, I've probably paid $80 total and that was all over 10 years ago. $80 for 4k hours of entertainment, how could that ever be considered a bad deal?

Where I think $80+ for a game is a BAD deal would be a game like Resident Evil, or any short game where you maybe get 6-7 hours out of it without replays. There are a lot of games like that, where you pretty much see the vast majority of content in the game in under 10 hours. I try not to buy those types of games any longer unless it's a GOAT, quality remake like Dead Space.

TL/DR: YES, $80 or more is absolutely warranted for quality games like RDR2, Witcher 3, GTA V, and some FPS games you'll play for years. Otherwise, NAH!

[BWBike]

This might not be a popular opinion, but there are many games out there I can play for free. No way would I pay that much for a game.

Besides, there are many activities I partake in leaving little free time for games anyway.

[Katsunaka]

Gaming lost me when they wanted you to pay for everything on top of paying for the game. Sorry.

I'm not paying 50-60-80 bucks for a game, then have to deal with your BS game ads for this pay to win or this paid cosmetic.

I loved being a gamer in the 90s as a kid, and gamed throughout my life, but anymore. I'm not into forking over real money to play a game I had to pay for on top of it anyway.

[Frostynorth]

There are many excellent indie / not AAA games these days for less than 80, with such a huge selection it's easy to wait for triple-a games to hit 50% off.

As NickyC said, the $/hr is great value.


Gaming charted with wages over time, it costs less now.

[oVeRdOsE.]

80$ is the normal inflation. I do remember N64 games were around 50$.


meanwhile people spending 100$/month on mobile game like clash of shitty games.... Those mobile dont deserve as much microtransaction money over like a rdr2... shame

[Manlike]

Unfortunately when GTA 6 comes out these prices will become the norm

[Bald Guy]

If you're going to enjoy it with your time and energy, it's more than worth it. In my opinion, your time is worth so much more than the $80 per game.

[YellowJoker]

I would rather choose to put some money in a free-to-play game than pay 80e for a single game

[B58-M340iX]

Originally Posted by YellowJoker

I would rather choose to put some money in a free-to-play game than pay 80e for a single game

That's how they get you. You'll pay $20 here, $20 there, $10 skins here, and over time, people often spend more than the $60-$80 game.

Possibly hot take, but the pricing of AAA video games now costs several hundred million dollars. $50 for a video game in 2000 is $93.34 today in 2025 based on my quick Google-fu search.

People don't scoff at paying $30 for a meal or $50+ when out with friends, and that lasts a couple of hours. With a video game, you're typically getting 30-40+ hours of entertainment. When you break it down by cost/hour, you're getting much more bang for your buck. While expensive upfront, it is cheaper overall than going to the movies or out to eat at a restaurant when looked at that way. If you're a PC gamer, you can wait for sales (like the current Steam summer sale) and spend significantly less.

We're on a BMW forum where, by nature, these cars aren't cheap, and people are complaining about something that costs $80 and provides 30-40+ hours of entertainment. Sounds like folks who don't see the value in spending that much on a video game may want to find a hobby with more perceived value.

[YellowJoker]

Originally Posted by B58-M340iX

That's how they get you. You'll pay $20 here, $20 there, $10 skins here, and over time, people often spend more than the $60-$80 game.

Yeah, but I would rather choose that. Simple cuz I can experience the game and choose if I'd like to put additional money in it. Simple example in my case, World of Tanks special tanks, premium ACC, etc and here you feel in my case like u got something more