I personally think a lot of games can flourish with a lower price point.
I know greed is a thing so I know it’s not going to happen especially on the back of the industry arguing for a higher general price point.
I’m just saying there’s a good argument to be had especially with yearly released titles like Call of Duty. The franchise almost never lowers price over time, and it’s relatively the same each year.
Instead of a $70 market price, I’d wager that they’d make even MORE profit if they lowered that to $40. More access means more people engaging with the product.
Or new franchises that might not have the advantage of popularity would gain a bigger audience at a more accessible price, and gain a following for further future products.
Zactrick
Huh?
_baun_
I’m so disappointed that a studio with so many former BioWare devs is making a fucking survival game.
dkyguy1995
That’s one skin in Overwatch
Switchbladesaint
It’s better to sell a million copies at $30 than a few thousand copies at $60-$70
TheKnoxFool
Nightingale is the game. I’m looking forward to it, but with great caution. Heard bad things about the play test so want to see how the first week or so plays out as far as reception goes.
Sixsignsofalex94
Enshrouded and Palworld, two other survivors games just launched in the last month with a $30 price tag too, it’s good that you don’t have to pay $70 to play these games
StraightSilverx21
Na he should call it AAAA and sell it for full price it worked well for another game!
NightlyDischarge
The economy says $50 is the new $20.
Ironically in the gaming industry $30 is the new $60, the best games I’ve been playing are the the low budget ones and provide the best value.
AAA gaming is a scam.
Dismal-Fig-7320
I’d say go for $40 game price. More peeps would play, more profits rolling in. It’s basic math
Mr_Zeldion
hmm. must be a 2 and ahalf A game
kudles
$30 still kind of expensive tho imo
ZigyDusty
I’m not really interested in this game, but I’m so down for more reasonable priced games over these $70 games with 50$ skins and paid battlepasses.
13 Comments
I personally think a lot of games can flourish with a lower price point.
I know greed is a thing so I know it’s not going to happen especially on the back of the industry arguing for a higher general price point.
I’m just saying there’s a good argument to be had especially with yearly released titles like Call of Duty. The franchise almost never lowers price over time, and it’s relatively the same each year.
Instead of a $70 market price, I’d wager that they’d make even MORE profit if they lowered that to $40. More access means more people engaging with the product.
Or new franchises that might not have the advantage of popularity would gain a bigger audience at a more accessible price, and gain a following for further future products.
Huh?
I’m so disappointed that a studio with so many former BioWare devs is making a fucking survival game.
That’s one skin in Overwatch
It’s better to sell a million copies at $30 than a few thousand copies at $60-$70
Nightingale is the game. I’m looking forward to it, but with great caution. Heard bad things about the play test so want to see how the first week or so plays out as far as reception goes.
Enshrouded and Palworld, two other survivors games just launched in the last month with a $30 price tag too, it’s good that you don’t have to pay $70 to play these games
Na he should call it AAAA and sell it for full price it worked well for another game!
The economy says $50 is the new $20.
Ironically in the gaming industry $30 is the new $60, the best games I’ve been playing are the the low budget ones and provide the best value.
AAA gaming is a scam.
I’d say go for $40 game price. More peeps would play, more profits rolling in. It’s basic math
hmm. must be a 2 and ahalf A game
$30 still kind of expensive tho imo
I’m not really interested in this game, but I’m so down for more reasonable priced games over these $70 games with 50$ skins and paid battlepasses.