Ubisoft has announced it's joining the likes of Sony and 2K in increasing the prices of its games to $70 on PS5. This will begin with November release Skull and Bones and applies to the publisher's "big AAA games". The French company has demonstrated it'll show some restraint, however, as Assassin's Creed Mirage will sell for $50 at launch next year.
The comment comes from an interview with Axios, which confirms the publisher will ask for more money in exchange for its biggest titles just like Activision, EA, and others. Sony has been criticised in recent times for the price hike, particularly when it also applies to PS5 remake The Last of Us: Part I. It's likely Ubisoft will now face a similar sort of scrutiny, but with upcoming game Assassin's Creed Codename Hexe billed as a smaller entry alongside Mirage, it's possible not every instalment in the publisher's flagship franchise will demand the most amount of cash.
Ubisoft argues it's only matching "the same price as the competition". Are you happy to pay $70 for Ubisoft's games? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
What a steaming pile to start charging the bs price point with.
People are unsure of it. I was somewhat interested and thinking about maybe getting it. That’ll be a good while now. No way I’m paying $70 for that.
Thanks Jim and Sony. You should be proud.
Nah. I won't be paying 70 bucks; not so close to God of War.
It’s hilarious to me that people make such a huge deal about the difference between £60 and £70. Like it makes any difference!
I decided games weren’t worth the RRP so long ago that I am now around 1-2 years behind releases and just buy all of my games second hand at CEX. Then trade back. Rarely pay more than £10 total for any game.
Only exception are PSVR games, as I really want to support VR development.
Of course I might feel bad about the rest if Sony had a used game policy of their own, physical and digital. But they don’t. So sod ‘em.
Giving people a big reason not to buy the game on day one
I’ve already started to not buy most games at launch anyways. I like some of Ubisoft’s franchises, but not for $70. They drop down so fast that it’s kinda a waste of money to buy at launch. Plus, you get a better experience if you wait- which is terrible in the first place.
Wtf people should wait for a sale for this game.and ubisoft games always goes on sale.word up son
Charging a $70 (or an outrageous €80) premium for a single game should come with a guarantee that it will have zero microtransactions and be a full, complete, uncompromising experience from beginning to end (something that most people today sadly don't even remember was in fact the universal norm just a decade or two ago). Anything less than that, you're just jumping on it for the increased profits. It's so very sad and nasty, but this was inevitably going to happen. Almost all AAA games today are really just glorified casinos anyway, so this is really just a price increase for the entry ticket.
Thanks again, Sony. You may make a lot of games that are worth that premium, but most others sure are not, nor will they ever. Most should at best be free to play with how outrageously greedy and absolutely shameless this industry has become.
Anyone that buys this for £70 deserves to be ripped off. To think Elden Ring launched at 50...
They didn’t pick a great game to start this with, did they?
@playstation1995 Yup. That's pretty much what I do for most of these kinds of heavily microtransaction- infected releases, anyway ...
An extra £20 for games with loads of bloat. Probably does us a favour as now we know which ones to avoid.
Thanks Sony, you bunch of absolute…
If it going cost more then $60 it better have a story that is longer then 20 hours.
I'm willing to pay $70 for a game with a 30 hour story.
So many people wait for games to be on sale before buying them that putting a price increase is kind of a dumb move.
Why are Sony getting the blame for this? Activision and 2K did first, also did you guys have the same energy when Xbox started the trend of paying for online?
Indeed. I guess they are figuring it's next-gen only so next-gen prices but...I think this game could use a lower entry point. Especially if they want it to live on past launch. It's definitely got an uphill battle ahead of it.
@Vil. The good thing is the ps5 generation and the ps4 generation.the games goes on sale really fast.i only paid full price to games that i really want anyways.and my backlog of games is a lot.i got a lot of games onn my lirary.word up son
guessing they want to recoup as much $$ as possible before people get too far in.
or less likely its worth every penny
Skull and Bones seems like the WRONG title to do that with. It seemed doomed even before this.
Well that lowers the day one buys from 10 copies to maybe 3.
"Match the competition?" You know how you beat the competition? Don't match the competition. 🤯
I’d rather read a book
Not happy to pay 80 euro for any game.
@AdamNovice you read my mind.
Skull & Bones...what an appropriate name 💀 🦴
I know without a doubt Jim was giggling like a school girl when he saw this, now we just need for Xbox and Nintendo to raise the price of it's consoles which would probably result in Jimmy being so happy he strips naked in the middle of the street and starts singing God Save the King.
@playstation1995 Wait a month and its half price. 🤪
Always online and multiplayer only with tons of MT no thats ridiculous to raise it to €70. I dont mind paying €70 for a complete game that is finished but bit one that is truly useless when they decide to pull the plug and monetize like hell.
apparently nobody wants this game in first place. now complaining its 70. would still struggle at 50
£70 for a pirate game, madness har har
@AdamNovice People love to put the blame on Sony for everything in waiting for a outrage when then sun dont shine.
Will be interesting to see if Activision lowers it's prices back to what they were before when Microsoft officiallly acquires them or not & if not how Xbox fanboys defend it like "it's on gamepass so I don't care" lol
@Flaming_Kaiser. Definitely Ubisoft games always goes on sale really fast.video games in general.so thats good.but i got too many games to play anyways.word up son
Living in the UK with the cost of living crisis at the moment £70 just isn't viable
@playstation1995 Ubisoft games are the games to buy a few months after release for sure.
Considering this dumpster fire has been in development for like 10 years lol. Should have subtracted 10$ not added. That Yves guy gotta go.
@ultraviolet the US feels your pain. at least most of Europe has realized coal is legit and necessary. I hope your situation improves along with everyone else
@SinfulDestroyer I think Sony just got out in front of what was coming industry wide.
@XenonKnight not a bad perspective. Nobody bats an eye at a 30$ 4k bluray. That film is 2-3 hours long. And is shot, edited and released in less than half the time.
@riceNpea did you mean loads of boat? 😉
I only buy games fresh from the oven when it's rockstar, fromsoft or naughty dog. I think I can handle 10 bucks extra every 5 years or so.
@awp69 You mean Activision and 2k. They both started the $70 trend, not Sony.
I played a whole generation of games on PS4 by waiting until they hit Greatest Hits. Have no problem doing the same for PS5.
Ubisoft really want this game to fail don’t they?
Oh well,there'll be plenty to do & Oceans to conquer in single player if/when they pull the servers....oh wait,no offline campaign.🤔 Maybe they can sell it with a little bonus boat to float in the bathtub to give it some extra value!😋😂
Just when i thought ubisoft were going to be the sub £60 stalwarts they drop this bomb...🤦♂️
I thought it was a free to play game. 😅
They couldn’t of picked a worse time to do this due to the current global economic situation we’re in. I’m willing to bet a significant amount of players will not buy this game due to the high price so it could backfire on Ubisoft and impact their sales predictions/expectations.
Also while it’s seems good news that the new Assassin’s Creed will be $50, I have to ask why is it lower than the usual $60 for new releases? When I see a game with a lower price on release, it makes me think it must be smaller in scope and other factors why it’s not worth the $60 price tag.
@maccamufc your thoughts are correct as mirage is about 15hrs, but also depends on its quality too
This $70 Games situation really proves how quick people are to blame Sony/PlayStation for every little thing, it also proves how uninformed some of you people are, but I'm glad to see people like @AdamNovice and @Flaming_Kaiser who know that it was Activision & 2K that started this $70 Games situation with Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War & NBA 2K21.
@awp69 - Except it was Activision & 2K that started this $70 Games situation with Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War & NBA 2K21, but I guess the truth would be an inconvenience to your false narrative huh?
@Pikki - Yeah games are $100 or more over here in Australia, I remember buying Sackboy: A Big Adventure for $99.95 on PS4, and eventually I bought it on PS5 for $124.95.
Nowadays people get so brainwashed with the ‘advantage’ of all digital and always online subs that they don’t realise the used games market isnt dead …yet.
Yeah, this game is dead, calling it now. It's heavily multiplayer focused, which was gonna be a struggle to build a community even at a £60 price point. It's a given it will also be full of battle/season passes, microtransactions and gambling, and they expect to make this a success at a £70 entry point? Will love to see what the playerbase is two weeks out from release.
I get the $70 price point is contentious, i'm not the biggest fan either, but:
Then I don't mind paying more for a great experience.
Personally i'd prefer that over paying $50 or $60 and having MTX, grind and add-ons that make the core game worse.
They all go on sale and reach your target price point at some stage anyway, i'd at least like a complete, non-grindy game when I do jump in. Unfortunately Skull & Bones is unlikely to hit most of these so should not be $70 imo.
@Flaming_Kaiser or not at all!
1. A very thin slice of AC Black Flag.
2. 70 Bucks? ? ?
3. Did I mention GOW
4. Uninteresting, not improved since 2016.
5. One of Ubisofts best games in years!!!
Wait for a deep, deep sale... what's that, ,plus extra December highlights include...
Nah. Put that money towards more Extra and play loads of (better) games. And it's doubtless where this pile will end up in short notice anyway.
Sony wants to complain about MS gaining too much power, while they used their power as market leader to change the pricing and value in shareholder favor across the entire industry. And Ubi is now the first to pretty much openly say so.
@AdamNovice "Why are Sony getting the blame for this? Activision and 2K did first"
These deals don't happen in a vacuum, just like how PS didn't switch to X86 for PS4 in a vacuum without publishers pushing them to. There's talks between platform holders and publishers leading up to consoles. We don't know if Sony started it because Activision and 2K insisted that's where they want the platform to go, or if Activision and 2K started it because Sony insisted that's where the biggest platform was going to go. But you absolutely can guaran-freaking-tee it that they colluded on it long before any of the 3 announced it.
Same for the XBone with the whole DRM scheme. Every publisher, including Sony, was well aware of that plan long before the reveal, and rumors/leaks have said Sony was planning the same until a last minute E3 change after XBone went down if flames from it. Good on Sony for reacting to the market rather than doubling down against it, if so, that was very clearly before Jim's time in the big chair. But the "ESA" members aren't islands that don't communicate. At the end of the day they share an industry group that exists for the sole purpose of "legal" collusion.
" also did you guys have the same energy when Xbox started the trend of paying for online?"
Yes, which is one of many reasons I bought an overpriced PS3. Then ended up with a 360 anyway because of PS3's struggles. Then Sony started charging too but nobody noticed because their console was so much less bad than their competitors at the time.
@themightyant One of the biggest problems I still have with $70 games is that in a time when there's more games and more competition than every, yet less disposable income pretty much across the board, the effect of that is that only the absolute very biggest most overmarketed games sell and everything else is left to die. If people were going to spend a certain budget on games, this really cuts out what they spend on to only the very biggest, because that's consumed the budget , and cuts the number of games people play.
Which is of course not an accident. A huge part of everyghing AAA, from GaaS to pricing is designed to ensure you spend ALL of your time (and MTX money) in that one game. An Assassin's Creed staffer had talked about that being the future of AA quite a few years ago, around the time of Origins, that basically only the biggest thrive and consume all the money. Who'd spend $70 or even $50 on...IDK....Deathloop, or Returnal, when that $70 can go into a sure fire hit like Assassin's Creed 28, TLOU Part 43 and a Half, GTA....6?
The higher the prices the smaller the industry favoring only the biggest players with the most surefire safe sequels. And as bad as a discretionary $70 looked pre-return to the 70's, it looks even worse now.
@NEStalgia same here, although I switched to a 360 because the disc drive firmware was hacked (c4eva, wherever you are, thank you)
@NEStalgia I understand that argument but think there are several flaws with it.
1. Games aren't just £50/60 now. They are £50/60 + MTX/more.
2. If price is a concern don't buy day one. Games drop in price faster than ever (except Nintendo)
3. If price is a concern then there are great options like Game Pass
4. Games were £60-80+ back in the SNES/MD era. A whopping £100-£130+ by today's standards after inflation. (Yes, granted, inflation isn't the same as spending power but still)
For these reasons and more the "If people were going to spend a certain budget on games" argument falls pretty flat imo.
I'll be waiting until it gets onto the connecting bargain bin train.
@themightyant I haven't seen prices dropping particularly fast. Granted I've gone all digital - BUT- the overwhelming majority of sales are all digital now, which is a VERY important issue the minority of physical collectors tend to omit when discussing price points. Second, I've gathered the sense that prices are much more competitive on physical in the UK. In the US there's basically 4 stores that sell this stuff + Amazon so the prices don't need to be very competitive and drop off so fast. Third the future will become more and more digital, so the digital price is really the that matters most, and when a lot of these discussions veer off into "but store x discounts early" it misses the point. When Sony starts welling HFW for $50on the PSN store, we can talk. MSRP does not drop rapidly, even if retailers eat into their wholesale price share (more in the UK) at times. Ubisoft games, so far, have dropped fast (as in, if you bought it week 1 you lost money), but I wonder with the new pricing and new Tencent stake, if that will change as well. Sony certainly has pulled back on its discounting, for example, mirroring more and more the Nintendo model.
Finally I'm beyond sick of the "but games were $130 by today's standards in the 80s" argument I hear over and over, which again, misses the point on several counts. First, games were actual daughter boards, sometimes including the GPU or part of it, you were buying electronics, not software for that money. Second, there were far fewer games available to choose to buy (see the argument above about there being so many games competing for that dollar now.) Third, rental culture, rather than ownership culture, was dominant at the time for that very reason (that's where subs enter today I suppose - but that's just it, a return to primarily subscribing to rent rather than buying which goes back to the price is unreasonably high when the variety of titles vying for attention is also high), and finally in those simpler times there were far fewer things in general demanding a share of that discretionary spend - incomes were relatively lower but discretionary income was substantially higher in most cases - at least in today's standards for anyone not on the upper spoke of the K-shaped economic graph. Granted, I still get the impression that gaming in the UK back then was seen as more of a rich boy's toy than a mass market entertainment medium than in the US. IDK if that's the case, but any time I talk to folks in the UK here I get that impression. I DO get the impression that Sony is trying to move it back in that direction everywhere though.
@NEStalgia That's a fair point on territories. I was unaware US got worse physical sales. Though Horizon was on sale sub $50 last month on the US PSN store.
(Aside: always amazed how different territories handle pricing, like France apparently has a discount on Day 1 physical and then goes up in price, incentivising and rewarding Day 1 purchases)
I absolutely don't agree that digital is the only discussion. Granted it is the dominant purchase method (although the statistics provided by platform holders are deliberately heavily skewed, it isn't quite as dominant as they say. Though it is much larger and still growing). Yes it's true i've noticed Sony slowing down their discounts this gen, a la Nintendo, but the lack of sales/control on digital IS the reason I will stay physical where prices are dictated by the market, NOT platform holders. That's an important discussion to keep having. If you want to pay 2x for the convenience of all digital, and without the ability to recoup some of that by selling, then be my guest. But it's not an invalid argument. That's was a choice you made, though granted as you said US doesn't seem to get the same physical sales.
I'm well aware cartridges contained PCBs, batteries and sometimes expensive chips like Super-FX. But that is all a red herring. The punter really doesn't care what tech was in their game only the cost. Regardless want another one that's fairer? Games were £40 at the start of the PS1 gen, that's around £67 according to inflation. Suddenly £70 doesn't seem too far fetched.
As i've said before I don't LIKE paying more for my games, but I would rather pay more and get a complete game than pay 20% less and have MTX, DLC and all sorts of other BS added.
Sadly Skull and Bones will be both $70 and have all the Ubi-BS.
@JustPlainLoco The games that are the most monetized did it first. Buy on this site you quite a select group that does bash everything Sony does.
And to be honest this site does feed it with quite some articles even going so far by nailing some games to the cross. Look at Returnal man the hate this game got from this site was insane not worth the €70.
Only after the release it got changed the quality of the game shut them up. It really annoyed me a lot that they used the game as a their personal punching bag to drive the message home.
Haha! for skull and bones? Right okay ubisoft. It'll be in the bargain bins faster than their regular releases!
@themightyant Was it? I would have bought it if I'd seen that sale.... if it was it was probably covered here and I missed it somehow? Ugh! Well, if it was it'll be back Black Friday and I'll grab it then, I guess. Are you sure it was?
I do think the discussion of ownership rights and market competition shouldn't go away, but I'm not sure, into the future, discussion involving physical lacquer trinkets to act as that mechanism are particularly relevant (or even practical) with modern games. That's really a MUCH bigger conversation that really gets into needs for digital legislation and honestly needs a large scale trust-busting effort against all the closed platforms (including Apple.) The idea of fixed company stores with zero competition is not compatible with a free market, and the idea that the only way around that is selling plastic tokens that function differently, when retail competition for digital codes already existed and the platforms removed the option to compete is a very different discussion.
I get you point, and I even agree with it, but I don't think it makes sense to talk about pricing and competition in the somewhat obsolete vacuum of physical as the alternative to being chained to a fixed price on digital really makes sense in the discussion on price. The price is the RRP. Sony/Acti/2K/Ubi sets that price, and it's reflected in both physical and digital same-as. Retailers are competing on physical eating into their own share of the wholesale price, not Sony/Ubi/2K's. The price issue, at the publisher level, still comes down to the publisher, regardless of what the retailers are doing and what losses they're eating. Sony and Ubi aren't eating a dime of that (though they ate the original wholesale price.)
Comparing the past to the present regarding inflation is always misleading. Official percentages like that may meausre pure dollar value, but it doesn't really indicate anything in discretionary income/spend. Healthcare, housing, etc, etc didn't cost nearly what they cost today. Gas was $0.80/gal. Houses cost like $50k not $250k. Taxes were far lower, there were no cell phone costs, internet costs, various other fees that are normal now, utilities were lower, etc. etc. etc. Bottom line is "inflation" aside, the average person has more of their paycheck leaving on things they otherwise have to buy more than entertainment products today than they did back then, so increasing the squeeze makes it relatively more expensive in terms of personal budgets, regardless the percentage inflation the abacus says should apply.
Does that mean people will stop buying video games? No. What it does mean is, like I said, people will buy only the sure fire biggest sequels of the biggest games that are known safe quantities, and that provide endless hours of grind to get their money's worth, and only the very biggest players will benefit, as the experimental and mid-tier titles flounder, die, and vanish.
Of course, again that's where subs come in, and you can of course play your $70 ubi games included in your Ubi + which is probably the whole point to begin with. But that's also it, people in favor of buying and owning games at all really should be thinking about how the economics of buying are making less and less sense the more they jack up prices, despite an ever increasing competition for eyeballs. Which is not an AI Som reference, I swear.
What UBI game doesn't stop like a dinner in price anyway?
@NEStalgia Yes Horizon:FW was on sale for 2 weeks from 3rd August for $49.69 on the US PSN Store. I find PS Notifications are a bit flaky, or perhaps they just come up unclearly e.g. 'Patapon and 2 other games on your wishlist are on sale'. Not very useful. I use a 3rd service called PS Prices to get email notifications of wen games I want go on sale (Deku Deals is good too and Cross platform, but i've not used the notification system there).
You are right that inflation does not go in line with spending power, as I said in my first post. But what do you want? Games to get cheaper relatively? Cinema tickets are at least twice the price they were 20 years ago. Sporting and other events tickets at least double or triple. Phone pricing has gone through the roof. You've already mentioned gas, energy etc. Basically EVERYTHING is more expensive. Why do gamers think they are unique and immune to price rises? Spending power has NOTHING to do with it, another red herring, as is whether it is relative to personal budgets. It's a business, supply and demand, and the market will dictate if prices are too high or not. Let's also not forget these are luxury items not crucial services.
I also don't buy this "people will only buy the biggest games"... yes perhaps if they ONLY buy at full price Day 1, but games DO get cheaper over time, even digitally. It will just mean people need to be wiser with how, and when, they spend their hard earned cash on luxuries like video games.
@themightyant ARRGH! Can't believe i missed a sale like that, but I'm happy to see PS still knows how to discount things relatively early. I'm hoping that sale comes up again Black Friday, then. I'm not urgently seeking the game, I still haven't finished the first so it's still deep in the backlog, but when it comes down to actual good prices for games I'm inclined to buy them.
You just answered why I haven't been to a cinema or sporting event in 20 years...as the prices went up I just flipped them off and walked away And gaming looks like it will be next.
There's something of a key difference though, in that even prices are supply and demand tied. There's only so many seats and population doubles every 10 years....so there's also the pressure to raise prices specifically to LIMIT demand because there's only so much at a time. Games have no need to limit demand through supply/demand pressure.
Phone pricing is an interesting phenomenon. I'd read a lot about that a few years ago. The key reason for the prices going up is not actually the cost of the phones. It's because demand went DOWN (a bit inverse, I know.) Basically carriers were subsidizing phones and people were replacing them every year or two, plus phones were new and rapid improvement meant high deamnd of new customers and upgraders. As the tech stagnated and carriers stopped subsidizing people started keeping phones longer, and the cheap low-end phones began to take up most of the market since they were more than adequate for most people for years. Demand for phones crashed as a result, and massively raising margin was the only way to keep profit growth in line with expectations. Raising margin on the premium models only (which technically are only somewhat better than lower end models these days.) Tech enthusiasts (because they need it) and high earners (because they want the best) shell out rediculous profit margins on the phones, but the phones themselves primarily increased in price because they're selling far less of them.
If we translate phones to gaming, we'd have assume console sales are falling for console prices to go up for the same reasons (a 1:1 comparison) which actually isn't untrue based on your info months ago on the static sales of consoles over the generations. With consoles in more markets than ever, and population greater than ever, the stagnant sales numbers mean the per-market and per-capita console sales rate is plummeting. But game sales aren't. No limited supply (like event seats), and no cratering market size to offset in margin (like phone sales.)
To a degree, gamers think they're unique, because they are unique. The gaming market doesn't have the same market conditions most other markets do, and as a result has the ability to operate contrarily to most other markets based on its characteristics.
It comes back to the issue though (relative to phones), if spending power is down, and a wholly discretionary item like games nosedives in sales as a result of increasing prices, then do they go the phone model and just jack the prices up ever more, moving gaming from a mass market medium to a high luxury item aside Gucci, BMW, and Apple? IE are we watching the market be REMOVED from the masses and shifted toward a high luxury market?
As for "people will only buy the biggest games" - I mean that was an actual expected result, years ago, from the rising budgets, costs, and GaaS features of AAA according to one of the AC bigwigs. Almost certainly someone involved in this very current pricing model. And sure, maybe buying older games (and subscriptions let's not forget the elephant in the room) offsets that and people will buy other games. But the masses buy whatever is the big title of the moment,and that won't change. Especially with GaaS at the forefront. And the games industry, especially Sony still relies on that "box office" launch sales metric as a measure of success. More and more if prices keep rising and the market gets "smarter" and waits, those launch sales will tell a sour story in the industry and more and more reflect an echobox of a certain type of customer who pays high prices at launch, always.
I think there's too much navel gazing with these discussions with enthusiasts. The mass market responds to price, PERIOD. $1200 phones are sold to a tiny group of suckers/enthusiasts because MOST people buy $200-300 phones. Is gaming aiming at the niche that overpays, or the mass market? And are they INTENTIONALLY changing their target market or are they accidentally doing so while pursuing short term goals?
@NEStalgia Sorry there's just too much misinformation here.
Not true. While it's true smartphone sales have plateaued it's still around 1.45 billion per year worldwide, it's been around that for around 7 years, it isn't some major decline, it's fairly steady. Apple sold a record 240 million iPhones last year.
Phone cost is due to a lot of factors. As demonstrated above that approx 1.45 billion number is not moving much, it IS still a factor as people are holding onto their devices for longer, but it's no longer a key one. Larger factors are increased materials costs (especially rare earths), increased manufacturing costs, increased labour costs (Apple for example employs over 16,000 engineers in the US alone), inflation, and new expensive tech (OLED, 5G, cameras etc.) E.g. The Bill of Materials of an iPhone 12 128GB was estimated to be $415 - $431 depending on regional model. 21% more than iPhone 11. They then have to add R&D, manufacturing, taxes, sales-related costs like shipping, advertising, and other operational costs, and yes profit, to get to their sale price of $649.
No they don't. Low-end ($0-$300), mid-end ($300-$600 )and high-end ($600+) are all about a third of the market. Though mid-end is eating into low-end with inflation and as people see phones as crucial to their lives. While very few phones are $1200 over a third of the market buy high-end that isn't a tiny group of suckers/enthusiasts.
Globally it's currently estimated to be around 50 years, in the US around 75 years - as growth is stagnating and it will take longer to double the population than last time.
Did Phil Spencer write this? It's deliberately wooly and vague. Could mean anything
Yes the gaming market doesn't have SOME of the same market conditions as others but it also doesn't exist in a vacuum. Game development costs ARE increasing, salaries for developers are increasing to deal with inflation and cost of living etc. Costs of doing business are increasing for the same reasons. While it is a unique market it still doesn't justify why should gaming be immune to inflation and cost increases?
@themightyant We're not paid to write these things and an actual analysis would be the size of a Manhattan phone book (if they still made phone books) - a certain amount of "wooliness" has to be expected in these discussions and a handshake understanding that we're going with broad strokes to a certain extent.
In saying demand went down, we're talking premium phones, new phones, and also growth in demand going negative. Not total sales of handhelds. The $500 phones became $1200 phones as MOST phone sales became $100-300 phones. Again, we're going with shorthand . Cost to manufacture, rare earth, etc, etc is something of a red herring. The rare earth metals etc (the most expensive part of the whole device) is roughly the same between a $189 budget Android phone and a $1200 iPhone 14. Most of the rest of the parts are the same as well with only minor BOM differences for upgraded parts (better processors, more NAND, higher end screen, etc.) The total BOM isn't radically different between the cheapest and most expensive handset (with an exception of multi-band international phones with multiple SIM cards ,etc where it does genuinely have multiple TX arrays with more rare earth metals. Ironically a great many off those phones cost more to make and sell for a fraction of the price of that spiffy $1200 flagship.
Granted the information I'm talking about was from about a year and a half ago so the curren't year's inflation/labor/parts increases is not factored into what I'm saying, but that's also somewhat irrelevant, as the costs jumped from $500 to $1100 before those factors occurred for premium phones while common phones dropped in price considerably including new models.
IDK about the BOM costs of the iPhone 12 vs 14, why their costs rose to that percentage, and if the cost of the 12 was factoring in the BOM at launch vs current which is a very different comparison. I also don't follow apple literally at all so I have no idea if the iPhone 14 is $650 or $1200 because IDK which model is which
The $600+ phone market isn't new or that radical a price increase. What happend is the $400-600 bracket suddenly became the $1000-1200 bracket a few years back. $400-600 is what good phones cost 10 years ago before the magical price leap, which yes, was driven by demand drop, not by BOM. It's very well documented. Those price ranges divided into market thirds are arbitrary. A $650 phone is not at all the same market as a $1000 phone. But that figure lumps them together to arrive at an even third.
To put an APPLE centric comparison though, I remember paying $400 or more for iPod Touch a decade ago, not even a phone. Then $500 for a Note. Moving up to $650 would be normal inflation, perhaps, not a massive price jump. What happened instead is prices more than doubled over a period of years on that class of device, and that is not BOM and labor driven, and predates the current cost increases by years. It was market driven.
I stand corrected (thankfully) on the rate of population doubling.
Again, we come back to, the fact that for the mass market, discretionary goods can not be sustained at increasing consumer costs WHILE consumer costs on non-discretionary items increases. I said that, repeatedly, before the current inflation spiral, and I will say it after. As consumers have less and less discrtionary spend, in the mass market, they can afford to buy less and less discretionary items, and as those items rise in cost, that will constrict that purchase even more.
So I say again, if the gaming industry's strategy is continuously charge more and more to the same customers, how exactly are they expecting growth? Are the expecting growth in revenue due to increased margins in a smaller and smaller market, or do they expect to grow the market? I.E. Are they intentionally moving gaming up-market to be a more exclusive luxury product, or are they trying to grow it, or are they trying to have their cake and eat it, too? Something gives at some point.
@NEStalgia Horizon is on sale on PSN again my man. $49.69 in the US. May just be a weekend deal not sure.
@themightyant Thanks for the heads up!! Might finally pull the trigger (even if it's just to throw it in the backlog)
@themightyant Here's an interesting question specifically regarding HFW. PS4 version is on sale for $40, PS5 version is $50. This is the game that has the PS4 to PS5 digital upgrade free.... So, if I buy the PS4 version from the web browser store....does it just upgrade up? Not sure how much gamble there is that there's a catch to that.
Also, interesting how they're doing the sales discounts. I don't think I've ever seen any company discount any product in this manner:
That's some oddly specific percentage discounts, and some really arbitrary final prices. It took a while to figure out, it looks like they assigned it a discount percent that gets it as close as a whole number can to a flat $20 off sale, so it's not really based on percentages, it's a flat discount, but the store must not allow them to assign flat discounts so they have to come up with a nearest whole number percentage to assign as a discount. But it looks like they're playing the numbers when you look at them like that
The obvious statement is "why don't they just fix the store?" But there it is.
@NEStalgia Yes agreed looks like they are aiming for a flat £20 decrease. To be honest that does make some sense from a business perspective, we are conditioned to think about that first number most. E.g. Why do you think we see £69.99 instead of £70. It DOES make a psychological difference even if we are aware.
I honestly haven't followed the horizon upgrade scenarios. But i'm fairly sure you are right the PS4 free upgarade, I don't think there was a time limit on it. But DON'T take my word for it.
I was one of the apparent 'fools' that bought the PS5 versions despite it being £10 more. Apparently along with 68% of suckers. My reasoning was two fold.
1) As I was playing Day 1 I could just put the PS5 disc in and install the day 1 patch, and play in minutes. Instead of waiting hours to download 80GB of content. Get to the game faster.
2) I could sell the PS5 version for more when I was done, which is exactly what I did. About £10 more in fact
Yeah, it's just amazing that, I assume, the store software doesn't let them set a specific price as a discount, or a flat reduction in price, so they have to calculate arbitrary percentages to get the right number that's close but not quite. I mean it works in our favor that it's a few pennies cheaper than $20 off, but...I just have to wonder how the store doesn't just have a fixed price discount option to use. The first number absolutely has a psychological impact. IDK if you have this in the UK, but in the US, gas stations always have prices set at "3.29 (9/10)" It's the only industry that does that, where they actually have fractions of a penny as part of the price. Most signage has gone electronic rather than the old pop in numbers now, but the "9/10" is usually a permanently painted column on the side of the board. Once upon a time gas was like $0.05/gal so the extra tenths of a penny made a radical difference in price, and they used the price. Now it just makes it look a penny cheaper than it is.....
Technically it says right on the screen
But I still tend not to believe it because the whole PS4 to PS5 upgrade process is as confusing as heck that even when it says it it's hard to believe it Partially, because....why are they selling two editions at two prices, when the CHEAPER edition technically comes with the option to run it on 2 consoles and the more expensve edition does not? It makes no sense. (I know it's a "good" no sense because they alternative is just charging to make them the same price as all other games are, but..) It just seems too good to be real:
Pay $40, and play it on PS4 and PS5. Pay $50 and get the same game but you can't play it on PS4 at all.
@themightyant Actually, an update, the sale was on until the 29th but I figured I might as well do it now. $40 is a "don't ask questions just pay money and figure out if you want it later" price. $70 is a "I'll buy it someday, maybe if my backlog ever empties" price.
Sure enough, I bought the PS4 version, and after spending more time than necessary figuring out how to upgrade it, it tuns out I just had to refresh the page on the store. PS4 shows as Purchased | Download Now. PS5 now shows as "Free | Add to Library" like it's a Plus game. Clicked "Add to Library" and now both the PS4 and PS5 versions show as "Purchased"
Which is interesting, if that's how they actually show it on their back-end as a $0 purchase, then that means they're double-counting sales from anyone that bought the PS4 version and upgraded. Between counting the mandatory bundles for people who didn't want the game but took it to get a console and double-counting upgrade sales, I wonder if a Knack situation is brewing where they think it's more successful than it really is? Hopefully it's enough to continue the series at least once more till the catch on, because it's my favorite PS series in the post-inFamous world that doesn't involve furries or knits. (Give us Sly 5, you cowards!)
Zero interest in ever paying $70 for Ubisoft games, let alone $60.
I'll continue to wait 2-3+ years for their Complete/Deluxe/Gold Editions to be on sale for $25 New or cheaper.
Tap here to load 85 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...