With Game Pass, who cares? Xbox can charge $100 for all it matters.
I could understand the argument on cross-gen games, but Starfield and others won’t be. So I wonder what would happen if they remain the current price. If it changes, it changes. Game Pass would only look better in the process.
That is also true. Perhaps they should increase the price from a business perspective, it will make Game Pass look even better and push more people into it.
nope, nada, noperino, nowayinhell
so looks like you’re the one who strategized the Gold hike. 
1 Like
Its not that outlandish, we allready pay US $90 here.
Apart from the omgImustplaythisdayoneanditsnotongamepass games, which is like less than a handful per generation, I buy games on deep sales or play via Game Pass.
Haha, no that is different. That was the opposite of what they should do (kill Gold). 
Sweden regional pricing be on some crack then.
I’m not sure if you really think it’ll work out from a business POV to hike retail pricing to 90 or 100 dollars uniformly lol or just being facetious, but alright. 
True but I mean, the goal was the same tho, hike up Gold’s price to make gamepass look better in contrast. Except in this case, it’s the actual game itself instead of just the access to online features that aren’t even needed for non-MP games which is worse.
But ultimately, I get you. The price hike won’t affect you as you just play on GP day 1 or wait for them to come to gamepass. It’s fine and valid. But for those who still get games at retail, the pricing will matter.
I’m talking about Sonys $70 games, that is priced at €80 here which is $90.
No I don’t think that would be feasible, but for all intents and purposes Game Pass makes the price kind of irrelevant for Xbox gamers.
In a way yes, but Gold being a relic of the past makes it stupid to even keep around. Especially with all the eCoSysTeM talk and then having a MP-tax on console but not on PC…
true, but that’s presuming “xbox gamers” = “gamepass gamers”, which is nowhere close to being a 1:1 overlap tho. And Phil himself said that’s not the goal.
100% agree. I cannot even get myself to want to pay for playing online after being used to a lifetime of never having paid for it on PC, it’s truly an outdated service especially in context of Xbox’s vision and ecosystem. MF gotta go soon.
1 Like
I mean, if you have to think twice at the price I’m pretty sure you will be interested in Game Pass.
I come from PC too, and that is one thing I’ve never been comfortable with on console. It is super outdated, weird and unfair. Especially strange when the suits continue to go on about the ecosystem yadayada.
1 Like
Definitely, but you should be eased into that option, not forced into it, imo. The market deciding 70 dollars or whatever will definitely do more of the latter, but that shouldn’t be artificially accelerated by MS themselves just to make Gamepass look like a better option. It’s truly a boon for those who can’t pay that kinda money for individual games anymore (I ain’t paying for any AAA game anymore, unless in deep sale) But the option gotta remain for all, and the hike can happen, but should be reasonable especially when uniformly applied.
2 Likes
That would be a dumb thing to do, they can have an easy win by not upping the price and make Sony look like the one who overprices their games.
Also why not be the better value proposition in the market for both subscription AND retail? you already have an enticing thing like GP while at the same time you are making your ecosystem and your 1st party portfolio more accessible even for those who aren’t initially interested in a subscription model. This sounds like a no-brainer to me.
MS right now has two easy wins: not raising their retail price and getting rid of online play paywall (which doesn’t make any sense right now watching at their PC efforts), hopefully they will not fuck those up.
2 Likes
Yeah, it has to be a process I agree.
1 Like
spittin that omicron flow rn
1 Like
Really good points too.
1 Like
I barely bought games when they were £40, now they hitting £60-70, iv bought 1 game in the last 3 years since GP came along and thats only because I got some free cash from Xbox to spend
Im on the GP train permanently now, if you’re not on there, sayonara
2 Likes
I know @peter42O is incoming so I’ll also add that trading in games does not exist here. There are almost no stores left, and physical sales has to be abyssmal.
2 Likes
I paid 3 dollars for Witcher 3 and all its DLCs recently and I feel like I committed a moral atrocity, but one I’m ok with. 
Personally, all that matters to me is if I want to play the game and the game itself is worth playing. $60, $70, $100, $120, etc. doesn’t matter because gaming is my #1 hobby and form of entertainment that I have been a part of since 1989 with NES.
Also, I think it varies for people. A lot of people are collector’s yet im not. A lot of people buy every game digitally yet I don’t. A lot of people play online and thus have to pay for that on console yet I have no interest in online gaming.
This generation, it’s simple. Every Microsoft published game that I want to play will be played via a $10 monthly rental on Game Pass. Same applies for third party day one games like Stalker 2 and Plague Tale Requiem. Starting with Dawn of Ragnarok, I will play every Ubisoft game on their service in the same way that I do for Game Pass which is a monthly rental. $10, $15 or even $20, doesn’t matter because it’s still cheaper than buying it and due to Ubisoft+ being it’s own subscription service which im so very happy about as opposed to being in Game Pass as a vault ala EA allows me to know that the game or expansion is never leaving Ubisoft+.
For games that im interested in playing but aren’t on Game Pass/Ubisoft+ day one, I buy them. Perfect examples are Dying Light 2 which I know has at least two expansions minimum and probably years of free/paid content so for this game, I will buy the Ultimate Edition digitally for $100 on Xbox Series X.
Second example would be Horizon II Forbidden West which for me is an easy 2022 game of the year contender so paying $70 for what will be a 9.5/10 at a minimum for me is an easy decision. Plus, like I said earlier, im not a collector so once completed, the game gets traded in so what is $70 ends up being $35 and I didn’t have to wait months for a sale to play it.
The biggest difference for me is that I was always expecting $80 and instead, it’s $70. Fine by me. Was always expecting a higher price tag than what it is so it being $10 cheaper than what I was expecting is a win for me.
Would it have been great for all games to stay at $60, of course but that’s being unrealistic especially when I paid $80 for Chrono Trigger on Super Nintendo in 1995. I’m sure as hell aren’t going to complain that games are $70 over 25 years later especially when I consider the tech involved, cost of making games plus I want it all. I want superb visuals, animations, etc., full voice acting, excellent combat/gameplay and an excellent story with great characters.
Not only that but Indies have gone up in price. During Xbox 360/PS3, they were $10-$15. Last generation, they were $20-$30 and this generation, they’re around $30-$40. So why wouldn’t I expect AAA games to increase in price? I would be foolish to think that game prices weren’t going to increase. Sony, EA, Activision, Square Enix, Ubisoft and Take Two Interactive have already started with $70 games or are about to.
So for me, $70 for a single game changes nothing and my rules for this generation remain the same - any game or expansion that isn’t on Game Pass/Ubisoft+ for Xbox day one, I will buy, more times than not on disc and once completed, I trade in that game and move on to my next new game.
In general though, everyone should do what is obviously best for them.