Last week, it was reported that former EA CEO John Riccitiello stated at the Gaming Insiders Summit that $60 is too much to pay for a game. More precisely, he said, “$60 is a giant FU to a very large number of people.” Riccitiello went on to explain:
“There’s not been a console game with even half as many installs as Clash of Clans. Puzzle & Dragons has got more installs than any console game in history. Getting a larger audience through variable pricing is a really useful thing.”
I agree that variable pricing is the way to go and that there should be a free-to-play market with consoles. I don’t agree that $60 is too much to pay for a triple A game. My reason is simple and one-dimensional.
Economics don’t go backwards.
In the late ’80s, I paid $60+, but not more than $70, for my Super Mario Bros. 2. For this example, let’s say I paid $63 for my Mario game in 1987. Now, use an inflation calculator to see what that would be in 2012 dollars. A whopping $125.33!
In today’s world, gamers are getting a whole lot more bang for their buck: better graphics, better acting, better story lines, online multiplayer, etc. I imagine Riccitiello is responding to a consensus within the gaming industry, or to what gamers want, but I say unless you’re paying what you should be paying by the laws of inflation, let me remind you that the figure is $125, I say bitchy little gamers that want cheaper games should STFU!
Rock Hard \m/