Rising costs are turning video games into something only for the rich – Reader’s Feature

A reader thinks that the video games industry is headed for a massive price increase across the board and the Nintendo Switch 2 is only the half of it.

There’s been a lot of complaints and arguments about the price of Nintendo Switch 2 games this week and I totally get it. £75 for a physical copy of any game is an absurd amount of money to pay, even if it is technically good value for money, compared to things like going to the cinema.

The problem with that is that is that even if it is good value in theory, it’s still a huge chunk of money that almost anyone would think twice about paying, especially given all the money uncertainty in the news at the moment.

What worries me is the idea raised by GC and others that we could be heading to a future where all games cost at least that much. That rather than Nintendo being the most expensive they’ll be leap-frogged by other publishers and still end up being the cheapest.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the thought of a new generation of gaming where £75 is ‘cheap’ or even the norm. Some triple-A games are already £70 but we’ve seen this week that The Last Of Us collector’s edition costs £100 and who knows what GTA 6 is going to end up as.

I think it’s pretty obvious what’s going on here. The price of making games has gone up – we’ve known this for years now – and what is the obvious response going to be from publishers? To decrease budgets? To make shorter games? To expand free-to-play concepts to include single-player games? No. No, they’re just going to increase the price and make it our problem.

That is such a dumb, unimaginative, response to a complex problem that you could’ve guaranteed immediately it’s what they’d do.

I’m not saying it’s not a difficult issue. We all want our games to look as good as possible and to have plenty of content, but a sensible publisher would consider the negative side of that, where games take forever to make and you can only make your money back by charging through the roof.

The problems are obvious, not least the fact that this is going to push people even more to play only free-to-play games, which is what these companies were supposed to be trying to avoid. If it’s a choice between a £75+ game and a completely free one, that everyone is playing, the average casual gamer isn’t even going to think twice.

Then there’s the problem that the number of games that can justify that sort of money are very small. First party Sony games and things like Assassin’s Creed Shadows are one thing but who’s going to spend £75 on a game that got a good but not great review or which you’re just not sure you’ll like.

It’s going to end up with a two-lane video games industry, where triple-A games, in an increasingly small number of franchises and genres, cost £75+ and indie games are £20 or so at most.

Maybe that’s not the worst thing in the world (although I do think the originality and innovation of indie games can be overexaggerated at times) but it’s going to mean so many great games are going to be out of the reach of a lot of people.

Perhaps it’s a shame that subscription services didn’t really take off but beyond that I don’t really see anyone round the problem. Games are just going to get more and more expensive and the number of people that can afford to get them, as more than just the occasional luxury purchase, is going to shrink and shrink.

By reader Taylor Moon

The reader’s features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.

You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at [email protected] or use our Submit Stuff page and you won’t need to send an email.

ArrowMORE: Nintendo are repeating some very old mistakes with the Switch 2 - Reader's Feature

ArrowMORE: Ex-Nintendo fan sells PS5 Pro to buy Switch 2 - Reader's Feature

ArrowMORE: How I solved my mid-life gaming crisis with retro games – Reader’s Feature