The Gaming Industry Needs to Rethink Game Pricing

As I’ve discussed multiple times over the last few weeks, gaming is becoming far from affordable. Take Grand Theft Auto VI, whose base game is priced at $109.99 CAD ($80 USD), while recent releases such as Minecraft Dungeons II and Hellraiser: Revival retail for $39.99 CAD ($29.99 USD) and $54.99 CAD ($39.99 USD), respectively. 

Something needs to be done to make games less expensive to buy.

While getting ready to install Gears of War: E-Day, something hit me. Before installing the game, you are asked which components you want to install. Being primarily a single-player gamer, I naturally chose the campaign. Then I started wondering: what if publishers gave us the option to purchase the components we actually want, a la carte? If you don't play games online, why should you have to pay for a part of a game you won't play?

Let's continue using Gears of War: E-Day as an example. Publishers could split a game into multiple purchase options, allowing players to buy either the campaign or the multiplayer component at a set price, with the remaining content available as an optional purchase. Imagine paying $50 for the component you want, whether that's the campaign or multiplayer, and another $30 if you decide to buy the rest. Players get more control over what they spend, and publishers still have an opportunity to sell the complete experience.

Of course, this wouldn't mean that buying every component separately should cost less than buying the complete game. Publishers could offer a bundle at a discount for those who want everything, while giving everyone else the option to pay only for the experience they intend to play. The point isn't to force publishers to sell games for less than they cost to make, but to stop making consumers pay for content they may never use.

Episodic gaming was a trend a while ago, so why not bring it back? We already get yearly releases of Call of Duty, so why couldn't we get the next Fallout game in episodes instead? Each instalment could end on a cliffhanger, giving players a reason to return for the next chapter. The overall experience could remain open-ended, allowing players to continue exploring and playing after completing the main story, much like the freedom promised by a game such as Fable. Each episode could be priced at $20, making it easier for players to spread the cost over time.

There would also be an advantage for players who can't afford to spend $100 on a game at launch. Instead of waiting months for a sale, they could purchase the first episode, enjoy the experience, and decide whether they want to invest in the next one. Publishers would have another opportunity to generate revenue throughout the year, while players could budget for their entertainment instead of making a single large purchase.

Obviously, these ideas would be easier to implement with digital games. Offering different versions of a physical release could mean producing multiple SKUs and complicating distribution. With the industry already moving away from physical media, publishers would have even less incentive to go down that route. Digital storefronts, however, could offer these options without requiring separate physical editions.

Minecraft Dungeons II is an interesting example of the approach publishers could take. At $39.99, its entry price is considerably lower than that of a $100 release. Additional content can then provide another revenue stream, as it did with the original game, without requiring every player to purchase that content upfront. Not every game needs to follow this model, but it demonstrates why publishers should consider different pricing strategies rather than assuming that every major release needs to command the same premium price.

I can't imagine today's high prices will be sustainable indefinitely. A significant portion of the gaming audience has limited disposable income and other priorities competing for that money. When a single game costs $100 or more, some players will simply wait for a sale, while others may decide not to buy it at all.

Of course, all of this is subjective. Some players will gladly pay full price for a game they have been anticipating for years, while others prefer to wait for a sale. The problem is that when the upfront cost becomes a barrier, publishers risk losing customers who might otherwise support their games. Giving players more ways to enter an experience doesn't guarantee success, but it could make gaming accessible to a broader audience.

At some point, publishers need to recognize that giving players more affordable ways to buy games could benefit everyone. Make games cheaper, and they will come. In many cases, they'll stay.