Analyst says the games industry "hopes" GTA VI will cost up to $100, raising average prices

midian182

Posts: 11,722   +177
Staff member
A hot potato: In news that will likely increase the anger many people feel toward some elements of the gaming industry, an analyst's report claims that developers and publishers "hope" that Grand Theft Auto VI could cost as much as $100 when it arrives. Such a move could embolden other companies to starting charging more for their games, pushing up average selling prices to offset rising development costs.

Matthew Ball of Epyllion's State of Video Gaming in 2025 report has a large focus on what will undoubtedly be the biggest release of the year, GTA VI – despite there still being no official PC version.

The next instalment in the GTA series is expected to break plenty of records, including being the most expensive game ever made. There are no official figures, but estimates range somewhere between the high hundreds of millions to as high as $2 billion. For context, Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War's development costs were $700 million. While that's less than 2020's Genshin Impact, which is officially the most expensive game ever at $900 million, that includes $200 million added annually for ongoing costs – Genshin Impact's initial costs were just $100 million.

Rockstar and Take-Two could use GTA VI's enormous development costs as justification to price the game between $80 and $100. Ball said such a move "could re-establish packed video game prices after decades of deflation despite rampant cost growth."

It's been five years since the first major game to carry a $70 price tag, NBA 2K21, launched, signalling the beginning of the end for the standard $60 AAA price that had been around since the launch of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 era in the mid-2000s. It's still a point of contention today, especially when it's slapped on a game that isn't particularly well received, such as Skull and Bones.

Ball notes that GTA VI breaking the $70 barrier and possibly going all the way to $100 could have a trickledown effect in which all companies increase their games' selling price by $10, with $80 becoming the new standard for AAA titles.

$100 for a game brings to mind the Neo Geo, the 1990s console for which games retailed for up to $100 to $300 due to the machine's arcade-quality components and large cartridges containing substantial memory for the time.

However, Ball points out that $70 GTA VI would be the "cheapest" GTA game ever released in real terms (taking inflation into account). In real terms, $91 would be average, though gamers are unlikely to appreciate his point of view.

"Packaged game prices have never been lower in real terms than they are today – even though budgets are at all-time highs and player growth is stalled," Ball said. "GTA VI could re-establish packed video game prices after decades of deflation despite rampant cost growth."

This isn't the first time we've heard claims of GTA VI carrying a huge retail price. There were rumors in September that it could cost $150. That seems extremely unlikely, unless it's for a special-edition version of some kind.

A recent report found that while graphical fidelity contributes to inflated budgets and extended development timelines, other factors, including employee wages, massive open worlds, and non-gaming related issues, play significant roles in pushing up game development costs.

Permalink to story:

 
I mean, people's dark side is a reflection of themselves. Third-party sellers are likely to increase as well. Good for us all.
 
Rockstar made the decision to make the game as big as possible. Should gamers have to pay more for every game because some games have massive budgets? Honestly, I don't buy any games at full price and the last game I paid more than $50 was for Final Fantasy VII Rebirth. I don't care about GTA games, I am one of the few people that doesn't actually like them. If they raise the price to $100 then I really hope that it fails. I know the chances of that are slim given the popularity of the series. However, these big games can fail even when they sell pretty well because they have to make back the development cost. So, here's hoping it fails if they raise the price like that.
 
I mean, I was never going to buy it until the price got below £40 anyway. They can price it as high as they want, I'm not buying it until it's on sale in a couple of years time.

- Exactly. The initial price can be anything, but I personally won't buy a game for more than $10. I've waited literally a decade before Divinity Original Sin made it to the sub $10 price point.

I have so much other stuff to play and *shock* other hobbies that I am in no rush to go out and play some release right away.
 
Like so many others are saying, there are very few games I USED to buy at release. Total War, Civilization, Xcom... maybe FFs...

Now I don't buy at release. What are you really paying a premium for? Your impatience? So you get new articles daily about the game you're currently playing I guess... but that's just not enough when I can wait for real reviews (not the early release shills), patches to improve performance and I can lean on other ppls experiences to enhance my own if I choose to.

I just don't think it's worth it for $100, but I suppose the fans of the series will disagree.

Just remember folks, 50-80% of the early reviews and discussions will be bots.
 
I'm perfectly fine paying $60-$100 for a complete game. However, the second there is any microtransaction that willingness is entirely gone. There's very little chance Rockstar doesn't release a half finished game with tons of missing things just to squeeze more money out.
 
The game market has changed a lot since the last GTA game came; ever increasing numbers of people are playing relatively cheap or free to play multiple player games that then get a steady stream of people buying cosmetics or even pay to win items constantly through the game - Fortnite, Genshin Impact, half the games on the Steam top ten list right now, and so on. For that matter, even the last GTA game followed that model to a degree; I am pretty sure Rockstar made more money from selling in-game currency for GTA 5's online mode than they made from selling the game itself. So for Rockstar, keeping the initial price at $70, or maybe even lower, to draw more players in, might very well be the more profitable path.
 
I'm not necessarily against a price increase, I'm against MTX, pay to win, ads and always online DRM.

I think this decision will be made for me, Rockstar has said no to Linux. There are enough games on Linux now that I look at games that don't support it as "console exclusives".

I've had enough of industry shenanigans. They either support my way of playing or they don't get my money.

Aside from that, I want to pay $1/hr for gameplay. Anything after that is a bonus. I got almost 700 hours out of GTA5. If I can get that kind of experience from I game I guess I'm willing to pay $100 for it. Heck, I can spend $100 in a night out with some friends and that lasts 5-6 hours if I'm lucky and usually comes with a hang over that lasts most of the next day.
 
Let’s face it: Even if GTA VI is priced at $100, $150, or even $200, it’s still going to break sales records. Now, I’m not saying game prices should be raised; I’m just pointing out that hoping for something like this feels calculative and cunning. But sadly, given the record-breaking sales history of the series, nothing will stop its success. Pricing it higher than usual is definitely going to set a precedent.
 
You know, I first though it was very expensive, but then I started looking at games from the GTA III era and their MSRP.
GTA III was $50 in 2001 -> about $89 today.
GTA VC was $60 in 2002-> about $102 today.
GTA SA was about $50 in 2004 -> $84 dollars today.
Wouldn't be surprised to see GTA VI sell for $85.
 
Last edited:
Kinda stating the obvious. GTA 5's 2013 $60 price tag equals to $81 today. And this is just inflation alone. So that's the bare minimum I'd say. And we still have almost a whole year until launch.

Feel free to rage as much as you want. That's how money works.
 
Kinda stating the obvious. GTA 5's 2013 $60 price tag equals to $81 today. And this is just inflation alone. So that's the bare minimum I'd say. And we still have almost a whole year until launch.

Feel free to rage as much as you want. That's how money works.
Sure inflation has devalued the currency, but prices do not change equally for every sort of good. "Luxury" goods like video games have a harder time raising their prices than food or healthcare. Any new video game coming out is facing ever increasing competition from older discounted games & newer free-to-play titles. Now, GTA 6 might have enough of a hype train going to push its price well past the $70 mark, but it will probably be the once a console generation exception to the rule; other AAA game makers will probably not fare anywhere near as well trying to move up prices.
 
Actually, Rockstar could very comfortably do the opposite and go free to play. Not that they would mind you, but simply saying that they *could* go free to play.

Remember all of the microtransactions and subscription money: GTA VI will probably have at least the same as current online which is:

1) Pay Microsoft or Sony to actually play online (Again, statistically most users pay for their online portion still, even if it comes with 'free games' and whatnot now)
2) Pay probably 60-70 USD for the game upfront, likely 100 if this guy would have his way
3) Play the online portion but get immediately disrupted in making any online progress since most money-making opportunities force you into PvP lobbies
4) As the most likely result of step 3, end up paying Rockstar some Real-Life money for a portion of in-game money so you can actually get enough of the good stuff to be able to play online PvP at all
5) Even after all of this, Rockstar *STILL WANTS A SPECIAL MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION* so you'll get 'early access' to new vehicles, weapons and such from DLC. No this doesn't means you get the items, you just get to use in-game money earlier than most but still need steps 3-4 which means many players literally already paid money on top of the monthly fee they want.

So you *really* think it's fair that you want people to pay 100 USD upfront knowing well that much like GTA v/Online now it will be monetized into every single penny you can possibly afford for the stupid game? Is there no limit to the amount these clown analysts want users to pay or do they want GTA 6 to be the first massive failure for Rockstar in the franchise?
 
On the contrary - OK, let'em have it, 100$ for GTAIV, the biggest, most ambitious rockstar's project, if made with GTA V fun and RDR2 passion, sounds fair.

What exactly makes them (gamedev ind.) think ppl will spend 0.01$ on any other game AT ALL? If entire ppl's budget went for another GTA part?..
 
I wait for steam sales, when products that normally sell for, say, $49 sell for $19.

Pipe dream to pay full retail, especially at these prices!

Wouldn't surprise me to see that they were factoring in "discounted" prices into the official retail prices. That way even when it's discounted they're still selling it much higher than previously.

I was never one for video games ever. I had a copy of "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" back on my 386SX system, that's about it. These days I'm dabbling with an original (long board) Commodore64. Eventually I'll set up a RetroPie system to play Super Robot Wars
 
I'll pass on this game no matter the price most likely. But $100 games means I'll just buy less of them. Hell I've gotten where I just about wait for a sale for all games now. No one is really stepping out of their comfort zone with development these days. It's been a ton of rehashed crap for a while.
 
GTA 5 was too expensive for my taste and I was gifted the game. I thought it was an awful game. If I were even a fan on this series, there is no way in hell I'd ever pay that much for a game.

I struggle with the idea of paying over $20 for a game. I'm generally a couple years behind game releases because I'm not dishing out lumps of money for unfinished games. I have lots of other games to play and I can pick up copies of what were once new games, a year or two later, for a fraction of the price.
 
I mean, I was never going to buy it until the price got below £40 anyway. They can price it as high as they want, I'm not buying it until it's on sale in a couple of years time.

This. I've never paid full price since my hardcore gaming days in the 2000s. I'm like who the hell pays full price for games these days? Baldur's Gate 3 is still on my Wishlist. Won't touch it till it drops to ~$30. Cheapshark tracker says lowest price was $48, and that's fine. We all have backlogs of games anyways. lol
 
I didn't buy GTA V on Pc until 2019 when I found it for $20, since I dont do multiplayer no real effect on me, I also didnt buy RDR2 until 2022 for the same reason. Heck I didn't buy Civ VI complete until it went on sale this past summer for $14, Civ V was fine for me, I still don't have AC Odessey because I don't want to pay the price.
 
This. I've never paid full price since my hardcore gaming days in the 2000s. I'm like who the hell pays full price for games these days? Baldur's Gate 3 is still on my Wishlist. Won't touch it till it drops to ~$30. Cheapshark tracker says lowest price was $48, and that's fine. We all have backlogs of games anyways. lol
I'm with you on that however... Baldur's Gate 3 was a bad example, that game actually deserves its full price. I get why they aren't making any DLC, but I would gladly hand over decent cash for them to make more, it was that good.

I could list a mountain of games that I'm glad I never paid full price for, BG3 is probably the only one in recent memory I wish I had!
 
Back