Skyrim and Fallout 4 designer warns raising game prices beyond $70 could backfire

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 1,913   +58
Staff
Sounding off: Big-budget game prices have finally started to move after a decade and a half of stasis, but one of the designers behind Skyrim and Fallout 4 thinks publishers are close to hitting a ceiling that players will not tolerate. Bruce Nesmith says the jump from a standard launch price of about $60 to $70 for most console and PC releases was understandable after so long without any change. But he warned that attempts to push flagship games beyond that point, including a potential $100 price tag for Grand Theft Auto 6, risk alienating consumers sensitive to perceived value.

Nesmith, a veteran designer whose career stretches from early Apple II titles to leading work on Bethesda's open-world RPGs, noted in a recent interview that for roughly 15 years, a full-price boxed or digital release held at $59.95 in the United States, with no adjustments for inflation or rising development costs.

Nesmith said he does not fault publishers for finally raising prices after that long freeze, but he argued there is a psychological threshold where the number on the box or store page overwhelms any more nuanced calculation of how many hours of content a game offers.

There is a long-standing rule of thumb among some players that a game should deliver a certain number of hours of play for every dollar spent. Nesmith said he does not believe most consumers actually track "hours per dollar" once a game clears a certain content threshold, and instead react viscerally to sticker shock when a price feels too high, describing the effect as an immediate hit "in the jaw."

In other words, the decision not to buy can be triggered before a player even considers game length, replayability, or post-launch updates.

That sensitivity is especially important, he suggested, because the core audience has become more dedicated and self-aware. Nesmith described gamers as a "special breed" whose spending patterns swing between extremes: some will invest extraordinary sums into their hobby, but the same group is quick to label a release as a rip-off if they believe the price does not line up with what is on offer.

In his view, studios "would be wise to not push the prices higher" in an environment where social media and community forums can rapidly crystallize a negative narrative around value.

The pricing debate is not just theoretical for the next wave of prestige RPGs. Nesmith said that when The Elder Scrolls 6 eventually ships, Bethesda is likely to align it with whatever is considered the "industry standard" price for top-tier games at that time, rather than setting a radically different figure.

He suggested that if consumers have broadly accepted $79.95 for premium releases, that is the level The Elder Scrolls 6 will target; if the audience is comfortable paying $99.95 by then, it will follow that standard instead.

Nesmith also pointed out that Microsoft will have significant influence over how the game is priced and positioned, given Bethesda's ownership structure and the platform holder's broader strategy.

The Elder Scrolls 6 is expected to be part of Xbox Game Pass, which introduces another layer to the economics: subscription access could soften the impact of a higher nominal retail price for some players, yet it may also make the list price feel more aggressive to those who prefer direct purchases.

The Elder Scrolls 6 remains in full production at Bethesda Game Studios and does not have a release date; Bethesda's Todd Howard has indicated that it will not arrive before Grand Theft Auto 6, pointing to 2027 at the earliest.

While the industry debates whether $70 is a ceiling or a stepping stone toward higher prices, several recent releases have shown that lower upfront costs can still support ambitious projects. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 launched at about $40 and went on to become one of the year's biggest titles, suggesting that a mid-tier price does not preclude broad reach or cultural impact.

Arc Raiders, another game introduced at the same $40 level, has already generated more than six times its development budget.

Helldivers 2, also priced at $40, underscores how a lower base price can intersect with live-service design and cooperative play to drive volume. The game has sold more than 20 million copies, with over 13 million players on PC alone, numbers that many $70 titles fail to reach.

Permalink to story:

 
It seems fairly obvious that there will always be a subset of people that buy AAA games on release, no questions asked. No amount of crappy releases, broken promises or otherwise with dissuade them. It might be because they only buy games once every X years, don't follow the industry and forget about the "issues" when they next come to purchase, which might explain their buying patterns. As a long time PC gamer, I know that if I wait 12-18months, I can buy a game a approx. 50% off and have it patched for the significant bugs and glitches and provide a better experience than if I got it at launch, as I might even get all the DLC, too. Since publishers push developers to release games before they might be considered "gold", it makes sense for buyers to push back and wait for the patches and optimisations.

Very few games need to put in hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a "good" game. I seems studios get lost in development hell, chasing an ever growing list of features, trying to appeases shareholders and the "gaming community", while somehow failing to appeases the gaming community. Ubisoft is a great example of a decade of this behaviour. Bethesda isn't too far behind. It really seems like you need a small budget game, or a GTA 6 budget game, and there can only be one or two GTA6's every decade.
 
Vote with your wallet !!!

Companies only get away with ridiculous price, because people buy it.

"Skyrim and Fallout 4 designer warns raising game prices beyond $70 could backfire"

Why not mention their latest installment Starfield, or is everyone trying forget it was ever made.

Starfield Edition Pricing (Launch):
 
Last edited:
He's probably right but as a gamer I'm embarrassed for what we're collectively holding the line for. Given how much more expensive everything else is, $80 today for what used to cost $60 fifteen years ago shouldn't be the deal breaker. And it's kind of a ridiculous thing to make a stand over while simultaneously being all too tolerant of a complete change in game direction from the "in the box" experience being as fun and long-lived as possible, to the "live service" model where it's about drawing every single gameplay aspect out until it's like day-old chewing gum, all in the service of getting you to buy expensive "dlc" that is just a few more textures or qol conveniences.

That said what I am clear about is that more money for less fun is definitely a deal breaker and seems to be where the industry is headed.
 
He's probably right but as a gamer I'm embarrassed for what we're collectively holding the line for. Given how much more expensive everything else is, $80 today for what used to cost $60 fifteen years ago shouldn't be the deal breaker. And it's kind of a ridiculous thing to make a stand over while simultaneously being all too tolerant of a complete change in game direction from the "in the box" experience being as fun and long-lived as possible, to the "live service" model where it's about drawing every single gameplay aspect out until it's like day-old chewing gum, all in the service of getting you to buy expensive "dlc" that is just a few more textures or qol conveniences.

That said what I am clear about is that more money for less fun is definitely a deal breaker and seems to be where the industry is headed.
It's ridiculous that we are one of the few consumer groups willing to oppose price increases you mean. And I'd agree. Other consumers need to grow a backbone and refuse to pay ridiculous prices.

Remember, these corpos are making record profits. They dont need to raise prices for "muh inflation". They do it for greed.
 
Vote with your wallet !!!

Companies only get away with ridiculous price, because people buy it.

"Skyrim and Fallout 4 designer warns raising game prices beyond $70 could backfire"

Why not mention their latest installment Starfield, or is everyone trying forget it was ever made.

Starfield Edition Pricing (Launch):
Simple, Starfield was so boring that even the developers forgot it existed.
 
Good. I hope the AAA slop publishers start realizing that they can't waste a bunch of money to make games while feeling entitled to their customer's money. They actually have to cater to gamers and care about the product in one way or another. Maybe even start hiring only people that have a passion for making games...

And considering the return per copy sold has gone way up since physical became dirt cheap, then the jump to digital, it's not like their cut of the profits hasn't gone up over the years.
Of course, this isn't even taking into account low-effort microtransactions on top of a AAA game price that gamers are tired of...
 
I don't even consider a game any more until it drops below $30. I don't need to play the latest thing, and there is plenty of other stuff out there to keep me entertained. I have hundreds of hours in Forza Horizon 4 and FH6 is on my wishlist, but I'm not even thinking about spending $70 to preorder the base game to play in May, let alone $120 for the Premium Edition. I'll just continue with FH4, Burnout Paradise, Crew 2, Grid Legends, various NFS,and other racing games I own.
 
I already refuse to spend 70 on a new game.The game has to be REALLY good for me to do that. If they go up to 80.. lol. Means they will wait for my 50-60 bucks even longer. Sales are slowly lowering prices after all. Going from 70 to 60 is kind of fast. Going from 80 to 60 is not. If they ever make games 90, that would probably take more than 2 years. Some companies refuse to discount games a ton too. It takes up to 10 years for them. I can give examples of games and companies.
 
Pay how much you want, just don’t forget the most important thing:

You’re “licensing” the copy of the game for a limited period of time - not buying the game, you don’t even not obtain the copy of it unless its GOG and gog only. Even Steam can cease your access to something you “bought” any moment - and that would not be some ban but game become “legacyware” or publisher demand.
 
Already. But I still feel like we are going around the biggest issue. Games are too bad even at 60 dollars.
Quality went down tremendously in this decade. Art and creativity in gaming are clashing with politics and progressive ideology. There ca n be either one or another. People want distraction from real life problems. And it became much more important after 2019. The winners of this industry will be those who can create and keep their personal values away from their art.
 
Vote with your wallet !!!

Companies only get away with ridiculous price, because people buy it.

"Skyrim and Fallout 4 designer warns raising game prices beyond $70 could backfire"

Why not mention their latest installment Starfield, or is everyone trying forget it was ever made.

Starfield Edition Pricing (Launch):
Theres difference between a crap game as the accepted fair market value and companies trying to justify going outside that price point. No game is worth $100 imo. Not even GTA 6.
 
noted in a recent interview that for roughly 15 years, a full-price boxed or digital release held at $59.95 in the United States, with no adjustments for inflation or rising development costs.
So he agrees that publishers are making _way more_ money now?

Good. Because they do.

Inflation doesn't apply blindly to luxury goods (which videogames are, for an economist) and even more importantly, even when they are actually paying a 30% cut for digital games it's still way, WAY cheaper than manufacturing, storing, and shipping boxes all over the world through a number of intermediaries who all take a cut.

Not to mention to obvious, the size of the market exploded, and digital distribution cost are very close to zero. So while the first copy of a game might cost 10mil, all the next ones cost almost zero. Plus, no dead weight, no inventory. And with a much bigger market, there's a lot more of unit shifted.

Or the other obvious one, back in time the sticker price was the price of the game. Not the price of what's left after it was chopped up to be sold in DLC and macrotransactions, with 10 different "deluxe" editions. It's very easy to find games with a real price in the hundreds or thousands of dollar if you want all their content.

And of course, that 60 price was for console. On PC, if you did a slight bit of competitive research, big budget games the day of their release was more between 25 and 40€ (boxed version, with free shipping). And I did double check my old email to read the bills. The increase to 60 as a norm was much later, in good part thanks to Steam :(
 
Last edited:
It depends on the game really. £80 for ESVI as a single player RPG with 100’s of hours of story is a good deal, considering how cheap games have been vs inflation this price correction is overdue. £80 for a micro transaction laden yearly release like CoD or EAFC not so much.
 
It depends on the game really. £80 for ESVI as a single player RPG with 100’s of hours of story is a good deal, considering how cheap games have been vs inflation this price correction is overdue. £80 for a micro transaction laden yearly release like CoD or EAFC not so much.
The people who put 40+ hours a week into CoD multiplayer would laugh at you for thinking a broken buggy Bethesda sandbox with 100 hours of the same fetch quest is worth anything close to $80.

In reality none of these games are worth $80. Or $70. Or even $60 these days. They all pale to what we were getting 15 years ago.
So he agrees that publishers are making _way more_ money now?

Good. Because they do.

Inflation doesn't apply blindly to luxury goods (which videogames are, for an economist) and even more importantly, even when they are actually paying a 30% cut for digital games it's still way, WAY cheaper than manufacturing, storing, and shipping boxes all over the world through a number of intermediaries who all take a cut.

Not to mention to obvious, the size of the market exploded, and digital distribution cost are very close to zero. So while the first copy of a game might cost 10mil, all the next ones cost almost zero. Plus, no dead weight, no inventory. And with a much bigger market, there's a lot more of unit shifted.

Or the other obvious one, back in time the sticker price was the price of the game. Not the price of what's left after it was chopped up to be sold in DLC and macrotransactions, with 10 different "deluxe" editions. It's very easy to find games with a real price in the hundreds or thousands of dollar if you want all their content.

And of course, that 60 price was for console. On PC, if you did a slight bit of competitive research, big budget games the day of their release was more between 25 and 40€ (boxed version, with free shipping). And I did double check my old email to read the bills. The increase to 60 as a norm was much later, in good part thanks to Steam :(
Exactly. Digital distribution made games so much cheaper to sell, and allowed for legacy sales of games with little if any ongoing cost, compared to having to run more copies and ship them to stores. I'm also fairly confident in saying the 30% steam cut is comparable to the cost of printing copies, shipping to stores, the store's cut, and the cost of leftover inventory. So much as they whine about 30%, they've survived fine for 30+ years with even higher costs before.

In the PS2 era a "greatest hit" was one that sold a million copies. Now games that sell 3 million are seen as failures. Successful games like mario kart, GTA V, and minecraft are selling tens or hundreds of millions of copies! And that's before we get to the goldmine that is microtransactions and subscriptions and lootboxes.

There is so much friggin money in this industry, we should be getting the games for free.
 
The people who put 40+ hours a week into CoD multiplayer would laugh at you for thinking a broken buggy Bethesda sandbox with 100 hours of the same fetch quest is worth anything close to $80.
Aside from it’s not $80 for CoD it’s $80 plus a fee per season and more micro-transactions on-top of that.
In reality none of these games are worth $80. Or $70. Or even $60 these days. They all pale to what we were getting 15 years ago.
Exactly. Digital distribution made games so much cheaper to sell, and allowed for legacy sales of games with little if any ongoing cost, compared to having to run more copies and ship them to stores. I'm also fairly confident in saying the 30% steam cut is comparable to the cost of printing copies, shipping to stores, the store's cut, and the cost of leftover inventory. So much as they whine about 30%, they've survived fine for 30+ years with even higher costs before.

In the PS2 era a "greatest hit" was one that sold a million copies. Now games that sell 3 million are seen as failures. Successful games like mario kart, GTA V, and minecraft are selling tens or hundreds of millions of copies! And that's before we get to the goldmine that is microtransactions and subscriptions and lootboxes.

There is so much friggin money in this industry, we should be getting the games for free.
You seem to have rather large nostalgia googles. The PS1 had games at $50 in 1994, accounting for inflations that’s around $110. Budgets have also gone sky high which is why games have to sell more. GTA III has a $5 million budget vs GTA V being 250 million and VI being rumoured to be 4x that as a minimum. Ontop of that physical costs from discs have been replaced by server costs and support costs. Once you shipped the disc on PS2 that’s it, no more development the product is what it is. Now developers support games for years after even if it doesn’t have seasons or DLC.
 
Aside from it’s not $80 for CoD it’s $80 plus a fee per season and more micro-transactions on-top of that.
Way to miss the point buddy.
You seem to have rather large nostalgia googles. The PS1 had games at $50 in 1994, accounting for inflations that’s around $110. Budgets have also gone sky high which is why games have to sell more. GTA III has a $5 million budget vs GTA V being 250 million and VI being rumoured to be 4x that as a minimum. Ontop of that physical costs from discs have been replaced by server costs and support costs. Once you shipped the disc on PS2 that’s it, no more development the product is what it is. Now developers support games for years after even if it doesn’t have seasons or DLC.
Support costs are only high if you suck at making games. If modern developers had to develop for older consoles, they would go bankrupt because none of these people can make a game function out of the box.

Regardless, the price of old games reflected the cost of physically producing and shipping games. A very popular game would have to continue escalating costs to produce more copies. This is NOT true for digitally released games. Modern publishing houses are making record revenues, leaps and bounds higher then what they were making in the PS1 era. Runaway budgets and insane waste is the problem with the current industry, not price.

Since you brought up GTA V, GTA V has sold 225 million copies worldwide. Assuming all these copies were the standard edition, subtract the 30% digital store fee, and that gives you $9,450,000,000 in revenue. That is just shy of 9.5 BILLION dollars.

So not including the pre order copies, the special, deluxe, ece edition, and the billions printed from GTA V online over the last 13 years (another $3+ billion), GTA V made back almost 38 times its budget. You include those and GTA V made back 50 TIMES its budget. Rockstar could make a dozen GTA VIs and not run out of cash!

So what part of that is justifying a higher price, exactly? Are these poor wittle developers starving making a billion dollars every year? Awwww poor things! They need even MORE of our money to support their superyacht purchases!

The only worse choice you could have used to make this point is Minecraft.
 
Way to miss the point buddy.
Maybe you did? Because the point was that CoD isn’t $80 its effectively a $140 yearly subscription with a $80 deposit.
Support costs are only high if you suck at making games. If modern developers had to develop for older consoles, they would go bankrupt because none of these people can make a game function out of the box.
Not how game development works.
Regardless, the price of old games reflected the cost of physically producing and shipping games. A very popular game would have to continue escalating costs to produce more copies. This is NOT true for digitally released games. Modern publishing houses are making record revenues, leaps and bounds higher than what they were making in the PS1 era. Runaway budgets and insane waste is the problem with the current industry, not price.
Servers aren’t free, the disc and case costs like $0.25 each.

They’re making more money due to increased sales. Also revenue =\= profit.
Since you brought up GTA V, GTA V has sold 225 million copies worldwide. Assuming all these copies were the standard edition, subtract the 30% digital store fee, and that gives you $9,450,000,000 in revenue. That is just shy of 9.5 BILLION dollars.
Assuming they’re all full price and exclude bundles and exclude cross gen upgrades and then take away platform fees and tax sure. You also haven’t factored in the support costs and development after the initial launch. They’ve ported it to 2 additional console generations, PC and have made the enhanced edition for example.
So not including the pre order copies, the special, deluxe, ece edition, and the billions printed from GTA V online over the last 13 years (another $3+ billion), GTA V made back almost 38 times its budget. You include those and GTA V made back 50 TIMES its budget. Rockstar could make a dozen GTA VIs and not run out of cash!
The entire total revenue including all ancillaries is less than your first number.
So what part of that is justifying a higher price, exactly? Are these poor wittle developers starving making a billion dollars every year? Awwww poor things! They need even MORE of our money to support their superyacht purchases!
Again you’re not really looking at what’s actually being made. Also of 8.6bn revenue GTAV has reported to have made since release 30% goes to platforms so that’s down to around 6bn, now tax takes that down to at least 5bn then additional costs and development plus day to day running costs over the 13 year period lets be reasonable takes it down to 3.5bn and now you’ve sunk 2bn into GTAVI development and you’re down to 500 million profit
The only worse choice you could have used to make this point is Minecraft.
You not knowing how finances work doesn’t really factor into reality.
 
Back