The Madden 21 release date is August 25, 2020. In the finish from the trailer, EA Sports says the game is offered then, which adds up for the reason that video games are commonly released on Tuesdays. However, for those who have EA Access, Origin Access, or Origin Access Premier, then you can play three days earlier on August 22, 2020.
For a long time, the topic of whether or not the price of 3A games should increase has never stopped. For developers, the soaring production cost is the most direct reason for the price increase. It is difficult to obtain a reciprocal return just by selling the game itself for $60. Development costs have risen, and games are more expensive, which seems reasonable, but whether players and the market can buy it is another problem. Now Maden21coins shares with you Should 3A games go up in price-on the upcoming PS5 and Xbox Series X new consoles. Maden21coins as an expert Madden 21 Coins website delivers protected, rapidly, and inexpensive Coins for you.
$60, a pricing habit that has lasted for 14 years
Video games are not set at 60 dollars from the very beginning.
As early as the 1990s, the price of games in North America, Japan, and other regions was more random. For example, on early consoles such as SFC, you would see both a price tag of $40 and an example of up to $100.
Of course, the high price of games at that time was also related to the storage carrier of the cassette. This part of the physical cost is often passed on to the publisher, and it is naturally difficult to compromise on pricing.
It was not until later that cheaper CD media appeared that the price of 3A games gradually stabilized in the range of US$40 to US$50.
However, this pricing did not last long. In 2006, when electronic games moved from standard to high-definition era, development costs increased sharply again, and 3A games on PS3 and Xbox 360 were unified to US$59.99. This was also the first obvious “price increase” for video games, but it also indirectly contributed to the establishment of 3A game pricing standards.
In the 14 years since then, large game companies such as EA, Ubisoft, and Activision have cooperated to set the price of games at this number and did not intend to break it.
And players have gradually equated 3A games with 60 dollars and regarded it as a habit.
However, many factors exist objectively, and game companies have never given up the idea of "price increase".
One is the problem of inflation. Some analysts believe that if games that were priced at $60 in 2005 are added to the inflation rate conversion, their prices today should be around $76 to $78. But now the game price not only has not exceeded the inflation rate but is also significantly lower than the benchmark level, which is obviously not reasonable.
As for development costs, it is another common topic.
Someone might say that technology is developing so fast, doesn't the game industry have a way to reduce costs? Indeed, for example, some game engines have provided mature development templates, and assembly line professionals like Ubisoft are also trying to use AI to fill open-world map data, indirectly liberating designers' hands.
Even so, the overall cost of 3A games is still in a state of making ends meet, and some top games have even become as large as Hollywood blockbusters. They cost hundreds of millions of dollars, require a team of two to three hundred people, and take several years to see results. They belong to a real "high investment, high risk, and high return" industry.
IDG Consulting, a game research organization, also made an analogy. In 2005, EA developed a 3A game like Madden Rugby, which only cost US$25 to US$35 million.
But by 2020, the development of the same type of game requires an investment of US$75 million to US$100 million, the cost has doubled or three times, the development time is longer, and may not include the investment in advertising and marketing.
Under such costs, game companies can only hope that higher sales volume can make up for development costs.
This is why, a few years ago, a 3A game only sold one million copies, and you could send good news to brag about it. Now, even if it has sold seven or eight million copies, it is for some big-produced games. It's just that I just reached the "pass line".
What's more, you can't guarantee that you can sell well in every generation. The risk of "sales violent death" exists at any time.
At this point, the balance of $60 has gradually been broken. Everyone knows that if you really want to maintain a profit under the existing price system, sales alone will not work, and game companies can only find other ways.
The standard price is just a "mask", and now players pay a lot of money
Soon, new profit models such as DLC, expansion packs, season tickets, and battle passes have arrived one after another, as well as the common krypton gold out of the box in mobile games. These continuous payments have quickly penetrated into major platforms in the past two or three years. It is also an example of the pursuit of "long-term revenue" by game companies.
People didn't dislike it at first. After all, many players also know that game company want to make money, and adding "paid content" outside of the game itself is a "curve to save the country".
I really don’t like it, just don’t buy it. You can still spend only $60 honestly to play the content that should be enjoyed most.
But game companies don’t want you to maintain your past buying habits.
Selling DLC has become a very attractive business. After all, game companies can directly sell them on digital platforms, so that they do not need to consider the issues of sharing, physical production and transportation, and then obtain more abundant profits than selling ontology.
In order to increase the purchase rate of DLC, some manufacturers simply cut out part of the game content and then sell it again. This practice has become more and more popular.
Otherwise, when the game is released, it will promote the updated plan for the next one or two years, allowing you to pay in advance, which feels like buying an annual membership service in advance.
Therefore, some of the large-scale games that you see now at $60 were not complete when they were released: part of the plot has been moved to the DLC, and those advertised as "small content outside the main game" are gradually becoming the same as the main game. Important product.
Some games will also have "Deluxe Edition", "Gold Edition" and other versions that include expansion packs, soundtracks, or tin box packaging when they are launched. The price ranges from $70 to $100. Maybe they are games The "ideal price" in the company's mind.
In the end, it seems that the game itself is still maintained at $60, but if you count the extra inputs such as DLC and expansion packs, the money players paid for a single game has already exceeded this number.
Players will express their dissatisfaction with the new price of $70, mainly because of the existence of these "extra-charged content".
After all, even if the cost rises and the price of the game itself remains unchanged, players are still paying for DLC and in-app purchase mechanisms, and game companies benefit from this. The original standard of "Buying at a Buy It Now" is nothing more than an unopened "cover".
More importantly, at the moment when $60 is linked to 3A games, many players have set an expectation from the psychological level to determine the experience they might get.
It's like you can expect to spend $7000, you can buy a flagship Android machine with no shortcomings, and you can expect to spend $9000 to get a mid-to-high-end gaming notebook, 60 US dollars can also be regarded as a 3A game Once the "psychological affordability" is exceeded, players should demand more.
But for 70 dollars, can you really get more substantial content than the "60 dollars standard", or less DLC and in-app purchase items? This is what the manufacturer needs to convince the players. If it is just because the picture is better and the light chasing technology is added, people will obviously not willingly pay the extra $10.
But if there is a price increase, the game company can please, probably only the part of the player group that recognizes it, and the specific chain reaction will be more like a process that requires experimentation.
A few days ago, Shawn Layden, the former president of SIE in charge of Sony's game business, also said that the current price of 3A games does require "some flexibility", but it does not mean that game companies should invest endlessly in costs.
He prefers to see more 3A games return to the scale of 12 to 15 hours, instead of always spending 5 years to develop an 80-hour heavy work:
Just like a carefully polished literary work or film, we can make the content more compact, but also more attractive.
Indeed, not all games have to pursue realistic graphics or nearly unlimited game content. There are also many excellent small and medium-sized works in the industry that are purely narrative and do not have a multiplayer mode and post-paid design. The size is small, but the victory is that the completion is high enough, and it can still be recognized by the market.
For players, it is not a sufficient experience to be able to calm down and complete the game in a short weekend.