The Outer Worlds 2 Price Slashed to $69.99 Due to "Market Conditions" Microsoft Offers $10 Pre-Order Refunds

[Cpt.Jank]

The Outer Worlds 2 is slated to launch on October 29, and originally, the RPG was meant to cost $79.99. Now, though, Microsoft has walked that back, with The Outer Worlds becoming the first Xbox Game Studios game to walk back the $80 price paradigm. The new pricing was announced by Obsidian on X and in a statement to IGN, when a Microsoft representative said that "We're focused on bringing players incredible worlds to explore, and will keep our full priced holiday releases, including The Outer Worlds 2, at $69.99 - in line with current market conditions." This statement confirms that Microsoft will not follow Nintendo down the $80 AAA price strategy for the time being, but as PC and console game prices continue to creep up, it's likely that Microsoft will revisit the $80 AAA game. Xbox Game Studios will be issuing $10 refunds for those who have already pre-ordered The Outer Worlds 2 via the platform they ordered it on.

It's unclear exactly which "market conditions" prompted the price change, but there was a fair amount of backlash to the initial pricing when the $80 pricing was revealed. Current speculation suggests that the price change likely came as a result of a combination of stiff competition in the form of games like Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, which largely fill the same sci-fi choices-matter niche and slow pre-orders for The Outer Worlds. The community response to the announcement has largely been a mix of positivity and cynicism, with some fans criticizing the move as a manipulative marketing tactic more than a genuine attempt to win over gamers.


View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[b1k3rdude]

ehhh thats £52 in real money, which is still too privecy imho..

 

[Onasi]

Still hilariously expensive. Remember the immortal wisdom of Guybrush Threepwood - never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.

 

[dj-electric]

Still hilariously expensive. Remember the immortal wisdom of Guybrush Threepwood - never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.

 

[Onasi]

View attachment 409057

Don’t care, 20 bucks is 20 bucks. Not like the games we are buying haven’t gotten cheaper than ever in terms of what you are getting - you weren’t just buying an infinitely replicable digital key for a download in the 90s either.

 

[Wasteland]

Don’t care, 20 bucks is 20 bucks. Not like the games we are buying haven’t gotten cheaper than ever in terms of what you are getting - you weren’t just buying an infinitely replicable digital key for a download in the 90s either.

Yeah, new titles back then also weren't competing in a market where the average consumer has near-instantaneous access, without leaving his chair, to tens of thousands of cheap games. The inflation argument is severely overplayed on this forum; inflation mainly measures the rising cost of commodities and necessities, against which luxury goods compete for the consumer's shrinking dollar. Always worth remembering that wages in most first world countries have been largely stagnant for the last half century.

There is no universe in which the gaming industry could have survived if they'd indexed their pricing to inflation over the last 40 years. Instead they've survived through a combination of expanding their audience, aggressive marketing (FOMO), and playing cutesy games with post-release monetization schemes, the latter with mixed results. As things stand now, the AAA business model looks unsustainable. The "wow factor" strategy has crashed into a wall of diminished returns. Spending half a billion dollars in the hope that 10% better visuals, or an even bigger open world, will turn your otherwise paint-by-the-numbers video game into a mega-hit is the investment equivalent of playing Russian Roulette.

One might even dare hope that game play innovation might return as a prominent selling point. lol, nah, just kidding.

In the case of Outer Worlds 2, this convo seems even sillier, because this isn't a AAA franchise, nor has Obsidian ever been a AAA studio. I'd be surprised if Microsoft even expects most players to buy the game at full price; they're looking to juice their subscription numbers.

 

[AsRock]

Don’t care, 20 bucks is 20 bucks. Not like the games we are buying haven’t gotten cheaper than ever in terms of what you are getting - you weren’t just buying an infinitely replicable digital key for a download in the 90s either.

And now in most cases you don't own them, were you did in the 90's.

And all this we want to control what you do with a server and shut it down when they please which i think a lot know would happen and they should just give us our dedi servers back.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Yeah, games today have a lot more options during play—often too much, IMO, but it all depends on what happens when the game falls out of favor. You can dump a lot of money into a game today and lose much of it tomorrow when servers shut down (or the devs nerf something). You might get more play time per dollar now, but you also have to realize that much of that is temporary. Sadly, many are okay with this, or it wouldn’t be SOP for many studios and titles.

 

[A&P211]

At what price did the 1st The Outer Worlds came out at?
It cant be full price, 49.99, the 1st The Outer Worlds was fun but I beat it in under 20hrs, maybe 18.

 

[nguyen]

If the game play like the first one I wouldn't pay more than 30usd LOL

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Yeah, games today have a lot more options during play—often too much, IMO, but it all depends on what happens when the game falls out of favor. You can dump a lot of money into a game today and lose much of it tomorrow when servers shut down (or the devs nerf something). You might get more play time per dollar now, but you also have to realize that much of that is temporary. Sadly, many are okay with this, or it wouldn’t be SOP for many studios and titles.

Modern games are as wide as the ocean and as deep as a puppy's piss puddle.

In the rush to appeal to as many people as possible they have sandblasted any identity their games once had, to the point that a competent game like Baulders Gate 3 feels like the second coming of the Messiah.

If the game play like the first one I wouldn't pay more than 30usd LOL

Yeah, the first one was really disappointing in how shallow the story choices and character actions were. It holds nothing on New Vegas as an example. If you're gonna go full capitalist/anarcocapitalist/anticapitalist with your characters, have their actions actually mean something in the game world.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Learned my lesson eons ago not to pre-purchase games, anyone who does it now is going to be disappointed.

 

[R-T-B]

Don’t care, 20 bucks is 20 bucks. Not like the games we are buying haven’t gotten cheaper than ever in terms of what you are getting - you weren’t just buying an infinitely replicable digital key for a download in the 90s either.

And the effort and manpower to produce a 90s game was far less too.

There are two sides to this coin, unfortunately.

And now in most cases you don't own them, were you did in the 90's.

Almost all games have been licensed products since the early 80s, the measures of enforcing that have just become more draconian.

 

[Apocalypsee]

Why people still pre-order games like they are sold in physical media and can be sold out?

I don't have much hope in this as the original games is mid at most, it has its moments but nothing groundbreaking, yes you can travel between worlds, but the map itself is small and feel constrained. If not for some interesting companion quest this would be underwhelming. I still didn't finish the game as how dull I feel every time I play it.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Why people still pre-order games like they are sold in physical media and can be sold out?

I don't have much hope in this as the original games is mid at most, it has its moments but nothing groundbreaking, yes you can travel between worlds, but the map itself is small and feel constrained. If not for some interesting companion quest this would be underwhelming. I still didn't finish the game as how dull I feel every time I play it.

So...I have a follow-up. I'm asking because I think the answer defines other things.

Mass Effect. It had a bunch of worlds in 1 and 2. In 1 you drove a "tank" and could get out, but it was basically one square tile to represent a planet, with 99% not mattering. In ME2 you lost that, and planets became targets for excavator probes. Which was better? More freedom that was very finite, less freedom that didn't pretend to be open, or did both rub you the wrong way?

I played the crap out of ME1. I stood in line for the midnight release of 2...and hated the Cerberus network on disc DLC/DRM. I made a moral stance against EA on 3...and got to watch them cap their series with what they explicitly promised wouldn't happen...a three color choice ending. That still leaves the varying silliness of exploration and planets a point of discussion...and for the love of god let's not talk Starfield.



I think the second game is going to be MS slop intended for all and making nobody happy. That said, "market forces" is code for the fact that they thought the Nintendo upcharge would go down, but the market said no. Finally, a win.

 

[AsRock]

And the effort and manpower to produce a 90s game was far less too.

There are two sides to this coin, unfortunately.


Almost all games have been licensed products since the early 80s, the measures of enforcing that have just become more draconian.

But you don't own them at all now.

And the effort and manpower to produce a 90s game was far less too.

There are two sides to this coin, unfortunately.


Almost all games have been licensed products since the early 80s, the measures of enforcing that have just become more draconian.

If i had my specrums and my atari's and the games still i would today be able to play them when i want. Today there is a good chance of even a single player game needing to be online and the servers ( which they bitch about cost (their fault )) and need to sign into some crap to even play them.

People will catch on a piracy will pick up because people just getting tired of there BS, a lot avoid this by waiting for a price drop. Even more so today as what they push is trash for the most part.

Most with common sense and value for money will wait.

 

[R-T-B]

If i had my specrums and my atari's and the games still i would today be able to play them when i want. T

That's all well and dandy but it doesn't mean you "own them." You can't literally go and sell the IP as your own. You try and market a mario game because you own a Nintendo cart, marios gonna kick yo ass.

I know no one means it that way anymore, but legally there is a difference.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Modern games are as wide as the ocean and as deep as a puppy's piss puddle.

In the rush to appeal to as many people as possible they have sandblasted any identity their games once had, to the point that a competent game like Baulders Gate 3 feels like the second coming of the Messiah.


Yeah, the first one was really disappointing in how shallow the story choices and character actions were. It holds nothing on New Vegas as an example. If you're gonna go full capitalist/anarcocapitalist/anticapitalist with your characters, have their actions actually mean something in the game world.

Not going to argue with that, and it’s part of why I’ve essentially retired from gaming. I tried to get back into it, but I don’t find the games as engaging with all these non-essential side quest errands that feel more like work than entertainment. I guess that’s the price we pay for a wide open world—if the devs don’t make some random quest to take you somewhere, you just might miss it. Anyway, it just doesn’t do it for me anymore, and I just don’t see the value in dumping money into it anymore.

 

[Bomby569]

View attachment 409057

a videogame is not a potato, you make one potato and sell one potato, you make a videogame and sell millions, inflation doesn't effect copying something over and over. Costs went up but not they are selling 1000x times more.

 

[dj-electric]

a videogame is not a potato, you make one potato and sell one potato, you make a videogame and sell millions, inflation doesn't effect copying something over and over. Costs went up but not they are selling 1000x times more.

Living costs, salaries, developing costs, developing length, feature scope, assets, rights, publishing costs and publisher cut - things have gotten a lot more expensive. It doesnt matter if you're an indie single dev or a 500 man studio.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

a videogame is not a potato, you make one potato and sell one potato, you make a videogame and sell millions, inflation doesn't effect copying something over and over. Costs went up but not they are selling 1000x times more.

all small studio indie games are potatoes. How many copies are sold depend on the quality of the marketing if any at all.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Living costs, salaries, developing costs, developing length, feature scope, assets, rights, publishing costs and publisher cut - things have gotten a lot more expensive. It doesnt matter if you're an indie single dev or a 500 man studio.

Game companies are making record profits year over year. Costs no longer scale with success.

The extreme costs today are the result of massive bloat, overpaid celebrity voice actors, and tens of millions wasted on "consultants" who do nothing but make the product worse.

 

[Onasi]

The extreme costs today are the result of massive bloat, overpaid celebrity voice actors, and tens of millions wasted on "consultants" who do nothing but make the product worse.

Basically this. I think it was mentioned earlier that the games are more difficult and expensive to make today - that’s not actually the case. The amount of ready-made tools and off-the-shelf engines that are available to modern developers is staggering compared to, say, the 90s where everything essentially had to be bespoke and created from scratch. The expenses that the industry cites are mostly entirely self-inflicted - there really isn’t a reason for every game to be a cutting edge ray-traced 8K textured extravaganza with assets that have more polygons than entire games a decade ago, cinematic music recorded in the Sistine chapel by an orchestra of 500 people and voice acting by Jeff Goldblum and Jesus. In fact, more often than not it comes at the expense of the game actually being fun. And then there’s the bloat - recently among all the Microsoft layoffs there were 200 people fired from King and all I can think is “You need MORE than 200 people to work on fucking Candy Crush? That’s half a Larian and that was making BG3”.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Basically this. I think it was mentioned earlier that the games are more difficult and expensive to make today - that’s not actually the case. The amount of ready-made tools and off-the-shelf engines that are available to modern developers is staggering compared to, say, the 90s where everything essentially had to be bespoke and created from scratch. The expenses that the industry cites are mostly entirely self-inflicted - there really isn’t a reason for every game to be a cutting edge ray-traced 8K textured extravaganza with assets that have more polygons than entire games a decade ago, cinematic music recorded in the Sistine chapel by an orchestra of 500 people and voice acting by Jeff Goldblum and Jesus. In fact, more often than not it comes at the expense of the game actually being fun. And then there’s the bloat - recently among all the Microsoft layoffs there were 200 people fired from King and all I can think is “You need MORE than 200 people to work on fucking Candy Crush? That’s half a Larian and that was making BG3”.

Not only are the tools way better, but with digital distribution, you've removed all the cost and loss from maintaining physical media, and allowed for continuous sales of your game whenever interest peaks. The days of having to run new batches are long over.

The industry is also just plain huge. During the late 90s a game selling 1 million copies was a major achievement worthy of a special release and recognition. Now, you have games like GTA V selling 215 million copies over 12 years, more than the PlayStation, n64, and Saturn combined. A small game selling 2-300k units total is just another tuesday on steam. You can even sell the game yourself, through your own website, and totally cut out the cut most game stores take. A tiny indie made by 1 guy selling for $15 and selling 100k copies through their own website is a million bucks after taxes.

Of course, it isnt these studios that are raising prices and demanding more, it's the publishers like Ubisoft and Nintendo and Activision pushing for $70, 80, 90, 100 games, because making $12.9 BILLION on the sales of GTA V and another $6+ billion on microtransactions for GTA online just isnt enough for poor ole rockstar to maintain a studio. Poor little nintendo is just hurting so much, after making over $6 billion in revenue off of mario kart 8.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

having a look at public financial reports would show profit margins, but im guessing most of the publishers are making up to 50% profit.