Sections

EA reduces price of PS4 digital games by £3

Tuesday, 26th November 2013 09:32 GMT By Dave Cook

EA has reduced the cost of its full retail games on the PS4 store after gamers responded negatively to the £63 price-point slapped on the publisher’s titles Battlefield 4, FIFA 14 and Need for Speed: Rivals.

We reported on the high cost of EA’s PS4 games yesterday.

Eurogamer spotted that overnight, the games were discounted by a mere £3, bringing the cost down to £59.99. The same games cost £5 less on the Xbox One, store, with no reason given for the price difference.

It could have something to do with this partnership between EA and Microsoft, but it’s unclear.

Do you still think that this price is high for the convenience of digital? Let us know what you think on this matter below.

Latest

28 Comments

  1. Panthro

    Now take off another £30 and I consider there games good value.

    #1 1 year ago
  2. Hcw87

    Ofcourse it’s high, Digital means the publishers save a buttload of money by not having to manufacture discs/covers/leaflets. And it’s good for mother earth.

    Having digital priced the same as physical can never be justified.

    #2 1 year ago
  3. DiodeX

    wow, I would not pay that for digital, absolute daylight robbery!
    PSN was always over priced (not counting PS+)
    Digigames should be at least £10/$15 cheaper than retail.

    #3 1 year ago
  4. Xbone

    I bought my BF4 for 30 euros for PC.

    #4 1 year ago
  5. KineticCalvaria

    Keep complaining, we’ll get it down further, it’s really not good enough EA.

    Looks like EA really want to hold on to that worst company in America award :-).

    #5 1 year ago
  6. TheBlackHole

    “Digigames should be at least £10/$15 cheaper than retail.”

    How do you figure that?

    #6 1 year ago
  7. Fin

    The reason digital console games cost so much is to keep retail happy.

    Lower the cost to what it should be (say £35 for NG maybe?) and specialist physical retail would die off. Not a problem for people like us, but it would impact overall game sales if people weren’t able to walk into their GAME/HMV/whatever and pick up games.

    @6

    Physical retail takes the bulk (30%+ I think?) of game sticker price.

    #7 1 year ago
  8. WaspHUN

    #7: Fun fact… on PC, digital is usually more expensive than retail, especially here in Central Europe.

    For example:
    X Rebirth on Steam: 49,99 € / Retail 26,85 €
    COD Ghosts on Steam: 59,99 € / Retail 38,5 €
    AC4 on Steam 49,99 € / Retail 31,5 €

    But yeah… They’re other digital distributors than Steam on PC. Those are usually cheaper too.

    #8 1 year ago
  9. deadstoned

    Try harder EA your prices on all digital shops are ridculous including Origins. £44.99 for something I can buy in the shops for £29? Stop wasting peoples time.

    #9 1 year ago
  10. The_Stripe

    Pure insult to gamers this!! Buying music or movies digitally is either the same price or lower than buying on disc, how long are we going to let greedy publishers milk us for every penny they can get? everyone should bombard these greedy publishers with emails expressing their disgust at being treated as fools…….ENOUGH!!!

    #10 1 year ago
  11. DrDamn

    @6
    Digital means no onward sales too – so again better for the publisher/dev as they don’t get money for second hand sales.

    If digital prices were sensible £30-£40 I’d be buying 3 or 4 digital titles straight off the bat with the PS4. As they are? I’m not buying any. I’m getting Knack cheap (<£30) at retail and I'll sell it on when I'm done so they lose more in second hand sales.

    #11 1 year ago
  12. tenthousandgothsonacid

    Same as @11 Bf4 on disc for 40 quid and I can trade it in or 60 quid and I’m stuck with it.

    #12 1 year ago
  13. El_MUERkO

    headline should read ‘EA trolls PSN store’

    #13 1 year ago
  14. Erthazus

    97$. EA game. Good luck with stupid customers.

    #14 1 year ago
  15. gsxrlove

    #2 +1
    #3 +1
    #5 +1
    #9 +1
    #10 +1
    #11 +1
    #13 +1

    I cannot believe how many chances and opportunity’s they have to do right by their customers yet they choose “ass rape” every time. I think this is (for me) going to be enough to boycott their games altogether. I’m only going to come back to Battlefield when/if DICE separates from EA. Not a heartbeat sooner.

    BF4 for PS3 still sits at $99.95 AUS on my PSN store. The PS3 BF4 “Premium” add on is $73.95 AUS.

    I will not be surprised in the slightest if BF5 makes you pay micro-transactions per bullet at this rate.

    #15 1 year ago
  16. TheBlackHole

    @7

    Erm… first party hardware developers take the same or a bigger cut (30%) as physical retailers. They are still a retailer, after all. No differences there.

    @11 Define sensible? That’s a fairly arbitrary definition.

    Should games be priced dependent on their budget, team size, game length, multiplayer offering, free/added content, graphical fidelity, size of core game file, metascore?

    If games followed the price of inflation like most other things, they’d cost a fucking fortune. the cost of development has skyrocketed each gen, but RRPs haven’t really changed that much.

    #16 1 year ago
  17. Llewelyn_MT

    That’s more than a BF4 + Premium on PC (currently that’s around 55 GBP where I live).

    On EA’s Origin games that are 50% off are usually more expensive than a hard copy.

    #17 1 year ago
  18. CyberMarco

    @16

    “the cost of development has skyrocketed each gen”

    And who’s to be blamed? Surely not the gamer/consumer.

    It’s their fucking fault if they can’t/don’t know how to adapt to the market, or how to invest their capital for profits.

    “RRPs haven’t really changed that much.”

    Yeah because I didn’t buy games for 50€ during the PS2 days, 60€ during the PS3 days and now 70€ for PS4.

    Fuck them I say, they chose to play the capitalism game, good fucking luck!

    #18 1 year ago
  19. Fin

    @18

    Errr, are you fuckin serious? Of course the consumer is the reason for increasing development costs.

    Consumer plays game -> consumer gets bored of game -> consumer wants bigger better shinier new game -> bigger better shinier game costs more money.

    Do you think publishers have deliberately increased dev costs while keeping the retail prices of games the same for 7 years? The amount of bitching people do about Call of Duty being the same year to year, you really think they would continue to buy games that weren’t bigger better shinier? Seriously?

    #19 1 year ago
  20. CyberMarco

    @19

    I’m not saying that consumers don’t demand more shiny games, but it’s your damn fault if you can’t deliver such games without the risk of going bankrupt or engaging into monetization shenanigans (micro-tansactions, cut content to be sold as DLC etc.) to break even.

    If they don’t know how to move in the industry they are to be blamed. If they invest millions upon millions expecting money to come back 10 times bigger, I think they are delusional.

    Maybe the market isn’t viable for all, maybe there is over-saturation too.

    “Consumer plays game -> consumer gets bored of game -> consumer wants bigger better shinier new game -> bigger better shinier game costs more money.”

    There are some very interesting lessons to be learned from indies.

    “The amount of bitching people do about Call of Duty being the same year to year, you really think they would continue to buy games that weren’t bigger better shinier?”

    Is that a counter-point? Ehm, it just explains how ignorant the mass-consumers are…

    Also relevant: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5653-Better-Does-Not-Mean-Good

    #20 1 year ago
  21. Fin

    @20

    Oh ok, you obviously don’t understand industry, inflation, or economics.

    No probs.

    #21 1 year ago
  22. CyberMarco

    Spot on champ!

    #22 1 year ago
  23. DrDamn

    @16
    “@11 Define sensible? That’s a fairly arbitrary definition.

    Should games be priced dependent on their budget, team size, game length, multiplayer offering, free/added content, graphical fidelity, size of core game file, metascore?”

    Games should be priced at what people are willing to pay for them. The rest – budget, team size, length etc should be built around that and the projected sales based on that.

    What do we have currently? All retail games are £55-£60 regardless of all the things you mentioned – how is that better?

    Notice you didn’t address the core point made. “Digital means no onward sales too – so again better for the publisher/dev as they don’t get money for second hand sales.”

    #23 1 year ago
  24. Legendaryboss

    Oh how generous i can use that £3 to get a meal in MacDonalds.

    #24 1 year ago
  25. OneLifeCycle

    Personally, the price difference isn’t enough to justify not having a physical copy on hand. Add to that that it’s not really inconvenient for me to go to a Best Buy, Wal-Mart or *GASP* Gamestop to buy a game because they’re all pretty close to me.

    So, I don’t really get the whole digital gaming thing… The prices are laughable.

    #25 1 year ago
  26. dontbescaredhomie92

    Sony is all about games…

    #26 1 year ago
  27. TheBlackHole

    @21 Spot on indeed.

    @23

    “Games should be priced at what people are willing to pay for them”

    Well, plenty of people are clearly willing to pay the asking price, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at there.

    If you mean the humble bundle route, where people pay an average of $4 for multiple quality titles. That is completely untenable and unrealistic, and in that scenario these games would never be made.

    “The rest – budget, team size, length etc should be built around that and the projected sales based on that.”

    Eh? So I pitch a game, without knowing what kind of team size, budget, or size of game I’m able to make, then consumers decide what they’re willing to pay for the idea , then I base sales on the interest generated, and THEN work out a development budget?

    You don’t work in games, do you :)

    What do we have currently? All retail games are £55-£60 regardless of all the things you mentioned – how is that better?

    Because we have ways of weeding out what is good and what isn’t. Critic reviews, metascores, Steam user reviews (released today), Demos (which may end up being mandatory on PS4). Unless you’re literally blind-buying, it’s actually quite hard to unknowingly buy a shit game.

    Notice you didn’t address the core point made. “Digital means no onward sales too – so again better for the publisher/dev as they don’t get money for second hand sales.”

    That’s all well and good, but there is an argument to suggest that from a European legal standpoint, digital sales should be possible after the initial transaction, which may muddy the waters somewhat over this generation. In principle though I have no issue with this point, which is why I didn’t challenge it.

    #27 1 year ago
  28. DrDamn

    @27
    Any product can only be realistically priced at what people are willing to pay for them. That not what people will pay voluntarily when asked but a price which will get the right number of sales to cover the development costs.

    Retail games have wildly varying dev costs but the prices charged to the consumer don’t vary so wildly – that needs to change.

    There is also an issue with the industry hiding behind an idea that if they charge less for their product it will automatically be perceived as inferior to a more expensive one, so lower pricing to get higher sales is not explored as well as it could be.

    “You don’t work in games, do you”

    No but you do and it shows in your responses too – which I can understand to a large degree. I think the consumer can want the moon on a stick. I’ve defended a lot of stuff like DLC and on-disc DLC which others hate on here plenty of times.

    Having said that the market has changed a lot. Mobile, tablets, digital, market size, F2P etc. The core games industry can’t stick rigidly to the £60 RRP for retail and digital and stick it’s fingers in it’s ears saying “lalala can’t here you!”. A digital future is something which can have benefits for devs/publishers and consumers – but it needs to be one where the requirements of each are considered and a middle ground found.

    #28 1 year ago

Comments are now closed on this article.