Xbox raising prices of games to $80

All of Xbox's first-party games release on Game Pass, right? If so, this just pushes more people to Game Pass.

quote:

---

Xbox Series S 512 - $379.99 (up from $299.99)

Xbox Series S 1TB - $429.99 (up from $349.99)

Xbox Series X Digital - $549.99 (up from $449.99)

Xbox Series X - $599.99 (up from $499.99)

Xbox Series X 2TB Galaxy Special Edition $729.99 (up from $599.99)

Xbox Wireless Controller (Core) - $64.99

Xbox Wireless Controller (Color) - $69.99

Xbox Wireless Controller - Special Edition - $79.99

Xbox Wireless Controller - Limited Edition - $89.99 (up from $79.99)

Xbox Elite Wireless Controller Series 2 (Core) - $149.99 (up from $139.99)

Xbox Elite Wireless Controller Series 2 (Full) - $199.99 (up from $179.99)

Xbox Stereo Headset -$64.99

Xbox Wireless Headset - $119.99 (up from $109.99)

---

The problem is that publishers want their cake and to eat it too.

They whine about the costs of physical media and having to implement microtransactions and DLC in order to keep pace with the cost of development," but I guarantee you, $80 digital only games will be just as microtransaction riddled as they always have been.

Gaming is in a bad state, and I don't see it getting any better.

quote:

---

Raising the price of the worst selling console is certainly a bold business strategy

---

The goal is to incentivize people to subscribe to game pass instead of just buying the game.

quote:

---

These days, buying games at launch is retarded. You're paying full price for the worst version of game when you can pick it up a few months later for $20-30 less with all the QOL patches already released. The only time I buy games at launch is when I want to support a particular studio

---

sounds alot like Dave Ramsay's approach to buying vehicles. let someone else take the depreciate hit.

quote:

---

It's in a very bad place

Expedition 33 has given me some renewed hope, but it's sad that the majority of the "great" games I've played in recent years have come from small indie studios and solo dev efforts. They're the only ones doing creative shite now

---

I disagree on both counts.

First, the last few years have had some really great game releases. Have there also been shitty releases? Of course, but who cares? Just don't buy them. Let those studios fail. As long as there are enough good games released to keep you entertained, and speaking for myself I can't even keep up with the new games I want to play, I would say gaming is in a great place.

As for the second, while I agree that it's the smaller studios driving greatness right now, I just don't really view that as sad. While I don't have any hard numbers, my anecdotal impression is that "big studios" are vastly bigger than they used to be. It's pretty much axiomatic in design work that the more hands touch a project, the less interesting and unique it's going to be. And on the other side of the coin, studios we are calling "small" in 2025 aren't we would have historically called small. Larian, while not considered small, isn't exactly considered big, yet it has 470 employees. Sandfall Interactive is legitimately small with 33 employees. But for context, the original Doom was made by like five guys.

I know I'm starting to ramble a bit, so to bring the point I'm trying to make back into focus: it seems like there's probably a maximum sustainable size for a game dev before the suits start to take over. A couple of decades ago, even the largest dev teams were smaller than that theoretical barrier. Today, there are plenty of dev teams that are clearly much bigger than that theoretical number. But the dev teams that are still hovering below that number are putting out great games. I don't view that as an indictment of the state of gaming; I view that as an indictment of some of the players in the gaming industry. If the big devs keep wanting to sprint past my theoretical number, they are going to continue to suck. But that doesn't change the fact that there are still tons of devs below that theoretical number that will put out great games, which to me means that gaming continues to be in a good place.

quote:

---

First, the last few years have had some really great game releases. Have there also been shitty releases? Of course, but who cares? Just don't buy them. Let those studios fail. As long as there are enough good games released to keep you entertained, and speaking for myself I can't even keep up with the new games I want to play, I would say gaming is in a great place.

---

I was more referring to big budget releases. There are plenty of good games in the AA and indie spaces but it seems like most blockbuster releases are big letdowns or performance nightmares at release. For every Elden Ring or Baldur's Gate 3, you have a ton of Starfields, Assassin's Creeds, Suicide Squads, Anthems, etc. Or you have a Cyberpunk/No Mans Sky deal where it takes them years to fix the game. Even storied franchises have releases that, while not "bad," have eroding quality - as we've seen with Mass Effect, Fallout, Diablo, Final Fantasy, et al

Outside of FromSoft, there aren't many AAA devs that you can just blindly trust anymore

quote:

---

"big studios" are vastly bigger than they used to be. It's pretty much axiomatic in design work that the more hands touch a project, the less interesting and unique it's going to be.

---

Yes, this is a large part of the problem. The industry as a whole needs smaller scale, more focused experiences. Publishers do not want that though

He is referring to Clair Obscur. A sentiment I very much agree with.

quote:

---

Xbox Elite Wireless Controller Series 2 (Full) - $199.99 (up from $179.99)

---

Good time to grab a DualSense Edge...

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

is that a PC game?