Will ‘GTA6’ be the first $100 game?

I personally don’t think we’re close to $100 becoming the new norm for standard-issue blockbuster game releases — i.e., not the often ridiculous prices already being charged for “ultimate” or “deluxe” editions — but it’s still a little bit surprising that it hasn’t already happened.

On a pure economic level, you can simply cite inflation: nearly six years ago, I wrote about the launch of the PlayStation 5, which turned out to be the cheapest console in Sony’s history in real money terms (at least, if you bought the digital version). Back in 2020, the PS3, which was released for $499 in 2006, would’ve “really” been worth $652; in 2026, it’s the equivalent of $824, as per the U.S. Inflation Calculator.

I’ve often talked about buying Sega Genesis also-ran Sonic 3D Blast for £50 in 1996, and that’d cost £102 ($136) at current exchange rates, when adjusted for British inflation. It’s not an exact science, given floating exchange rates, but it’s enough to highlight just how much people were forced to pay — in real terms — for a thoroughly whelming isometric platformer.

Nonetheless, taking a purely monetary line ignores many obvious issues: fundamental performance, production capacity, studio sizes, the digitization of gaming, the difference between RRPs and actual sale prices, and much more.

So, what are the real pros and cons of $100 games — and should we really start expecting to pay a literal ton for the biggest releases on launch day?

The case for $100 games

We might as well start with why we should expect three-figure game prices. We’ve already covered the obvious inflation angle — especially when you consider the cartridge era — but a quick search of a 1999 KB Toys catalog shows PS1 classic Resident Evil 3: Nemesis retailing for $49.99, the equivalent of $99.93 now (SO CLOSE!).

Further to that, game prices have barely changed for years, even decades. We’ve only recently seen them jump to $60 or $70, and even then, you’ll find them below RRP from day one. Digital-only console owners don’t really get that benefit, but you can always buy larger Xbox or PS5 gift cards for under the odds.

Then there’s the obvious elephant in the room: modern “big” games often need hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands of employees, and years of development. Then there are the production values: huge worlds; online multiplayer and the infrastructure that supports it; top-tier voice acting; motion capture; full-orchestra or licensed soundtracks; the sheer amount of QA; and years, or even decades, of post-launch support, patches, DLC, and balance tweaks.

Even for $100 — depending on the title, obviously — games can deliver hundreds or thousands of hours of entertainment, as proved by GTA5, the third best-selling video game of all time (at the time of writing) and the most profitable entertainment product of all time (and that was in 2018!).

The case against $100 games

Of course, it’s never that simple. Criticizing the $100 price tag is obviously much easier, but the industry still gives us plenty of reasons to think the cost won’t go to treble figures any time soon.

Firstly, you have the sticky subject of continuous monetization: DLC, microtransactions, subscriptions, battle passes, and more will always find ways to eke more money out of dedicated players, so why should they be expected to pay $100 when they’ll spend tens, hundreds, or even thousands in the future?

There’s also the “premium” pricing model, which has been in place for years for some titles and already costs $100 or more, muddying the waters around what value actually is. For example, Forza Horizon 6 is one of the better examples of an “all-in” model, but it’s still $120 for everything ($60, if you’re like me and getting the base game for “free” on Game Pass), so there’s every reason that players would worry that a higher standard price would just add to existing monetization, rather than replace it.

Modern gaming has also fundamentally changed consumer expectations for what, or even if, they should pay to play. Speaking of Forza, subscription services like Game Pass already take the edge off; then there are free-to-play games, plus endless sales cycles, especially when major retailers (namely Amazon) price-match or undercut the leading discount.

Players are also very unwilling to pay premium prices when the standard pattern for modern game launches is to drop something that’s unfinished, buggy, or heavily dependent on post-release patches. Case in point: I didn’t (well, couldn’t) even review S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 because 90% of the experiences I had on my 50-hour run were immediately neutered by a day-one patch that was ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE GIGABYTES, and fixed over 1,000 issues.

One of the big complaints people make, though I don’t necessarily subscribe to this given the actual cost of games at the time, was that cartridge-era publishers no longer deal with the same manufacturing and retail costs, though they do admittedly benefit from larger global audiences and digital storefronts.

Let’s also not forget how triple-A budget growth is self-inflicted. Many publishers have created huge, unsustainably expensive dev models built on massive teams, silly production cycles, and ambitions that will regularly fail; box-office bombs exist in all media. Concord is the most obvious example; MindsEye, despite doing a half-decent job of righting its wrongs, is another. It occasionally works out; Cyberpunk 2077, which was a disaster at launch but still eminently playable, righted its wrongs to become one of the greatest games of the last 20 years.

Finally, and arguably the most important issue? Three figures on a game box, or a website listing, is a shock to the system — it just looks unnatural.

Surely value, not price, is the real issue?

There are plenty of fair points both for and against an inevitable $100 price tag for a launch game, but I’d argue that most consumers don’t inherently oppose expensive games, so long as they’re worth it. It’s not a case of “games can’t cost $100,” rather “publishers still haven’t earned the right to charge $100.”

If any game could justify it in the next year, it’ll be Grand Theft Auto VI, but hype and patience alone won’t justify the cost. If GTA6 retails for $100, it needs to be nigh-on perfect on day one: complete, polished, generous with content, and, critically, showing no hints of exploitative monetization.

If it’s in any way unfinished or broken, or its main campaign falls short of expectations, it won’t necessarily be bad news for Rockstar and Take-Two — which will undoubtedly post record revenues regardless, and has the resources to “fix” things quicker than most — but any other developer staking the success of their own massive releases on selling for three figures will immediately think twice. But do we want GTA6 to fail for this reason?

Given we’ve been waiting for so long, especially with all the edging its delays have brought on, you wouldn’t look silly for presuming that GTA6 would finally break that barrier… or, you know, miss out on a technicality by making it $99.99. Personally, I don’t think it will — GTA Online is the biggest cash cow going, and Rockstar’s obvious focus will be on that, rather than filthy casuals like me who “want the story”. Wait and watch me be proved right. Or, you know, wrong.