By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Would you accept higher prices for games in order to have fewer BS DLCs, micro transactions, etc?

 

How high would you be willing to pay per game if it meant no BS?

$90 per game is my limit if it means less BS 3 5.00%
 
$80, anything more and I ... 4 6.67%
 
$70 , dat $10 tip to end this shit 20 33.33%
 
I like the current model, thanks 30 50.00%
 
MOAR microtransactions, M... 3 5.00%
 
Total:60

It seems the industry is trying to figure out how to monetize these games. Subscriptions, pre-order bonuses, shit DLCs, microtransactions...

So what if they were to bring the prices up to $70 or $80 and you could get rid of it? Would you do it?

 

I mean, Europeans already pay about $80 for games (after tax) and sales are OK.



No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.

Around the Network

Nope nope nope.



Nope, because you don't have to pay for any of that stuff anyway. Its a choice.



No.. i want lower prices, not higher. Which is why i want less AAAs and more "independent AAAs" (the new trend, Hellblade, Wild, Tomorrow Children, Oddworld, Flying wild hog's games, etc) and indies.



jlmurph2 said:
Nope, because you don't have to pay for any of that stuff anyway. Its a choice.

Ding ding

/thread



Around the Network

That would be horrible.



Troll_Whisperer said:

It seems the industry is trying to figure out how to monetize these games. Subscriptions, pre-order bonuses, shit DLCs, microtransactions...

So what if they were to bring the prices up to $70 or $80 and you could get rid of it? Would you do it?

 

I mean, Europeans already pay about $80 for games (after tax) and sales are OK.

Haha I wish they were that price, I pay $100 here in Aus for a new PS4/XBO game. Good thing Ninty are nice enough to sell at $80 on WiiU.



All of those options are horrible...



"I think it will be the HDS"-Me in regards to Nintendo's next handheld.

I wouldn't be comfortable with that trade-off.

I'd rather developers and publishers just make complete, unbroken, fun-to-play games with a modest development and advertising budget. If the game is good, gaming publications and websites will cover it, and people will buy it.

There really is no need to pass the cost of inefficient development cycles and bad business decisions onto the consumer, whether by price inflation or via all the nonessential garbage that's defined the last decade of video gaming.



I'll pay £50 for a next-gen game, no more and that's already pushing it

For the record, in the UK next gen prices are £5-10 higher than PS3/360

But I think that a variety of price points is good. Keep the £50 for the big hitters, but not for all. In general I do agree with your principle, cut back on the season passes and give us a little more in the main game. I must confess I don't care about what they do for map packs

There are some exceptions like LBP 3, where I think Sony would be better off selling it for ~$40 and offering tons of DLC