Now we've seen what rising development costs have led too. We've seen tons of DLC and microtransactions slowly pushed into our experience, and with content stripped so we have to pay for it later. But what if EVERYONE dipped in to pay a little extra for games; say perhaps $80? Developers could have more relief off their shoulders, and development costs could be more subsidized. In return of our splash with money, we would get ALL content from the game at launch at the future, and we'd no longer have those dreaded micro-transactions. Now of course this is a fantasy in this gaming world, this would probably never happen. But if publishers weren't total asses and this could happen, would you be willing to spend a little more money for more in the future? 

I'd first ask developers to optimize their games correctly. Less bugs, smaller file size, respectable and consistent frame rate. Gamers are paying for too much already.

Why should I have to pay more for extra skins and DLC I don't want? I pick and chose what interests me and I'm happy that way.

Right now, the situation is that I can spend less money on gaming than ever before while rich kids subsidize more content and games by spending on superfluous microtransactions. It's a rather sweet set-up, really. Let those who want to pay a lot, pay a lot, while those who don't can get by waiting for Steam sales and the like.

I'd say the $80 launch price tag would be fair since some games with lots of DLC end up costing more than $40 in DLC alone. Personally, DLC used to be a good idea until developers started to use it as a shady business practice to withdraw content. I never understood the concept of Day one DLC, to be honest. Why not just call it "content we intentionally decided to withdraw to make more money on." It is one of the reasons I never purchased Street Fighter X Tekken and refuse to do so till today. A used copy would cost $20 but the DLC would take it to about close to $60 which is ridiculous. Luckily, a majority of games I like and enjoy playing rarely have DLC. Interesting post, btw.

No. I like the DLC model mainly because it's optional. By the time it launches I expect a game to have all the content there is to it and it's up to me if I want to buy aditional content outside the - already full game - I got. Some DLC content are worth it, some are not.

Sixty games is already a hefty price, consider that five-six full price games can get you a console. Also, digital distribution should make games more affordable (thus making 60€ games on digital already more expensive than 60€ retail ones, more money for less things). Thus, no, I wouldn't pay for an 80€ game complete, they should work knowing most people can't/won't pay as much for a single game, even at launch.

Nope, in fact i only buy 1 or 2 games at full price every year.

I'd rather buy it used 6 months after release for 15-25 bucks.

Also i don't care about DLC, 99% of it is useless/pointless.

Nope, mainly cause I honestly don't care for DLC in most games.

or you can do what i do, wait for the game of the year edition with all the extra content at 40 or 50 bucks.

No, maybe devs should go back to reasonable budgets where you don't need to sell 3m copies at $60 to break even and sell $20-40 season passes.