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

[Neodegenerate]

Shadow1980 said:

As others have said, DLC is purely optional. It's not necessary for the game to function. That being said, the reason it exists in the first place is because even though development costs have rapidly increased average retail prices have been trending downward since the early 90s. SNES and Genesis games initially cost anywhere from $80 to $120 in 2014 dollars. Paying $60 for the game and $20-30 for DLC puts your total expenditures on a single title back to what you would pay for a new game back in the 16-bit era. DLC is a low-cost, high-profit means for devs & publishers to recoup their costs. Love it or hate it, it serves a valid purpose from a business perspective, and even from a consumer standpoint when DLC is done well (not that it always is done well) it helps increase the replay value and extend the longevity of a title.

Had games kept up with inflation and were retailing for $80-90 today, DLC might be a very rare thing. But as retail prices continue to decline — if sticker prices remain $60 by 2020, that'll be the equivalent of a little over $50 in 2014 dollars assuming inflation remains constant — we can expect DLC to be ever more common. Did anyone really think that retail prices would continue to decline forever without something coming along to make up the difference? In any case, gamers will probably rather deal with lower base prices and optional paid add-ons rather than paying for higher base prices. Even though most gamers are cheapskates who don't know or even care what inflation is, and games are on average a lot cheaper, $60 is still a decent sum of money and the rest of us would simply prefer additional costs to be optional.

I like you.  You get it.