| UnderwaterFunktown said: Honestly can't relate to the general consensus saying "nothing", as someone who doesn't purchase very many new games anymore (and never really did relatively speaking), it really would be no problem if one of the massive games I look forward to that only come every few years were 100$ if it's a huge open world game with tons of content. Anything with 100+ hours of runtime really if the quality matches. On the other hand I would never pay $60 for a Mario sports game or another title with a similar scope, $40 would be the absolute ceiling and realistically even that is a bit high for me. I've always been advocated more price variety because realistically the difference between a lot of games is like fastfood and a three course meal. I'm not saying developers should make their hyped up games $100 however because as this thread makes obvious they would be hit with a lot of backlash by most players, but I can't say it would stop me from buying them if it actually felt deserved for the title. |
Strongly share this mentality, I’d much rather purchase one $100USD game that’ll be a surefire hit than several $20-40USD games that I’ll get a few weeks of fun out of.
For instance: I ultimately saved money buying TotK at $70USD since that was the only game I played and purchased (besides Pikmin 1+2 & Pikmin 4) between May and October that year. Games like Mario Wonder and Pikmin 4, as much as I absolutely adore them, hold me over only two or three weekend before I decide to purchase my next game.
