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

But, prices here have already increased by $12 .



Around the Network

My solution is budget control for the big publishers. The prices are already ridiculous, and the DLC/microtransaction thing got out of hand way too many years ago already.



What's the minimum wage and average wage in australia? That's the most important wages and cost of life.



I really don't think the DLC is an issue. If you don't want it, you still got (at least in 99.9% of cases) a full game just like you got before, so just don't buy it.

But you also need to look at how an increase in prices would even affect development. One would assume it would allow for a larger budget for the game, but when you see higher budget games, do you really see a more complete and longer game? I don't think so. I think the larger budgets have a lot more of an impact on how precise certain parts of the storyline are (better graphics, better voice casting).



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Nope, £40 is my limit. Even then I haven't bought a game for more than £25 in over a year. I'd just prefer they stop wasting their money on developing DLC and put effort into the next game to get it out sooner, if they can do that and sell it at £40 again, they might make more money. See Tomb Raider in the 90s, it had a game every year for 4/5 years.



Hmm, pie.

Around the Network

It would be abused anyway. They raise the price and people accept it. Then they just make more DLC. Repeat.



Baalzamon said:
I really don't think the DLC is an issue. If you don't want it, you still got (at least in 99.9% of cases) a full game just like you got before, so just don't buy it.

But you also need to look at how an increase in prices would even affect development. One would assume it would allow for a larger budget for the game, but when you see higher budget games, do you really see a more complete and longer game? I don't think so. I think the larger budgets have a lot more of an impact on how precise certain parts of the storyline are (better graphics, better voice casting).


At this point larger budgets seem to indicate better resolution, more voice acting, and increased marketing.  The length and style of the games is more of a vision than budget thing.  Budget just helps that vision become reality.  If games cost more and the budget got larger, I think we would actually see longer periods between releases from studios spending that money to spend more time polishing the title not innovating.



The industry will never be satisfied. You can raise the price of a game to 300 bucks and it still wouldn't be enough. That is just the nature of capitalism. There is no ceiling.



Hell no. Post-game DLC that actually adds to the game, yea, I'm fine with. Because it is actually "additional content" (like Left Behind for TLOU, Broken Steel for Fallout 3, or The Signal/The Writer for Alan Wake or maybe additional songs in Guitar Hero/Rock Band). But maps packs that I can only believe are purposefully omitted from the game (I mean...they advertise them before the game is even released) or content that is actually on the disc that you have to pay to get access to (fuck you Capcom), that can go straight to hell.

I don't care about microtransactions or skins. They add nothing to the game and are just there to make your character prettier. Completely optional.



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

Pretty much this!



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---