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
CDiablo on 15 August 2014

It depends on what we get. 3-4 fps maps arent worth $15. Real expansions like those from Eldar Scrolls are worth $20-$30 for me.



Getting an XBOX One for me is like being in a bad relationship but staying together because we have kids. XBone we have 20000+ achievement points, 2+ years of XBL Gold and 20000+ MS points. I think its best we stay together if only for the MS points.

Nintendo Treehouse is what happens when a publisher is confident and proud of its games and doesn't need to show CGI lies for five minutes.

-Jim Sterling

Around the Network
Troll_Whisperer on 15 August 2014
jlmurph2 said:

EA access doesn't really effect new games though. Its a back catalog optional service. And trend? That trend started with PS+ which has tons of value. 

Wait till they start giving matchmaking priority to members or some BS like that. Then having to pay to each big publisher in order to have a normal gameplay experience won't be pretty. But anyway, that's off topic.



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

Wright on 15 August 2014
BMaker11 said:

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 know that Capcom has made some pretty bad moves, especially with locked on-disc content that is later sold as DLC, but in their defense, I'd like to say that they also created one of the best post-game DLC of the seventh gen, Dark Arisen.



daredevil.shark on 15 August 2014

$60 is already too much. Game developers needs to cut fat. No need to hire "Ellen Page" to make the game expensive. Witcher 2 was an AAA game with only $8 million budget. Others need to follow suite.

And microtransactions in $60 game is the biggest crime in gaming. They are killing $60 game value with it.



BMaker11 on 15 August 2014
Wright said:
BMaker11 said:

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 know that Capcom has made some pretty bad moves, especially with locked on-disc content that is later sold as DLC, but in their defense, I'd like to say that they also created one of the best post-game DLC of the seventh gen, Dark Arisen.

I only targeted Capcom with that comment because they were the most notable perpetrators for that type of DLC because they did it multiple times (UMvC3, SFxT [the big one], RE5/6/Raccoon City, and a few others if I'm not mistaken), . Yoda/Vader were also locked in SCIV, but that's not as egregious as locking away like 10 or 12 characters and making you pay for them.

Dark Arisen is great, as it's not the above type of DLC (although I think Dragon's Dogma had some on-disc DLC as well, but not something that expanded the game much). That, I have no problems with.



Around the Network
Keegs79 on 15 August 2014

It is stupid to consider raising the price to prevent DLC and the rest of the crap. First of all, we still get a full game. Second of all, that would make a new standard that will be the way for games that would never implement DLC in the first place. I like options. I like being able to choose to have DLC, Micro Transactions, and so on. I don't want to be forced to pay for a higher price because I have to. Lastly, this would NOT prevent DLC, Micro Transactions, and so on. They STILL would add them in the end. They still would if not now but down the road would easily implement them in future games so no thank you. I say leave the price as it is.



Burek on 15 August 2014

It should stay as is. I don't want to pay extra for the base game, because I dob't care how many DLCs or microtransactions they have, I don't need to buy them if I don't find them of value.
Same goes for season passes. They should all have them, but I refuse to pay them in advance after I got screwed - twice - Saints Row and LA Noire.



2Ultra on 15 August 2014

Anything over $60-ish and I'm pretty much out, unless the game has been out a while and has proven it is just that good. I have never bought DLC on any console and don't plan to start ever.  I hate paid DLC with a passion, and it makes me feel like the game is incomplete and not worth starting in the first place.  With that said, I don't game nearly as much these days unless its a game that has already proven it is worht it and is not going to eat my wallet every chance it gets.



impertinence on 15 August 2014

Of course I would accept it, I support businesses right to do what they think is best for them. I wouldn't purchase the products though, just like I don't support huge production budgets already. I am more than happy to support reasonable development budgets at reasonable prices. I hope my side wins, 1 year ago I was a pessimist but the seeming momentum of the indie scene has me a little less convinced that the video game industry is going to die.



Neodegenerate on 15 August 2014
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.