Forums - Gaming Discussion - Thoughts on 69.99$ games for Next Gen Consoles?

Thoughts on 70$ games next gen?

I'm happy with it, more money=better value 6 5.83%
 
I'm ok with it 26 25.24%
 
Don't like it, but will tolerate it 29 28.16%
 
Completely against it, won't tolerate it 42 40.78%
 
Total:103

I'd be fine with this change if games didn't usually also have microtransactions and whatnot. It effectively means that many games are already sold at over $60, regardless of teh up front cost. And I really doubt that any publisher will remove those just because $70 becomes the new default.



Love and tolerate.

Around the Network

I'd be happy to pay $70 for a quality rpg.

It's cool how the ads still cover the ENTIRE text box on mobile.



$59.99.... $69.99.... It don't matter. I'm still buying games only at $19.99 or less.



Pyro as Bill said:
Just out of interest, which option do people consider the least value/expensive?

A $60 game that's worth $10 after 12 months or a $100 game that's still worth (trade-in) $90, 5 years later?

Unless we’re talking about Nintendo, or maybe NISA or Xseed, the latter scenario will never happen. A $100 EActubi game will still be worth $10 a year later. A lot of that comes down to the way those companies sell their products. 



FragileSurface said:
I'd be happy to pay $70 for a quality rpg.

It's cool how the ads still cover the ENTIRE text box on mobile.

adblock for mobile?



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
Salnax said:
I'd be fine with this change if games didn't usually also have microtransactions and whatnot. It effectively means that many games are already sold at over $60, regardless of teh up front cost. And I really doubt that any publisher will remove those just because $70 becomes the new default.

Micro transactions, online passes etc first cropped up to stem the supposed losses from second hand sales. Now they are there to recoup money lost from sales or 'giving' away games with ps+ / games with gold. Nintendo has far less of these practices exactly because Nintendo games tend to stick to the same price. No need for nickel and diming if your revenue doesn't drop like a brick after a month.

Instead of a price hike, make games worth keeping and don't devalue them a month after release. Micro transactions will probably only get worse with $70 games. Faster price drops, more people waiting for price drops etc. I wouldn't mind to pay more up front myself to get rid of nickel and diming practices but I fear the opposite will happen.

I'm actually not against the Google Stadia model, buy a game full price, get lifelong access. Except they want both, monthly fee and buy the game... I wouldn't mind paying $120 for the next flight simulator if that would give me streaming access to it on xCloud for its life cycle. I simply don't like subscriptions, season passes and what not.



FragileSurface said:
I'd be happy to pay $70 for a quality rpg.

It's cool how the ads still cover the ENTIRE text box on mobile.

Even on desktop the CoD ads cover the entire screen sometimes.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

I already can't stand games with trillions editions and predorder bonusses that give shit for what you pay to only ask for more money later to buy dumb basic things that should have been in the game in first place,hello Ubisoft,EA,Activision.

I'm afraid those negatives won't dissapear if i pay them more,not with those companies.



Fuck id pay $100 if I got the game day one that didn't require GBs of day 1 patches, dlc, season passes etc. I do not buy any of that crap.

This is the main reason there is a lot of games I do not buy any more. COD is a good example. They removed the single player, I said fuck you. Haven't bought a COD game since, wouldn't even have a clue if it is back in or not.



 

 

V-r0cK said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Actually what I was originally saying is that PS5 is repeating the same mistakes as the PS3 including an increased cost in games.  But you may be right.  Maybe it's not Sony's fault.  When the PS5 ends up selling like the PS3, then they can always blame their third party partners.

The Xbox360 came a year before the PS3 and games were already priced before the PS3 was released so how was the increased cost in games the PS3's fault?

"When the PS5 ends up selling like the PS3"?

Nothing you say makes any sense and your last sentence seems like you're already dead set on believing that the PS5 somehow is following in the same footsteps as the PS3 with absolutely no shred of proof.

Again.  Maybe you are right.  Maybe none of this is Sony's fault.  The PS3 lost Sony tons of money, but at least it wasn't their fault, right?  The PS5 can lose tons of money too, but hey, at least it won't be their fault.  Game prices go up and it's never Sony's fault, but they still bear all of the consequences.  

I'm not sure why you think it matters so much whose fault it is.  If their system fails again like the PS3, then blaming other companies won't magically make them succeed.