If we're keeping it 100, people expect TOO MUCH out of a $60 video game

[the_FUTURE]

People expect a finished game, at the least. Now over the years, there have been some prerequisites, for a price increase;

Longer games
Better graphics, etc.

I should never pay for half completed games, or "beta test" titles that will leave me asking for a more polished sequel (I'm looking at you Watch Dogs/Horizon). Full price for a series that's bad or lack luster? Nah Squeenix can keep all future FF releases.

Horizon having a DLC, but isn't that just adding something to the game outside the finished game itself?

 

[Killigraphy]

Horizon having a DLC, but isn't that just adding something to the game outside the finished game itself?

No doubt, but I guarantee you, Horizon 2 is going to be more like Shadow of the Colossus, and less "trap for the tenth time, and pew pew it dead".

 

[MikelArteta]

im in canada average game on release is 79.99 plus 13 percent tax so 90

 

[MikelArteta]

depends where you live. top titles will be at like 79 plus tax bucks here in Canada. For me, it all depends on when I decide to buy it. I'll be hyped, but if I ain't putting the money towards it day 1, then it just isn't happening.

i always try and wait 2-3 months then cop on kiji for like 40-45

 

[PS5 Pro]

As a consumer, I selfishly want prices for games to stay the same. But when you look at it from a cost per amount of hours played basis, video games are one of the cheapest forms of entertainment.

But the cost to produce games is only getting higher and higher. That's why you have all these "deluxe" editions and microtransactions. Video game companies are trying to find ways to get more profit.

It's an interesting problem to have because the price of the good is fixated in the consumers mind at $60. Peep this "Right now it is 60 bucks but has held there for about 15 years. If the price goes any higher, most gamers would consider it 'too expensive' and would not purchase it. " Fifteen plus years brehs!!

I'd be curious to see a price elasticity curve for video games.

I guess the bigger issue is that all video games are not created equal. When you play some AAA blockbuster titles like Battlefield, you can easily see it being worth the money and then some. But other games you can tell are rushed and not quality.

Look, this thread is bullshyt and here is Why.

Games are getting smaller

Every game tries to cash in on dlc. Most games are not AAA budgeted , but most want $100 minimum to play the full game (which is bullshyt) nba2k charges for basic shyt that was mandatory. You can buy VC tho if you like

I could go on and on but I have some p*ssy to attend to so I'll bid you boys adue

 

[Kinguno]

It's s scam those freemium games.
Amazon prime gets you the games at 45 on release date.
Digital only should cost less

 

[Kingshango]

shyt is cheaper than it was in the s
Genesis/snes days.

$32 for Shaq Fu is still too much.

 

[x-factor7]

Somewhat agree, but if you wait a couple months, game prices go down fast.

The only thing that annoys me about paying for a $60 game is that it comes with microtransactions, leave that for free to play games

 

[Liquid]

$32 for Shaq Fu is still too much.

negged

 

[Doomsday]

60 is plenty of money considering the average person is unaware of the TRUE cost of developing games. It isn't nearly as massive as the media would lead us to believe.

 

[Cladyclad]

60 is plenty of money considering the average person is unaware of the TRUE cost of developing games. It isn't nearly as massive as the media would lead us to believe.

 

[Luck]

Agreed and that's why you see so many half assed releases now that are full of bugs and borderline playable out the gate.

Overnight Parking downtown is or dinner for 2 at trash ass applebees or wherever more than the price of a video game in 2017. That's why I don't have a problem with the nickle and dimin if the quality is there.

If I'm still playing a game a few months down the line, I have no problem spending extra on dlc, cosmetic or whatever because most games I don't play past the first few days. $60 upfront isn't bad but if they did move the price of games up then they'd have to dead all this unfinished release bullshyt

Point blank period, if you cryin about 60 dollars you need to reorganize your priorities and not even spend it.

 

[Huellz Santana]

60 is plenty of money considering the average person is unaware of the TRUE cost of developing games. It isn't nearly as massive as the media would lead us to believe.

Go on...​

 

[Rekkapryde]

Games should really be up there in the $100+, especially the AAA projects--thus the DLC culture.

Coders are fukking expensive and coding is really difficult.

But as far as the thread goes, I agree. People expect too much out of games now.

spoiled mufukkaz. SNES rape prices.

thank god for Sony saving us with the disc based media.

 

[PS5 Pro]

Go on...​

Well for starters most games are not the big budgeted titles that "could"cost that much, so what about those other lesser titles? Wouldn't it be cheaper today to make previous quality titles? (It is) now a lot of shyt is built into the system like direct x.12 for example, Microsoft also provides free cloud networking for its partners once again removing cost. Yet the story that gets tossed around is how Sony is spending this much. But you didn't hear that from me