{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/27/2018 1:06:46 AM
27
When do you think games will cost more?
I mean, it's inevitable. The only thing that is saving a lot of companies I think are microtransactions. With inflation I'm surprised video games have stayed as cheap as they are. I know it's a much bigger market than it used to be, but it's also much more expensive.
What do you think?
English
#Gaming
-
With people bitching about MTs probably pretty soon
-
Edited by SirBigWater: 12/3/2018 4:28:15 AMGames went up in price for us in Canada in 2014 to 69.99, then to 79.99 in 2015. So I sure hope that it stays that way and doesn't increase. After tax games are 90 dollars. I can afford it, but I would rather not pay more now for a regular edition of a game.
-
1 ReplyWhen Full-Dive VR gaming is a reality.
-
Next gen, another year or two? 70 instead of 60 likely
-
They already cost more. Many AAA games only offer the base game for $60, which usually ask for an extra $20-50+ extra for the season passes or expansions needed to get the full experience.
-
In Australia you’ll be lucky for a game to be less than $100 on launch, I hope to god it doesn’t get worse
-
Never since games has costed the same for quite a while.
-
They already do. I saw a youtube video describing some of the shitty microtransactions Activi$ion just pulled with BO4. About 1,000$ in total. Not to mention EA's shitty practices as of late and Bethesda's fallout scam. Seriously, Triple AAA games are starting to become shittier than the Free to Play or low price games!
-
1 ReplyWhen the next gen of consoles come out, so I give it a couple years.
-
1 ReplyI've heard some people say they would rather it reach $80 just to get rid of the microtransactions and nonstop hear gaming companies talking about the price of production. Now I want to know how much truth there is on the latter topic, say going from 2005 to today, because microtransactions didn't exist in 05 so what was the cost compared to here in 2018? Personally I would probably buy less games if they were pricey (though I guess that's a given) but if it means less of this nickel and dime BS, I might be willing to pay a bit more. Keyword is might.
-
Never because gamers are super stubborn about how much they pay for games. A lot of arguments I read aganinst raising prices are usually that technology is better (making it easier to develop games) therefore game prices shouldn't go up. However most people don't think/realize that the most expensive part of any business is labor and there are way more people working on a single game nowadays. I think games should have different price ranges depending on what kind of game they are trying to be instead of the flat 60$ price.
-
Edited by Uncanny_Vale: 11/28/2018 9:24:29 PMWith micro transactions and timed-content they already are. They make a full game and then they cut it up into little pieces and sell it back as expansions or horse armor or something. I personally would prefer to just pay more upfront and get all that stuff at once. But I think the genie is out of the bottle. Even if publishers decide to start charging more for games they’ll still try to sell additional content on top of that because what company is going to turn down additional revenue? The whole gaming industry these days seems to be a constant tug of war between publishers and gamers to see how far they can push to get every last dime out of us. Let’s not forget that the gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. I find it suspicious that the ones who say “games need to be more expensive” are the same ones that are making massive profits year after year.
-
1 ReplyTomorrow, like yesterday. They're always costing more yet decreasing in value.
-
5 RepliesGames already do cost more. $60 is the starter price. If you want everything in most games you'll pay well over $100.
-
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/amortize Games are already more expensive. Publishers and developers have just found ways of spreading out that additional cost over TIME, rather than demanding it all up front at the register.
-
You have EA and Ubisoft, and then you have other companies who are still publishing quality games. [spoiler]EA and Ubisoft are only examples. There are a lot more. The point being that not everyone is forcing crap at the consumers, and yet they are still making money. [/spoiler]
-
This is such a dumb argument. Games cost more to develop now, only when you factor in the ridiculous explosion in their advertising budget. Combine that with the fact that most developers don't have faith in their project, so they give a publisher the Lions share of profits to fund the project. No shit your company is going to go bankrupt when you spend 100 million on a game that could have been made for a quarter of that...
-
They already do. Given the fact that major publishers are producing fewer games while making substantially more money, they're probably in no rush to tack that extra $10 because that'll mean the end of the gravy train—no more excuses for $150 "ultimate editions," no more excuses for microtransactions, no more excuses for premium passes.
-
They already are, maybe just not in your country?
-
Edited by moist nana: 11/27/2018 1:11:02 PMIMO I've seen prices for a brand new game come down since the last decade, but that's retail and it's usually some big business willing to undercut the competition just to get people in their store. Same rules apply to game developers unless ofcourse your EA. There is such a thing as pricing yourself outof the market and EA like to walk that line.
-
Games as a service...............
-
When companies stop being able to profit off microtransactions. They'll say 'Games are expensive to make' and then they'll rise like $10 - 20. Or they'll use the new tactic that is 'Early Access' to content. It's already being used in The Division 2. You'll notice this narrative has already been stated by companies like EA, Ubisoft and the like.
-
Funny thing is, I'm buying less new games and picking them up months later at discount. With the overall crappy content or bugs/glitches, maybe they ought to lower the price for their subpar products.
-
5 RepliesAh probably never, Nintendo tried that with their switch cartridges, and they just weren't selling. What's likely to happen is you stream all games in the future. In other words you pay your $60.00, and get the game digitally downloaded for 3 months, and need to pay a fee to maintain it's subscription after those three months, and if it lapses you gotta pay 60 again. And 4-5 months is when dlc will come out. Also for comparison, video games already make plenty of money the ceo's and executives make hundreds of millions. They could very easily shuffle that wealth down the chain, but they won't especially after what they made on micro-transactions before the government took notice.
-
A bigger market, but it's more expensive, shouldn't that balance it out though? Contrary to popular opinion, but we don't actually need bigger games every year. Quality writing, solid gameplay and no/limited bugs IMO make a far better game than just a big open world with a ton of busy work. Good writing doesn't get more and more expensive and gameplay can only evolve so much before it is impossible to do anything new. Better tech starts out super expensive just like everything else, but gets cheaper as we lear more and improve it then the circle continues. Red Dead Redemption made what 720 or so million dollars in just 3 days? That looks like the game made it's money back quick. AAA publishers no longer want to make enough money to keep making games, they want to make more money to line their already fat wallets. It's not about making games for people to enjoy playing, it's about making more than enough cash and making more than the last year. I think I remember hearing the CEO or whatever of Activision got like 20 some odd million dollars just to line his wallet even more. That doesn't seem like the gaming industry is low on funds.
-
That's what I've been saying for a while, but everyone jumps down my throat, because I say I understand the need for micro transactions. I think the problem for most people is that AAA Devs/Publishers are the ones spending $500M+ on games and seeing large returns as well, so they don't want to have to pay more when these companies can "afford" charging less, but I think it should be reversed. We should pay for quality, like every other industry. Like the difference between buying a $10K car vs a $50K one.
