Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 23 Mar 2011.
PC titles used to be $50 not $60. The trend to sell PC games at $60 started with Activision and COD.
Micro transaction "free to play games" can often cost far more than $60/£40 with the free to plays being at a fairly severe disadvantage.
Oh no, not $10. Whatever will I do!
To another point, I feel sorry for people who wanted to get into certain MMOs that became free to play. What's that, you spent $100 buying the game and playing for 3 months of time? Well screw you!
What will you do? Apparently you will pay the even higher prices they'll have when the publishing companies realize there's still idiots out there with your mentality.
One game started a gaming-wide price raise of $10. On a used-to-be $50 game, that's a 20% increase. Next 20% increase from the current $60 will push games up to $72 (which for the record is nearing a 50% increase from the $50 cost we used to have), but I suppose you're rich enough that you can pay the extra $12 on top of the extra $10 you're already willing to throw out without much issue... While you're at it, go ahead and send $22 my way for every game I purchase since you can afford it.
I too think bad things are going to happen now that hes opend his mouth. $60 for a game might be exploitation. but at the same time EA need to make money. I dont mind paying £25-30 for a game but £45+ is just way too much IMO
Oh dear, you might not to want look too hard at the world around you, lest you realize exactly how much extra you're paying for items just because you can and don't question it. Just might have to eat your words.
The plain and simple is that in a free market the value of items is roughly determined by what people will pay for it. Tulatin, along with anyone still buying games at their $60 price, obviously feels that the value of the games are still worth the cost and as such doesn't mind the increase. If the price were to raise beyond what people were willing to pay then people would stop buying them.
It always sucks when the majority places more value in something than you do, but that's life. At least these are video games and not something like an essential staple food.
Um - isn't he just missing the poitn a bit. Software houses used to release demo's all the time which allowed us "to play the game, and figure out if they like it. If they don't like it they can walk away and they don't lose anything." This guy's either crazy for publicity or living the the 80s. Give us some demos and everyone will be happy.
too true...with recent EA games you need to PRE-ORDER the game before they allowed you access to the demo.
I agree, I don't mind paying $60 for a game I'll stick 60+ hours into. Fallout 3 had at least 130 hours put into it, BFBC2 is 350+ and Fallout NV 30+
If it was just a single player that I could only play for 2-3 hours, or the multiplayer sucked.... and I payed $60, then I'd be pissed
The $60 price really dosnt bother me much, mainly because I rarely buy games when they first come out (this may change for BF3). So they can suck all the cash they want from the initial first buyers all they want (because they know you will pay it to play it RIGHT NOW). When a game is really worth $60 then it feels like a decent price to pay, however if you get a game that is subpar then $60 feels like a total theft. Perhaps its just the crap load of subpar games that are priced at $60 that people feel like is a rip because the game itself sucks. Demos are more important than the industry gives them credit for, because really its a try before you buy thing. I played many a demos and I was grateful that the company released them - cause some where ok, some sucked badly, and some where downright awesome (hence a purchase later). Im really glad that there was a Crysis 2 multi demo - I may actually wait to buy it because it didnt feel like it 'popped' out at me - it was good, but it didnt feel great. If your really annoyed with the $60 price tag then wait to buy and show them you put your money where your mouth is and stfu.
I'd rather pay $60 and get a big solid game like the good ole days. Rather than paying $40 and getting some crap that needs an expansion and a dozen DLC's to become a half decent game.
The more hate Activision gets, the easier it is for EA to build relationships with gamers.
As things stand you are paying $60 + DLC, for a 20h pile of crap
That is exploitation.
Also, another industry talking head touting the joys of multi-platform gaming. The day is going to come when there is no point in buying a GTX-OVER 9000+XWZN!! because there will be no games that take full advantage of the hardware.
You have to give EA credit for give Free to Play model a go and sticking to them not like other companies, Im looking at you THQ, even tho the games they make uses old game engines, BF play4free uses the old Bf2 engine and nfs world uses the world from nfs most wanted they non the less extend the life of these engines while not charing the players its a good model once the engine gets old tweak a existing game into a f2pmmo to give new life to it.
Actually, I rarely buy games - even more rarely if they're new. Generally speaking, I'll only ever buy the collector's edition of things well after it's come out. Point in case, Fallout 3 in it's lovely little lunchbox cost me $35.
I don't make a huge stink out of the $10 increase in the base price, because it's irrelevant. I'm fairly sure that the bulk of gamers gladly pay the gate price, and then they start buying the addons. Take a look at many of today's AAA titles. How much did you have to spend for the full story? How many addons did you buy? Publishers are enjoying that "20%" increase because it's just the icing on the cake, when they can bilk people for $10-50 in additional crap after the game has come out.
True, the idea of incremental expansions is not a new one within the realm of the PC, but time was that a hugely successful game would have 1-2 expansions with a reasonable cost, not 10 for a seeming pittance.
So you can call me an idiot if you want for mocking people's reaction to a prince increase, but it's like having your arm sliced off, and crying over a bit of blood on the rug.
$60 is a lot if you get bored in under a day.
On the other hand, microtransactions will cost you a lot more if you sink enough time into the game.
Thing is, you only sink time into a game if It's worth playin...unless your a masochist
Take league of legends for example.
Wait a year or two and buy it for a tenner, thats what I say.
Under a fiver I don't even need a demo anymore, I buy blind.
Separate names with a comma.