Poll: If you could pay more for games, would you?

[dyre]

Eh, no, I wouldn't do that. Nowadays, I'll generally show my admiration for a developer by buying their game as soon as it comes out (and thus at full price). Ok-but-not-great games can wait a few months to be purchased at a lower price. But even for devs like CDProjekt, I'm not going to pay more than $60 for their game. That's a lot of money, damnit!

Contrast Alpha Protocol. I got through about 20 minutes before I just rolled my eyes and stopped playing. It cost me 40+ bucks.

I got Alpha Protocol for $2. It was absolutely worth the money!

But really, it's quite a good game once you get over the boring as fuck intro and the design problems.

 

[Riddle78]

I already find $60.00 or $70.00 for a silicon disk,or worse,a digital copy to be highway robbery. Quite frankly,I'd much rather pay $40.00 at most for a new title. But,sadly,with publishers trying their damndest to make money,that just won't happen.

I have a theory on publishers,and their place in the modern games industry,but that's for another post if people want to hear it.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Of course not. That violates the entire premise of economics. Do that an the economy will collapse overnight. Oh wait.

But no, I wouldn't pay more than the set price (about $100 here) to buy a game. In fact, I rarely pay full price for a game. I would, however, buy additional content if I really liked the game. But I have to get something in return, otherwise my basic survival skills are shot.

 

[StylinBones]

If it was a game I loved and played for hours and hours, they would probably deserve more. But I probably wouldn't pay more. I was raised to fear being poor, homeless, and working at McDonalds. That's what was instilled in me growing up. Because of this, I have no problem dishing out the cost of a game, but I wouldn't be like, "ZOMG! This rules, take all of my money!"

With the amount of effort and man-hours that go into games and the product being AMAZING these days, I think $60 is a bargain for some games.

 

[Rednog]

Yes and no, if it is a game where I would get more content out of like say a MOBA where throwing a few bucks at it once and a while would speed up getting a new hero or a skin, sure.
But a game where content is forever non changing, like a single player, nope.

 

[malestrithe]

I think 60 dollars is my limit. If it's a game I want to play, I'll justify the expense.

Of course, becoming a freelance game reviewer means I'll never have to pay for a game ever again.

 

[ResonanceSD]

It seems pretty common on these boards to see people saying that games these days are too expensive. That's up for debate but, regardless of which side of that argument you fall on, I doubt many people would complain if games actually were cheaper. One fairly frequent comment seen about games like the Fallout or Elder Scrolls series, however, is that they actually provide so much content that the user would have paid twice as much. It's also fairly common to see someone remark that a cheaper title like, say, Journey or Minecraft is so good that it really should cost more than it's meagre price.

So, if you could pay more for a game than it's initial price, would you actually do so?

If there was sort of a tip system where you could go to the developers site and say "I already really enjoyed the experience you gave me, so here's an extra $20" would you actually use it?

$99 for a AAA release at retail/on steam

$60 from my importer.

Yeah, no way in hell would I volunteer to pay more. I've bought some items in TF2, but that's about it.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

Nope. If I can get a game or any product that I enjoy for a cheap legitimate price, by every god man has worshipped, I'd take it. The other $30 or so I'd give for the same product, could be well spent getting another product entirely.

 

[Nexxis]

I would only pay more if it was something like a collector's edition and I got more stuff for the money. I also wouldn't mind paying for some DLC if I felt it was worth it. Otherwise, no. I wouldn't pay more for a game if given the choice.

 

[mrdude2010]

Nope. Games are usually overpriced.

 

[Lunar Templar]

lol, i miss read the title, but my answer is the same.

no. $60 is to much as is, why would i want to give them more money.

 

[Heaven's Guardian]

After the fact? No. There are certainly games that I would pay more than 60 dollars to buy, but if they want to do that, they'll have to charge me for it and have me make the decision of whether or not to purchase the game at that price. Nevertheless, this is a business, not a charity. I'm not going to hand out my money to businesspeople when I don't have to.

 

[Signa]

There's been a few exceptions, but generally no. I got the indie game Sanctum for dirt-cheap, and I felt inclined to buy all the DLC without waiting for a sale because I wanted to support the dev team and pay more for the base game. I wouldn't have "donated" without the kickbacks of DLC though.

 

[BanZeus]

Most of the time I'd have to say no but the Alduin statue on my desk disagrees.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

-snip-

I totally would. Heres a comparison.

Duke Nukem Forever - Payed $40 for balls of steel Edition - Time played: 10 hours

Terraria - Price payed, $2.50 - Time played 426 hours.

Both are good games in their own right, buuuut...guess who Id give extra money to?

Id lvoe to give a bunch of extra money to the Metro2033 devs..the X series devs..the STALKER devs..a bunch of totally awesome people that made games I absolutely loved.