Poll: Would you accept higher base game prices in exchange for a return to old form?

[Paragon Fury]

So, basic premise;

Games prices have stagnated and remained the same for over two console generations now - more than a decade - despite the fact that games are more expensive to produce, market and publish now. If you know anything about economics, this is a pretty big sign/lead-in to knowing why so many new manipulative and BS ways of making money post-launch (IE: Halo 5's REQ Packs, CoD Supply Drops etc.) and the seemingly unfinished state of games lately.

For comparison, depending on how you want to slice the numbers - the price of a 3DS game, new, adjusted for inflation should actually be $60 USD and a new Xbox One/PS4 game should be about $75-$90. That is quite a difference compared to what we actually pay.

So the question is this;

Would you be willing to pay more for the base game (EX: $75 for the base game) if it meant the removal/large elimination of many micro-transaction policies/schemes and a return to more classic design (Things are included on Day 1 and unlocked through challenges and gameplay, not RNG and more money)?

Personally, I say yes, because I feel like the old way (things on disc unlocked through gameplay) allowed for much healthier and better game design.

 

[gsilver]

I just wait 3-6 months with most games and get them on a huge discount.

Plus, I tend to not buy DLC-heavy games in the first place.

But unfinished games is a huge problem. "Early access" is pretty much the bane of gaming these days. ESPECIALLY in multiplayer-only games. Those things are likely to die out before it's even finished. That is if they're finished at all.

//Currently eyeing "Onward" for VR... Multiplayer early-access. It sounds like the best multiplayer FPS in VR right now... but it may be dead by the time it's "done"

 

[seventy two]

I am not sure about your inflation calculations, I calculate the inflation on a DS game($40 in 2004) and I only reached $51. Doing the same calculation for a PS2 game($50 in 2000) is only 70$, a PS3 game(60 in 2006) $71. Game companies do occasionally raise prices, I have bought 3DS and Vita games for $50 and generally, am not put off by the cost. I am certain many companies prefer maintaining a lower price point to have larger audiences, and based on the popularity of F2P models, I would not be surprised if the intent is to make sure that consumers are not priced out.

To answer the question of what I prefer? The current system gives a fair bit more opportunities to customize your experience without raising the cost of buying in. I don't really think that many games have that manipulative of monetization systems. Generally, outside of mobile, progress is rarely limited by lack of extra investment. Monetization of multiplayer is necessary to justify continuous investment in the product. If you treat a game as done at release then why should there be any changes beyond bug fixes after release? The current model is not terrible for consumers, I would hate to see the outrage when a $75 game is terrible, consider the reaction to $60 games.

 

[Remus]

I spent $80 retail for Chrono Trigger, at Wal-Mart, in 1995. Worth every penny. Would I mind if games were more expensive to account for inflation, but have a less buggy, less predatory experience? Not really. I'd likely have the same number of games since I usually only buy if I plan on spending weeks or even months with a game. I look for that perfect mix of quality and quantity in my gaming content, which is why I like action RPGs so much, or any game world where reality just fades into the background. So for that level of escapism, I would pay extra and pay it gladly.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

I'd be much more accepting of lower prices in exchange for a return to form, and don't nobody tell me you don't want that exact same thing.

 

[Scarim Coral]

While I do preferred the return of the expansion over dlc HOWEVER there has been more sales compared to what it was in the past (90's) or services like Steam Sales does kinda offset this. It depend on which games I want to buy.

 

[Satinavian]

Assuming that the stuff is not only about consoles, my answer is "no".

DLCs cost development time. Usually those are done by the same programmers/artists who did the base game. Which means not having loads of DLCs and include all the content into the base game leads to far longer development times. Which means games look more outdated at the (obviously later) release. Also as the first money comes in later, game development would be even more of a gamble, investors be more wary, depts higher and so on. Last but not least the earlier release shows earlier if the whole project was a failure or not which makes it easier for the developers to abandon a failed project instead of making lots of additional DLC content that no one will buy because the base game sucked.

 

[Zenja]

No. Back when they didn't milk every dime with sleazy profiteering, games were $60 back then and less people played (bought) them. Now selling 1 million copies is considered poor reception. I would prefer they go back to the old method, but I also think that doing so would actually save them money. Instead of working on DLC, work on expansion pack material and sell a whole expansion for yet another $40-60. Or just start work on a new project. I don't understand why the argument is to have to pay more money. If AAA games go up any higher in price, I wont be buying them at release anymore. I am actually a proponent of them dropping in price considering digital distribution and mass market appeal. (Sales volume)

 

[Danbo Jambo]

There's a definite imbalance in modern games. You buy on release and pay a premium price, yet obtain often an unfinished product which needs updated + tweaks + patching. Or you wait a few months, pay far less, yet ooften get a much more complete and better version of the game.

Tbh, I think it rightfully takes advantage of those too impatient to wait a few months. But for the good of the industry I think a better balance should be struck.

I think all game companies should release a "final edition" a year or so after the initial release at 70-80% of the original price, and make that a standard practice both in order to make more money & provide a definitive version for people who'd sooner wait.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Would you be willing to pay more for the base game (EX: $75 for the base game) if it meant the removal/large elimination of many micro-transaction policies/schemes and a return to more classic design (Things are included on Day 1 and unlocked through challenges and gameplay, not RNG and more money)?

A 'return to classic' anything (game design, politics, film, whatever) is generally delusionally foolhardy - like it not, things change and keep on changing.

The current system can be abused, sure, but the consumer has agency they do not exercise, so the blame never solely resides with greedy publishers or devs. It takes two to tango.

Personally, I say yes, because I feel like the old way (things on disc unlocked through gameplay) allowed for much healthier and better game design.

Could you ever begin to objectively prove that? An older era means older models of production and distribution, ergo it's rather futile to seek to wind the clock back, because to do so you'd need to make much of the digital landscape disappear...

Progress brings pros and cons, so whilst I object to a lot of triple-A and populist habits, they're compromises for what I see as a healthier and stronger medium - by way of diversity and spectrum of expression (the medium's never been more varied and allowed as many people a creative voice).

Tbh, I think it rightfully takes advantage of those too impatient to wait a few months. But for the good of the industry I think a better balance should be struck.

I think all game companies should release a "final edition" a year or so after the initial release at 70-80% of the original price, and make that a standard practice both in order to make more money & provide a definitive version for people who'd sooner wait.

That kind of strategy could surely lead to an industry regularly shooting itself in the foot if early sales plummet. Plus, not "all game companies" could even do that given the drastic variation in budgets across the spectrum (indies to the biggest triple-A's), as well as the equally large variation in post-launch support (i.e. just what counts as new content that should be paid for, and then what price the 'final' version should be. who on earth'd set those prices relative to the content?).

Someone can correct me with actual figures, but don't most games - particularly triple-A's, and/or IP's with no major iterative MP modes - sink or swim on early sales? It's not easy to imagine the peculiar marketing landscape that might arise, as publishers sneak out releases with little fanfare, then maybe push when the 'complete' edition comes along. The current system is opportunistic and reliant on gullible punters, sure, but such an alternative would be absurdly chaotic and risky, and unless someone wants to address market forces at a governmental/cultural level, the publishers will screw the punters over on that 'complete' release.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Games are already expensive, especially newly released console games. It's very unusual that I buy a game for 70 bucks (standard price for new console games in Sweden) and feel that it was 100% worth it. If games start at 80 bucks, they better have double the quality they have today.

 

[Phasmal]

Fuck no, games are already too expensive. I'm not made of money.

Besides, I know everyone likes to get all nostalgic, but I'm kind of okay with games at the moment. Yeah a lot of shitty stuff happens, but at the end of the day I can generally play cool games and really that's all I want.

 

[FalloutJack]

Hah. IF you want me to pay more for your game, you'd better shove in all that DLC stuff too. Full game or get out.

 

[CaitSeith]

Sorry. You can argument that games are more expensive to produce than ever. But that isn't reflected in the game's quality. Jaw-dropping glitches and game-breaking bugs at release day seem to have increased along with production costs too. Sorry, such clumsy work doesn't seem on par with the alleged costs.

 

[Weaver]

In Canada our prices are already up from $60 to $80 and I've already stopped buying games. If they go up more I'm sure others will as well.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I'd pay more, but the "return to old form" would have to be DRAMATIC!

I want more finished games, no more of these released with gaping holes they promise to patch up with DLC and microtransactions.

I want more new IPs; if all we have to look forward to every year is the next iteration of Triple AAA Title #44 or Cash Cow: Ressurgervengence, I'd rather not pay the higher premium for a few technical tweeks to the same shit I?ve played already.

I want more well-rounded experiences. I understand multiplayer is a thing and it's not going anywhere anytime soon, but if you?re going to sell me an $80 disc, there better be more on it than $40 worth of deathmatches. If you can?t develop a game that shows a balanced focus on both quality multiplayer and single players modes and choose to develop the next Evolve or Titanfall, fine; I'll pay you $40 if I'm interested. Some might say the same should go for single player-only titles, but I'd disagree for the simple fact that a lot more goes into creating a quality single player experience as you're not banking on your consumer base essentially entertaining each other with the 12 maps you built.

I could think of more, but for the 4 people that might have read this far, I'm winded enough.

 

[SupahEwok]

Premise of the question is flawed. OP assumes that the amount of money spent making the game should dictate the price of the game. No, that's not how economics works. A good is only ever worth what the consumer is willing to pay for it. Inflation has happened? So has the recession and the widening gap in wages. $60 good is still a luxury item for lots of us.

If a publisher is putting more money into a product, but the market can't sustain an increase in price (50k people buying a game for $60 is more money than 40k buying for $70), and it doesn't reach more people, that's the publisher's bad business. DLC, microtransactions, DRM, and other anti-consumer practices are desperate attempts for the big publishers to double down on their bets, rather than admit that their approach of simply going bigger and with more bling is no longer cost effective. Because admitting their whole development model is wrong will cause their stockholders to raise hell.

Western AAA publishing is in a bubble, and it's gonna burst sooner or later. EA is probably the most likely to go down in the near future, as Activision still has WoW. Whether Ubisoft goes down depends on when the mass market gets tired of their cookie cutter sandbox game design. 2k's probably alright, they're not really in the AAA scene much now.

Edit: BTW, even if every single person who plays games dug around in their finances and ponied up $20 extra per game, do you really think publishers would actually drop DLC and microtransactions? No. They've got us acclimated to them now, the publishers would just see that as tossing money out the window. That is simply their mentality.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

Yeah... no. Games are too expensive as it is. Games like Doom 2016 and Fallout 4. Apparently they're 60 USD on Steam, which is the default price for games in the US, but in brazilian money, it's 229,99. Even with a 50% discount, it's still too much.

Edit: Just looked at the new Deus Ex, released about 2 weeks ago. It's also 60 USD, but R$129,99. I have no idea why Doom costs R$100,00 more.