The $70 Price Tag Is Actually Indefensible.

[CriticalGaming]

Yeh no, I'm not paying €80 for a game. So I won't. I'll just wait until it drops to something more acceptable in my eyes. Probably get it second hand too. Might even be preferable, since it mean the blokes who wanted to charge me €80 get nothing, or at least nothing from me.

Question is, what is acceptable to you though? Surely you don't have a single price point for every game that comes out. Would there never be a game you'd pay that money for full stop? Or would the game have to be something special for you to take that leap?

If you are firm standing on not paying that much, will you pay 70? 60? You say acceptable in your eyes, so i assume that price will go up or down depending on the game then.

 

[Iron]

Question is, what is acceptable to you though? Surely you don't have a single price point for every game that comes out. Would there never be a game you'd pay that money for full stop? Or would the game have to be something special for you to take that leap?

If you are firm standing on not paying that much, will you pay 70? 60? You say acceptable in your eyes, so i assume that price will go up or down depending on the game then.

Imagine they'd set the price to 80$, then get absolutely no pre-orders. I remember F76 dropped the pre-order price.

 

[happyninja42]

Question is, what is acceptable to you though? Surely you don't have a single price point for every game that comes out.

Is that so hard to believe? That people might not be financially secure enough and have to budget their entertainment expenses like any other expense? Because that's what a lot of people have to do. So yes they have a single price point, if they are actually trying to be financially responsible. For me, given my free income fluctuates significantly, it is a bit more nebulous. I usually don't buy anything full price, and my rough price point is "no more than $25 US" Which basically means, buying everything on sale, and/or several years after release.

I don't always stick to this, as some games come out that look like I will enjoy them a lot, and I am more financially flush at the time, I'll splurge and buy at full price. But that's very rare. I've done it recently, with Miles Morales upon release (but that was sold lower, but it was still "full price"), and Ghost of Tsushima. I think I got Fallen Order at a slight discount? I can't recall. But, yeah, having a price limit for gaming isn't as strange as you seem to make it out to be. I know you've mentioned before that you are fairly financially secure, so dropping 60+ bucks on every title isn't a problem for you. For me it is, and for a lot of people it is. So we gauge it based on the price.

 

[Chimpzy]

Question is, what is acceptable to you though? Surely you don't have a single price point for every game that comes out. Would there never be a game you'd pay that money for full stop? Or would the game have to be something special for you to take that leap?

If you are firm standing on not paying that much, will you pay 70? 60? You say acceptable in your eyes, so i assume that price will go up or down depending on the game then.

Basically, I have a self-imposed €60 budget per month. Not a euro more, and any leftovers from a month don't transfer to the next. So €60 is the max amount I'm willing to pay for a single game. Which has little to do with my financial security. I could afford more. I simply don't want to. And yes, what I'm willing to pay depends on the game, tho again, anything above the budget is a big fat no. And if a game should never drop below that €60? Well, then I don't buy it. Ever.

 

[SilentPony]

I was just about to say he's looking very cartoonish comical in this one. I dunno who is makeup artists is, but that shade of purple does not work with his skin ton. He needs a much lighter, more earthy and skin colored shade. Its distracting and not in a good way.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Is that so hard to believe? That people might not be financially secure enough and have to budget their entertainment expenses like any other expense? Because that's what a lot of people have to do. So yes they have a single price point, if they are actually trying to be financially responsible. For me, given my free income fluctuates significantly, it is a bit more nebulous. I usually don't buy anything full price, and my rough price point is "no more than $25 US" Which basically means, buying everything on sale, and/or several years after release.

I don't always stick to this, as some games come out that look like I will enjoy them a lot, and I am more financially flush at the time, I'll splurge and buy at full price. But that's very rare. I've done it recently, with Miles Morales upon release (but that was sold lower, but it was still "full price"), and Ghost of Tsushima. I think I got Fallen Order at a slight discount? I can't recall. But, yeah, having a price limit for gaming isn't as strange as you seem to make it out to be. I know you've mentioned before that you are fairly financially secure, so dropping 60+ bucks on every title isn't a problem for you. For me it is, and for a lot of people it is. So we gauge it based on the price.

Doesn't that make the point then? Even with such a fluctuating income you yourself admit you will pay full price for a game if it excites you enough. Which is my whole feeling of the ten buck price raise doesn't really make or break anyone's illusions of never buying a full priced game. Because ultimately there is always a game that you'll eventually make an exception for.

The other side of it, is even at $60 you say you are almost always waiting until a fairly deep sale or price cut on a game, so again the $10 price hike is virtually meaningless to you one way or the other.

Basically, I have a self-imposed €60 budget per month. Not a euro more, and any leftovers from a month don't transfer to the next. So €60 is the max amount I'm willing to pay for a single game. Which has little to do with my financial security. I could afford more. I simply don't want to. And yes, what I'm willing to pay depends on the game, tho again, anything above the budget is a big fat no. And if a game should never drop below that €60? Well, then I don't buy it. Ever.

So the $70 new price tag is still only 58 euros which means you are still open to paying the new full price of games then? Unless there is a higher mark up in Euros due to importing or something?

 

[Chimpzy]

So the $70 new price tag is still only 58 euros which means you are still open to paying the new full price of games then? Unless there is a higher mark up in Euros due to importing or something?

Demon's Souls Remake

Bestel PS5 Demon’s Souls Remake online voor thuislevering of ga langs in één van onze winkels voor persoonlijk advies. Spaar coins bij je aankoop met Game Mania XP en ontvang korting.

www.gamemania.be

Nope, we get to pay €80. Well, others may get to. I refuse to.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Demon's Souls Remake

Bestel PS5 Demon’s Souls Remake online voor thuislevering of ga langs in één van onze winkels voor persoonlijk advies. Spaar coins bij je aankoop met Game Mania XP en ontvang korting.

www.gamemania.be

Nope, we get to pay €80. Well, others may get to. I refuse to.

that's odd, would you get a better deal importing it because the Ps5 isn't region locked at all?

 

[happyninja42]

Doesn't that make the point then? Even with such a fluctuating income you yourself admit you will pay full price for a game if it excites you enough. Which is my whole feeling of the ten buck price raise doesn't really make or break anyone's illusions of never buying a full priced game. Because ultimately there is always a game that you'll eventually make an exception for.

The fact that I'm occasionally irresponsible with my money, and give into my own desires, doesn't make the argument that "$70 is a reasonable price for a game" valid. Do people spend money they shouldn't on stuff they don't need, that they could simply wait for and get cheaper? Yes. And? Saying yes to that doesn't make charging the ridiculous price for the thing ok. It just means that yes, people buy shit and spend more than they should.

The other side of it, is even at $60 you say you are almost always waiting until a fairly deep sale or price cut on a game, so again the $10 price hike is virtually meaningless to you one way or the other.

No it's not virtually meaningless to me, because I'm still having to eat that increase, even on a sale. A 50% discount on a $70 game, is still higher than a $60 game. So if I stop buying things at $25 bucks or higher, then there will be less games that I might decide to check out, if the base price is raised across the board. Because some publishers just do NOT put their games on sale, or lower the price years later. I've seen games from years ago, that at best, might get a 10% discount, if anything. And the full price is still like $59.99. So yeah, that's a game I probably will never buy on the off chance I might enjoy it.

Which again, means nothing on the topic of "is it right for them to raise the prices under the excuse of 'we need to charge you more because costs'" They can raise the prices all they want, it's their product, and if they think it's worth $200, fine. But they don't get to do all the other shit they do to milk me for every penny they can, and then try and claim the price hike is justified because "video games is expensive to make! we are barely scratching by in these tough times!!" Which is demonstrably bullshit.

If they just came out and said "Yeah we just feel like getting more of your money, because we want us to have it, not you, and we know you'll buy whatever we hype at you" I'd at least give them credit for being honest. But they don't get to claim a pauper's plight while rolling around in billions of dollars of profit, sometimes in a single QUARTER, not year, QUARTER, and try and justify it as a necessary evil of the business.

**Edit**

And I feel I should add, that not everyone has my level of restraint when it comes to impulse buying, and I'm not even that good at it. I give in more often than I'd like, but that part of my brain that says "You WANT thissss.....have it..it's fine....so what if your credit card payment is a bit late because you now have to wait till next paycheck for the free income? It's fiiiiine!" and sometimes I am not disciplined enough to say no. I like to think I'm more restrained than the average gamer, but I know that many people are NOT, and give in more than I do, and spend money irresponsibly more than they should. And it's that kind of thing that makes this bullshit excuse to milk more money from the masses bad. On top of the fact that their justification is complete bullshit.

 

[Chimpzy]

that's odd, would you get a better deal importing it because the Ps5 isn't region locked at all?

While I haven't done much importing from outside the EU, from my experience, probably not. After taxes and shipping it usually amounts to about the same as buying locally, maybe one or two bucks less (or more). Unless customs slap me with import duties too, cuz that makes it a fair bit more expensive, but that's only happened once.

 

[CriticalGaming]

The fact that I'm occasionally irresponsible with my money, and give into my own desires, doesn't make the argument that "$70 is a reasonable price for a game" valid. Do people spend money they shouldn't on stuff they don't need, that they could simply wait for and get cheaper? Yes. And? Saying yes to that doesn't make charging the ridiculous price for the thing ok. It just means that yes, people buy shit and spend more than they should.

Any price is reasonable if people are willing to pay it. Look at Secret Lair sets from Magic the Gathering, or really any collector's edition anything. Things like that rarely hold any value, yet people will pay whatever price for something cool. In this sense, it's a video game which has a varrying degree of coolness and value to different people. After all at any price video games are a luxury and nothing more. However what's extra cool about games, is the ability players have to experience them in different ways, not only through standard replays but also challenge playthroughs, multiplayer modes, sharing the stories with your friends, etc. The value of any given title is what you make.

For example a game you love will be valued to you higher than a game you hate regardless of the initial purchase price. I hated Breath of the Wild and would never endorse anyone playing full price for it. But there are plenty of other people who think I'm crazy and would defend full price for the game to the death.

No it's not virtually meaningless to me, because I'm still having to eat that increase, even on a sale. A 50% discount on a $70 game, is still higher than a $60 game. So if I stop buying things at $25 bucks or higher, then there will be less games that I might decide to check out, if the base price is raised across the board. Because some publishers just do NOT put their games on sale, or lower the price years later. I've seen games from years ago, that at best, might get a 10% discount, if anything. And the full price is still like $59.99. So yeah, that's a game I probably will never buy on the off chance I might enjoy it.

Meaningless or not, you are still talking about a luxury item. An item who's cost at any price is a price that you don't HAVE to spend, because nobody needs a video game. A price increase might mean you buy less games overall throughout the year, or you wait until a game goes on sale to a price you are willing to spend. Your point here of whatever the discount of a game is, you effectively will pay more because of the base price being higher is technically true but if your hard limit on buying a game is $30 then it doesn't really matter what the original cost was, you have a price you are willing to pay and that's it. It's original price is irrelevant, the same goes for anyone who waits until a game is on sale.

Unless you really want to make a stand that you'll pay $25 for a game at 50% but you won't pay for it at $30. Because if so, then I don't think you are going to be happy at any price and you are fighting over pennies.

 

[Worgen]

I saw complaints about the gameplay. People were upset that the trailer showed nothing new that seemed exciting. Though admittedly graphics are a large part of that since there were no flashy explosions and crazy gun effects or any of that. So perhaps the gameplay complaints just blended in with the graphical ones.

The MCC sold on nostalgia and the hyped ability to play it on modern PC's. Though to be fair the original Halo maps still offer some of the best shooter multiplayer maps ever made. The game was good and is still good. However Halo 5 is nearly dead online play with a playerbase averaging around 500 total according to any tracker stat I can find. (no steam stats for 5).

Halo will still have it's hardcore fanbase, and that'll probably hang around for a while. The 17kish players on steam will likely dive into Halo Infinite.

I still think Infinite is on track to be even worse in the fan's eyes than Halo 5 was.

Maybe they'll put the huge delay to good use.

Halo 5 isn't out on pc. You can find people bitching about every trailer, but the vast majority of the bitching was about graphics, you cannot ignore that. I mean you don't even have a point with bringing up Doom since plenty of people bitched about Eternal's gameplay too and that it wasn't similar enough to 2016.

 

[blockhead77]

Why is 60$ defensible? Any price-tag, really. Why would there be a standard price-tag? We're getting to the deaths of brick-and-mortar shops, you could price your games however you'd like.

I agree, I bought Super Mario Odyssey recently for $50. In my opinion that was a fair price for it, games shouldn't *have* to be a set price.

 

[BrawlMan]

For those that don't know or do not remember. Cartridge based games had no set price. Back in the 8-bit/16-bit/N64 days, any game could range from $40-$90 or $100. RPGs tended to be $90-$100. Neo Geo games were even worse, because you were literally getting the arcade board in a big ass cartridge. Those games could go anywhere from $100.00 (the cheapest you could possibly get) to $350+. Think about that. Yeah.

Sony is the one that started the standard $50 price tag and it was fair and usually reasonable. Then the HD era happened and everyone wanted $60. I called bullshit on it back when I was 17, and that still stands today. I remember some Game Stop employee was trying make pathetic corporate apologizing excuses for the first price hike. Those used to be full games until corporate greed happened, and most were nothing but shell prices or boringly bare minimum entry. The whole inflation excuse for the last two gens is bullshit, because games are cheaper to make, but the big boys at top want it all and make up any bullshit to get it. But they keep making the same "Games are expensive or too expensive to make" and then keep getting all of these bonuses, giving nothing to those making the game, while crying wolf and playing the fucking victim. It's pathetic. Especially when most of the games ain't worth the disc they're printed on in AAA industry.

Basically, I have a self-imposed €60 budget per month. Not a euro more, and any leftovers from a month don't transfer to the next. So €60 is the max amount I'm willing to pay for a single game. Which has little to do with my financial security. I could afford more. I simply don't want to. And yes, what I'm willing to pay depends on the game, tho again, anything above the budget is a big fat no. And if a game should never drop below that €60? Well, then I don't buy it. Ever.

A wise decision.

And I feel I should add, that not everyone has my level of restraint when it comes to impulse buying, and I'm not even that good at it. I give in more often than I'd like, but that part of my brain that says "You WANT thissss.....have it..it's fine....so what if your credit card payment is a bit late because you now have to wait till next paycheck for the free income? It's fiiiiine!" and sometimes I am not disciplined enough to say no. I like to think I'm more restrained than the average gamer, but I know that many people are NOT, and give in more than I do, and spend money irresponsibly more than they should. And it's that kind of thing that makes this bullshit excuse to milk more money from the masses bad. On top of the fact that their justification is complete bullshit.

You hang in there man. Please do not give in if you can help it. I've noticed there are some games I want, but I am waiting on a sale. Onechanbara Origins is charging $60 for games that were usually a budget price. The Wii and X360 games that made it state side at $30. When Z2 Chaos made it to the West, it was $50 physical, and $40 digital. Origins is digital only (at $60) in the West unless you want to import the Japanese version. Granted, with Origins, you're getting a remake of two old PS2 games modernized, but I call bull on that price, because Crash Insane Trilogy is a remake of 3 three games charged at $40. You know something is wrong when Activision has a fairer price by comparison. Especially when compares to the handling of Nintendo's Mario Triple pack with bare upgrades and uprezzing.

 

[blockhead77]

For those that don't know or do not remember. Catridge based games had no set price. Back in the 8-bit/16-bit/N64 days, any game could range from $40-$90 or $100. RPGs tended to be $90-$100. Neo Geo games were even worse, because you were literally getting the arcade board in a big ass cartridge. Those games could go anywhere from $100.00 (the cheapest you could possibly get) to $350+. Think about that. Yeah.

Sony is the one that started the standard $50 price tag and it was fair and usually reasonable. Then the HD era happened and everyone wanted $60. I called bullshit on it back when I was 17, and that still stands today. I remember some Game Stop employee was trying make pathetic corporate apologizing excuses for the first price hike. Those used to be full games until corporate greed happened, and most were nothing but shell prices or boringly bare minimum entry. The whole inflation excuse for the last two gens is bullshit, because games are cheaper to make, but the big boys at top want it all and make up any bullshit to get it. But they keep making the same "Games are expensive or too expensive to make" and then keep getting all of these bonuses, giving nothing to those making the game, while crying wolf and playing the fucking victim. It's pathetic. Especially when most of the games ain't worth the disc they're printed on in AAA industry.


A wise decision.


You hang in there man. Please do not give in if you can help it. I've noticed there are some games I want, but I am waiting on a sale. Onechanbara Origins is charging $60 for games that were usually a budget price. The Wii and X360 games that made it state side at $30. When Z2 Chaos made it to the West, it was $50 physical, and $40 digital. Origins is digital only (at $60) in the West unless you want to import the Japanese version. Granted, with Origins, you're getting a remake of two old PS2 games modernized, but I call bull on that price, because Crash Insane Trilogy is a remake of 3 three games charged at $40. You know something is wrong when Activision has a fairer price by comparison. Especially when compares to the handling of Nintendo's Mario Triple pack with bare upgrades and uprezzing.

The way that Super Mario 3D All Stars was handled is Indeed a trainwreck, sadly.

 

[sXeth]

Fifteen minutes in...

He might have explained why he bought the 90 dollar deluxe edition of Demon's Souls. Seems like he is part of the problem. The exclusive content looks lame.

IF I could be bothered, I'd find the one where Angry Joe rants about the microtransactions in something or other while literally showing footage of him buying 50 lootboxes on stream for "research" into the odds (as if any thinking gamer isnt aware of how those go). (Or that one time he tried to pull his youtube influencer card on whichever retailer it was for not having Day 1 Tittanfall super mega edition or whatever it was)

 

[blockhead77]

IF I could be bothered, I'd find the one where Angry Joe rants about the microtransactions in something or other while literally showing footage of him buying 50 lootboxes on stream for "research" into the odds (as if any thinking gamer isnt aware of how those go). (Or that one time he tried to pull his youtube influencer card on whichever retailer it was for not having Day 1 Tittanfall super mega edition or whatever it was)

Geez

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Does anyone remember the really old game Lemonade Stand? It's a game that you set the price of lemonade for the day; if it's say 70 degrees with low humidity, you set the price low; if it's 90+ degrees with high humidity, you set the price high. You price something based off what people are willing to pay for it. There's no such thing as arguing a game should cost $60 or $70 or $10. A company doesn't sell things for what the cost of production is (aka break even). Video gaming is one of the cheapest hobbies one can have, that's not an argument for raising prices, it's just what it is. I spend at least $40 at the bar every Friday, that's far more than I spend on video games. If the majority of people don't like the price they can, you know, not fucking buy it and force the price to be reduced. It's like politics and not liking either party and complaining there's nothing people can do, you can vote for someone that isn't a democrat or republican.

Some of Jim's arguments don't even make much sense. I've only bought one game that was the collector's or deluxe edition (MGS4) in my life and I have never purchased microtransactions, and I have never felt like I didn't get the full game. Well, that ME3 day one DLC was bullshit... Also games can have DLC or expansions (these are what like 20+ years old at this point?) without making the standard game incomplete. Horizon Zero Dawn was a complete game at launch. Is the new Miles Morales Spiderman make Spiderman incomplete? Did The Lost Legacy make Uncharted 4 incomplete? And if you're complaining about games being released half-ass like tons of the looter games, then don't fucking buy them at release. Who though Fallout 76 was going to be a fully released game or just good game? There was a beta that showed it sucked plus it was Bethesda making an online game, how did you think that would work out? I played the betas of Destiny and The Division and deleted them in less than an hour because they weren't worth playing for free. Very rarely is the consumer legitimately deceived ala Aliens Colonial Marines.

The one thing I will say that is bullshit is the digital pricing. And, again, this isn't an argument for why it's objectively wrong in some way as there's no reason to charge less money if people are willing to pay. The reason I don't buy digitally is because the publisher wants me to buy digitally so the manufacturing is cheaper along with the BIG CATCH that I can't resell my copy second hand. If you want me to scratch your back, then you're gonna have to scratch my back. Digital copies should be at least a third less than the physical copy easily.

Lastly, do people not realize you can buy a game at full price, play it, and then sell it and it's basically like you waited for it to drop to like $20 or so? I sold Ghost of Tsushima for $46 last month.

Yeh no, I'm not paying €80 for a game. So I won't. I'll just wait until it drops to something more acceptable in my eyes. Probably get it second hand too. Might even be preferable, since it mean the blokes who wanted to charge me €80 get nothing, or at least nothing from me.

I'll buy on release and sell it to you then

 

[sXeth]

Geez

Somehow that jogged my memory.


IT was OVerwatch I believe. Angry Joe doing his usual spiel about Corporate Commander, greedy moentization. But then cuts to stream footage where he buys like 200 dollars of loot boxes just to demonstrate how often you got dupe items from them.

 

[blockhead77]

Somehow that jogged my memory.


IT was OVerwatch I believe. Angry Joe doing his usual spiel about Corporate Commander, greedy moentization. But then cuts to stream footage where he buys like 200 dollars of loot boxes just to demonstrate how often you got dupe items from them.

Wow... He couldn't take other people's word for it???