dschult3
CGR Undertow Groupie
The true heir to the Monado.
Posts: 2,767
|
Post by dschult3 on Jul 30, 2017 2:15:15 GMT
Would you be willing to pay $100 for a game so that you could have an old school 1 player experience? By that, I mean a complete game without having to pay for DLC or goofy in game transactions to access what used to be considered "just a part of the game." The guys at Cinnemassacre discussed this today, and I found their conversation quite interesting.
If you really look at it, games are cheaper today than they were in the past due to inflation. It has become mandatory for publishers to produce pay for play games or games with additionally purchased content, just so they can keep their books afloat. For me personally? I would pay $100. I think that is probably what a game cost in the late 80s and early 90s when adjusted for inflation, so I'm OK with it. I don't know if it will happen soon due to the price mindset that is cemented in the heads of gamers. (Just look at how many people freaked out over the price of Super Mario Run. That wasn't overpriced at all, if you ask me.) I think it will take one of the major companies to make the leap in order for it to happen.
|
|
Dan E. Kool
Walking Trash Can Robot
Now With Extra Pulp!
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by Dan E. Kool on Jul 30, 2017 8:14:55 GMT
I just get the GOTY Editions. Same thing you described, but like $60 cheaper.
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,821
|
Post by Balder on Jul 30, 2017 11:47:04 GMT
No. Don't buy games day one. Get them later and much cheaper.
|
|
dschult3
CGR Undertow Groupie
The true heir to the Monado.
Posts: 2,767
|
Post by dschult3 on Jul 30, 2017 13:18:23 GMT
No. Don't buy games day one. Get them later and much cheaper. I normally do that too, but there are certain games that everyone loves and wants on day one.
|
|
Dan E. Kool
Walking Trash Can Robot
Now With Extra Pulp!
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by Dan E. Kool on Jul 30, 2017 18:18:06 GMT
No. Don't buy games day one. Get them later and much cheaper. I normally do that too, but there are certain games that everyone loves and wants on day one. Not me. I hate everything.
|
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,818
|
Post by Cervantes on Jul 30, 2017 19:09:39 GMT
If you really look at it, games are cheaper today than they were in the past due to inflation. [...] I would pay $100. I think that is probably what a game cost in the late 80s and early 90s when adjusted for inflation, so I'm OK with it. I haven't seen the video yet (maybe they consider this), but you have to take into account the costs of producing and distributing an actual cartridge and the fact that a game in the 80s/90s wouldn't normally sell millions of copies. Producing a cartridge is infinitely more expensive than a disc or, as is more usual nowadays, just distributing digital copies. Besides the costs of producing the boxes and printing manuals: games until the 90s had to be more expensive because their media was more expensive. You don't spend a dime to produce and distribute more digital copies of a game (except for the 30% cut from PSN, Steam etc., which would've been the cut of the store selling the game anyway). Of course, current AAA games also take much more time and money to develop than in the past, so that balance things. But my point is: even if you developed a small game, you would spend a lot producing/distributing it and wouldn't be expecting it to sell all that much (usually a few thousand copies). Keep in mind this was almost entirely the reason for the N64 failure: licensing and producing cartridges with Nintendo was much more expensive than going with discs for the PS1.
|
|
scipioafricanus
Swamp Ranger
Sega Does What Nintendon't... except the 32X
Posts: 3,566
|
Post by scipioafricanus on Jul 30, 2017 22:18:06 GMT
Don't tell the Call of Duty people.
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,821
|
Post by Balder on Jul 31, 2017 0:55:08 GMT
No. Don't buy games day one. Get them later and much cheaper. I normally do that too, but there are certain games that everyone loves and wants on day one. Buying a couple of your absolute favorites day one a year is fine, but some people does impulse buys on really average/sub-par games.
|
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,460
|
Post by stratogustav on Jul 31, 2017 3:05:07 GMT
All I tell people is that UMK3 for the Super Nintendo was the equivalent to $150 when it came out and people would pay them. I did, and it felt natural because that was the norm. Games are definitely cheeper now.
On the other hand there is stuff like Dead Or Alive 5 Last Round that is like 500 bucks with all the season passes. So there are exceptions, but for the most part games are quite cheap now.
I'm not against games being cheap now. Movies are expensive to make and they would never charge that much for one, I'm talking about the production costs alone, not about how much entertainment time you get out of it.
If are trying to put entertainment time into account, think of Netflix. It is only like $14 for the whole package and you can get a lot of hours from it.
Another point to consider is rendered graphics. For me personally drawing art has more value than rendered graphics. It took 15 months and hundreds of men hours to draw The King Of Fighters XIII. I would likely pay more for that kind of work that for something rendered.
It is not only SNK, Vanillaware games, Arc System Works games, many other Atlus games also use drawing art, and if they want to charge more, I'm cool with that, as long as we get more of those it is fine by me.
As much as I love The King Of Fighters XIV because of its gameplay, there is clearly a quality difference when you compare its rendered graphics to something drawn, cool, and beautiful as The King Of Fighters XIII look.
|
|
|
Post by winnersdontusedrugs on Jul 31, 2017 6:37:43 GMT
I feel like if a game came out with a $100 price tag today it would just cause alot of bad publicity, regardless of whether or not you were actually getting your money's worth in comparison to other videogames. It's just so high above the $40-$60 range most people are used to when concerning AAA games. I don't even want to imagine the shitstorm a $100 indie game would cause.
I think people have become accustomed to DLC practices, since DLC practices as we know them have going on for at least 10 years now. Despite all the complaining you hear about it, most people will still go out of their way to buy both a game and it's DLC. If public opinion of DLC was in any way correlated with it's sales DLC would've vanished a long time ago, but instead it's become the standard way of doing business.
|
|
Pimpjira
Guardian Force Shooter
Posts: 1,102
|
Post by Pimpjira on Jul 31, 2017 22:07:47 GMT
I think DLC the way it is, is fine for the most part. Microtransaction heavy games are likely annoying as hell but I don't play anything that's like that. I'd rather be able to pick and choose what DLC I want if any especially when it comes to games that have multiplayer and costumes. I have no interest in being forced to pay for things like multiplayer maps, costumes, boosters(like those +10 level ups I've seen for Tales games and such).
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,821
|
Post by Balder on Aug 1, 2017 0:38:22 GMT
A 60$ game should feel comeplete independently of DLC. DLC should simply be added content, not locked down content.
|
|
Dan E. Kool
Walking Trash Can Robot
Now With Extra Pulp!
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by Dan E. Kool on Aug 1, 2017 8:15:51 GMT
I feel like if a game came out with a $100 price tag today it would just cause alot of bad publicity, regardless of whether or not you were actually getting your money's worth in comparison to other videogames. A lot of people are already paying $100 - $120 for their games, though. I'm talking about pre-order special editions. They get a special box and maybe a figurine that cost a dollar to manufacture and pay twice as much for the game. If that's something someone wants to do, I won't try to stop them. But I'm not at all worried if the developers/publishers are making enough money. Because they are.
|
|
|
Post by spidershinobi on Aug 2, 2017 21:24:56 GMT
I think dschult3's question is very specific, because if you live where I do you get to pay that for games most of the time anyway! Now if you wonder if I'd pay way more for a game to not contain DLC, then I'd go further and say that I'd be uneasy if that was ever offered to me. While the practice of selling DLCs looks like a simple way to milk consumers, it also works as a way to both create "news" about games and as a way to support continued development in genres such as fighting. So if a company tells me they are 100% about not having DLCs, I have to wonder if the game being sold shouldn't have any. In addition to that, if you really want to go old school, we would be stuck with paying for each run until we die, wouldn't we?
|
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,818
|
Post by Cervantes on Aug 3, 2017 1:48:16 GMT
spidershinobi brings a good point: DLC does extend the life of a good game. The best thing would just be if DLC were sold as more meaningful packages, as "Expansion Packs" were in the 90s and early 2000s. Instead of offering a DLC for a new character, another for a new game mode, another for a new level etc., developers/publishers should try to pack these things in a single DLC. We're actually coming to that with the Season Passes, in which a bunch of DLC is packaged as it should've been in the first place - in my experience, I only buy DLC when it's sold like that, in a package that includes a lot of stuff (even if it would cost the same price to buy each thing separately). Of course, it does have to expand the actual tgame in some way - even in packages, DLC for clothes or other cosmetic stuff just doesn't catch my attention. Now, what annoys me is when a game is not even finished and there are already announcements for DLC. In those cases, it's obvious the DLC isn't being made to expand the game: it's usually things that could be already in the game and were taken out. What usually happens in these cases is that I only buy the game when there's a GOTY/Definitive version available.
|
|