Support NeoGAF

[oni-link]

I wanted the title of this thread to be:

Has the abundance of cheap digital games changed how much you're willing to spend on a game?

Basically, I'm 29 years old, and when I was growing up, playing N64 and then Gamecube games, I expected to fork over £40 or more for a new title

Fast forward to now, and PSN and Steam are full of great games that go on sale for a few quid to a fiver. I can quite happily never spend more than a tenner on a single game and still have more games than I have the time to play

This has changed how much I see games being "worth" as even new titles drop in price rapidly, both digitally and physically

I find it hard to justify spending £40 on a single game when I could get 4 or 5 games for that price and by the time I beat those, that £40 game will also be heavily discounted

So, have cheap games on digital storefronts changed how much you're willing to spend on games, and what kind of impact do you think this has had/will have on the industry as dev budgets continue to rise?

 

[Unison]

Yes, but there are other factors as well, such as the discount I get from Best Buy's GCU program... so even for new retail games I'm only paying $48.

$60 seems insane to me.

I still prefer to pay for iphone/console games versus f2p models, though. DLC and in-game boosts and loot crates annoy me and I avoid games that have them.

 

[whatever6352]

I'll still buy the new games I want to play day 1 at full price, but it does give me the opportunity to play those games that I'm on the fence about and wait for them to be on sale.

 

[Lothars]

Nope if anything I will buy certain titles at full price but ignore others till they go on sale.

 

[dlauv]

Yeah. Steam changed my life.

If I'm not paying 15 bucks AT MOST for a AAA game a year after release (depending on DLC), then it's a bad deal.

60 bucks for Yakuza 0 was a hard pill to swallow. 34 for Prey was satisfactory.

 

[Nights Owl]

Mm. Not quite. It really depends on how much I think I'll enjoy it. I bought ARMS for a full 60 dollars while buying the Binding of Isaac Afterbirth + was 40 and bought other smaller games for less.

Value for me is how much I want the game and how much I think I'd play/enjoy it. Just because I can enjoy a 20 dollar game for 10 hours doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to pay 60 for a 10 hour game.

However if you tried to sell me a game like Kamiko for 60 bucks I'd laugh at you.

Edit: I should say I mostly buy Nintendo games physically, so they tend to retain value.

 

[jbug617]

I would say things like GCU and Prime Discount (also grinding Amazon gift cards via Bing) change how I view the price of games. I can't remember paying $60 for game.

 

[fetus8]

Cheap games on digital storefronts absolutely changed the way I purchase games, but so did the programs via Amazon and Best Buy.

If there is a big AAA release I am interested in, there is no way I am going to pay $60 for it even on release day. If it is a digital only game that I am interested in, I have learned to wait a month or two and it will probably go on sale. I think Steam Sales and the like have mostly just taught me to be a little more patient and wait for sales.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

I don't do the whole PC gaming thing so "cheap digital games" is something I'm not personally familiar with.

Personally $20 or less is impulse buy territory and I'd preferably stay away from anything over $40.

 

[katsubento]

$60 seems insane to me.

You should have been there in the 16 bit days paying $70+ for carts.

Nearly thirty years ago.

$60 is a lot of money, but imagine our struggles back then.

 

[Shiggy]

I'm mostly buying Nintendo software, which never goes on sale digitally. So I keep on buying those at retail, with 50-80% off half a year or more after release.

 

[Unison]

You should have been there in the 16 bit days paying $70+ for carts.

Nearly thirty years ago.

$60 is a lot of money, but imagine our struggles back then.

I paid that back then... I would not now. Hence, my consideration of a "good price" for a game has changed... which is the premise of the thread.

 

[Lagamorph]

Yes.
The idea of paying £40+ for a PC game directly on Steam is utterly laughable to me now. And sod off am I paying £50+ for a console game.

At least with the old expensive cartridges you knew a chunk of that price was the manufacture and distribution of a proprietary cartridge and bulky plastic box. And a nice thick instruction booklet.

Now it's all standard format discs, water thin plastic boxes and no manuals.

 

[iceblade997]

Honestly, yes. Having spent a long time playing PC-only (and just in general not being able to buy games day 1 a lot of the time) I've become accustomed to playing stuff that's older (but cheaper), so while I tend now to follow stuff like E3 or something like that, I'll put it on a list and wait a few years for it to come down to a price I'm comfortable paying.

I'll only pay $60 or so for an AAA release if it's a game I'm *seriously* anticipating and am a huge fan of its franchise (Mafia or Dragon Age: Inquisition for example), but those tend to be once-a-year type deals and otherwise I'd prefer to spend less and get more games for the same amount of money.

Even now, for example, I am struggling to justify paying the $25 / $30 it'd cost for Nier PS3 because that could be two or three games instead. Not just that, but often it winds up being that a newer game gets (or needs) patches, DLC, etc, so you're not necessarily getting the best version of the game whilst paying the most for it.

 

[Lifeline]

With Amazon preorder discount Crash is almost $30, same with Lost Legacy.

I can't see myself paying $60 for either of those games.

 

[inner-G]

Yes.

I have to reeeeally want something to spend over $20 on it, especially on PC.

GCU has essentially normalized the price of new games at $48 to me for years.

 

[Rizific]

No not really. A good game is worth it's asking price. Whether it be $20, $60, single player only, or multiplayer only. Keyword there being GOOD.

 

[Unison]

I think another significant factor might be that there are *SO MANY* game releases these days that it's literally impossible to play everything that you find interesting, which wasn't the case back in the day...

Since there are so many worthwhile games and most people have backlogs, it's harder to justify full price for brand new games.

 

[katsubento]

I paid that back then... I would not now. Hence, my consideration of a "good price" for a game has changed... which is the premise of the thread.

My only fear with this is the same thing that happened to mobile. People want everything for free or so cheap that it isn't sustainable for games we want.

 

[Rolodzeo]

Absolutely, I only buy games in bundles or when they are heavily discounted.

 

[InsaneFandom]

Kinda, but retail games hugely dropping in price are more responsible I think since I'm still mostly physical.

I have a big-ish backlog & a huge wishlist of games I want that are already out so there's really no reason not to wait for a game to drop in price or go on sale before I buy.
Atm there are very few games I'll pay over £30 for. Even £20 is pushing it in a lot of cases

Sometimes I think this attitude can't be any good for the industry & AAA games really should be getting more expensive. But my wallet takes priority & I do buy DLC for games I really like so eh

 

[Jawmuncher]

I'm cheap as fuck now. I'll gladly wait for $30 or less on a majority of the games I buy now.

 

[riotous]

No. I mostly play games that I replay a ton though. RPGS and ARGS and whatnot.

Considering the sheer amount of hours I've put into a game like Skyrim on PC, it's highway robbery that I only paid $60 for it.

 

[Fancolors]

I think the last time I spent over 100 BRL (around 30 USD) was Overwatch.

The rest of my purchases are either heavily discounted digital games or indies and shmups I want to support. And sometimes used games. Most of them never go past 50 BRL.

 

[Gamer79]

My problem with the digital business model is they charge the same as a physical copy and generally the prices drop much slower. No thx on digital

 

[Devilgunman]

Absolutely. There are very few franchises now that make me buy it at $60. Any great games that never been on my radar need to drop to at least 50% before I even consider buying it. Indies are almost a no-buy for me since they might eventually end up on PS+ free game at some points, unless it's a very special game like Shovel Knight or anything from SuperGiants.

 

[televator]

Ive always measured things to my work wages. One item that costs more than several hours of my time at work... puts things in perspective.

 

[Fbh]

Somewhat, yes.

Now I only tend to pay $60 for RPG's and wait for sales on almost everything else except some specific games I've been anticipating for year (like, say, Uncharted 4).
But I do tend to buy games once they are $30 or so, I don't wait for them to be sub $10.

Sometimes I feel a bit bad about it since lenght and amount of content doesn't instantly make a game good. I also hate it when games start including grinding and filler stuff just for the sake of "content".

But the truth is just that I feel those $60 are more justified on a game that will keep me playing for weeks instead of something I will finish in 3 days. And the fact that now it seems like it never takes more than a few months for almost all games to reach $30 makes it harder to justify those $60

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Not even a little bit.

I don't buy that many games, and when I do, I tend to value my time more than my money. Either a game makes good use of my time or it doesn't, and I don't really care whether it costs $1 or $100.

 

[MrBS]

Absolutely, with digital I only buy day one these days if I'm determined to play the game then and there as discounts come quick and deep of late. Otherwise wait for the sale.

 

[meerak]

No, but they affect when I buy some games.

 

[StereoVsn]

It depends on a game for me. So some games that I have been heavily anticipated for years like FFXV, GR2, Persona 5, Yakuza Zero, I would get at release (well at 20% discount and sometimes more). That's fairly rare though and most games I will wait till they fall to $30 or below.

For example, I liked the new COD campaign and I loved COD4:MW campaign so COD: Infinite Legacy was something I wanted.. which I got on BF and paid less then $40.

Nier Automata is something I want but I will wait till it comes down in price on PC. NBA 2K games I get every year but a few months post release for $30 or so.

 

[Clipse]

GCU ruined physical games for me. Even brand new releases at $48 is too much. Now I just wait for a sale so I can stack my GCU discount on top of that.

 

[inner-G]

GCU ruined physical games for me. Even brand new releases at $48 is too much. Now I just wait for a sale so I can stack my GCU discount on top of that.

Dat $32.99 price point

 

[Hostile_18]

Nah I still day 1 games im really looking forward to. The value of games and how long they last now is insane (30-150 hours), what other hobby gives you that for £50 pounds.

Cheaper prices just allow me to make impulse purchases on games I'm less sure if I'll like though, so they do have value. The only exception is Tell-Tale games which consistently drop in price before the season is even half way out, you'd be insane... or rich to jump in day 1 for a higher price and with content you can't access.

 

[MutFox]

It's got me to buy games that I've been on the fence on,
that's for sure.

Still, I've bought, but haven't played a lot of them.
So they got my money.

 

[gelf]

Yes because a lot of the cheaper indie titles provide more of what I'm looking for in a game then many of those full price AAA titles. Which means I just wait for price cuts on some of those big budget titles as I don't see them as worth more then the "smaller" titles I'm enjoying.

I do make some exceptions for high priced niche titles that I feel need my support. The Yakuza series for example.

 

[EmiPrime]

I have been like this for a while, probably since the time off shore retailers started abusing the £17.99 tax loophole so before digital stores took off. With a backlog and PS+/XBL dropping 10 more games onto my lap every month I am under no rush to get games on release. Better to get four older games that are a year old than one new game.

 

[Mooreberg]

Having a window to play something still goes a long way to determining if I buy a game upon, or close to, release. Shadow of War is the latest example. If they stick to August release, I buy it before the autumn tidal wave of games. In October, there are a bunch of other games out, more than I will have time for by Black Friday. Invariably, something is 50% off a month later. Having a large digital library can contribute to not having as much time for new release, particularly if what I am catching up on is similar to what is coming out.

 

[Dandy Crocodile]

Between PSN sales and GCU from Best Buy I haven't paid MSRP for a video game in years.
I normally get stuff 20-80% off.
It's not that I don't think games are worth their suggested price, it's that it's so easy to save money while investing in this hobby that I might as well do so.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

It's a perfectly reasonable approach to view price strictly as a function of how far from launch you're willing to wait to play a particular game. There's no denying that games have entered my collection that I have paid full launch price for that I have yet to play to any degree of satisfaction. So now, unless I know 100% for certain that I'm going to want and commit to a game within its launch window, I won't pay full price for games, ever.
Games still enter my backlog and I don't play them, but they don't cost me more than the price of a weekend lunch anymore. Steam Sale hauls have been significantly reduced with this outlook. After I have waited a certain amount of time before playing a game, my desire to play it wanes and wanes and wanes until even at $7.50 I'm thinking "Eh I've got other games to play right now." Impulse buy territory now has a ceiling of $5 or less.

 

[Unicorn]

Yes, but I also spend most of my games budget on indie games.

 

[zMiiChy-]

Definitely, and that's honestly one of the reasons I avoid games on Nintendo platforms.

 

[Comandr]

I justify my game purchases by expecting an hour of play for every dollar spent. If I don't think I'll get 60 hours of play time in a game at launch, I don't buy it.

 

[Earthbound64]

No, it hasn't.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

No.

But i no longer buy Xbox and PS4 games day one due to knowing they'll be heavily discounted after 2 or 3 months.

Nintendo are smart. I know their prices won't drop and if anything, the best deals are on launch day. So I still day one Nintendo games.

There will be exceptions on PS4/Xbox at some point, but I haven't Day one'd a game since Uncharted 4 over a year ago. Feels good man.

 

[chemicals]

just be like me and be thankful that enough people feel the urge to pay 60 bucks for all of their games on day one... that way people like us never need to.

 

[FingerBang]

It does, and now I only buy games full price on day one or when they get super cheap. Pretty much no middle ground, whereas I used to buy a lot of games half price.

 

[george_us]

Not really. I don't mind dropping $60 on truly fantastic games. It's just that most games aren't really worth $60 anymore, not matter how many tens of millions they pump into them. Hell most of the games I'm looking forward to this fall debut at less than $60.

 

[Trago]

When I made the switch to PC as my primary gaming platform, I almost never wanted to buy physical ever again. It's why I'm partly iffy about console software prices, especially since they all have digital storefronts. These games should be cheaper, but they aren't thanks to retail still being around.

That doesn't mean I won't buy a game at $60. But there aren't that many games that are released now that I'll pay that price upfront for. I'd have to be really hyped or something to want to pay that......or it'd have to be a day and date PC port of a major Japanese game lol. Gotta vote with my wallet.