Support NeoGAF

[Raysoul]

Second option so I can laugh at people who buy lootboxes as they are technically funding the game for me. I'll just buy the DLC if it is worth it.

$70-80 is like 7-9 indie games. Game priced at that point are sent to die.

I'm ok with Nintendo tier graphics and scale, but I wouldn't sacrifice the polish for that.

 

[Lupercal]

We've already got games like Rainbow Six Siege, which was retail price + 2 season passes + loot boxes + 2 years of janky bugs and server issues. If you want to be taken advantage of coming and going and staying Ubisoft has your back.

Wow, i wasn't aware I had to get a season pass for all the extra maps and such..

Only the operators could be bought.

 

[MorshuTheTrader]

If it actually meant getting rid of micro transactions and loot boxes and having fuller, complete games, I'd be all for $70-$80 games (in the US).

Current pricing effectively raises the cost of each game anyways, but also actively changes the design to suck money out of you. Raising the base cost could get rid of that need.

But that's in a perfect world. In reality, the base cost would rise and they would still include all of those micro transactions because why not?

 

[Gotdatmoney]

In Canada new releases are already $80 CAD and in some provinces with tax land at $90 CAD. I am not buying any new games if prices go to $70-$80 USD. Over $100 for a new release? No fucking way. It's not just America that gets hit with the price increases.

 

[Contica]

Smaller, I don't have time for this shit anymore.

 

[Coinspinner]

Worse Graphics/Polish/Smaller Scale

After looking at the last 30 games I've bought, this is already the choice I've made.

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

Smaller games. Any other solution is just a band aid on a gaping wound. The core of the issue seems to lie in the increasing costs of making games either through monolithic team sizes or excessive marketing, or both.

Small teams can make great games and at this point there's so many avenues to advertise that relying on multi millions in traditional means seems pointless unless you know you have a big hit. The Zeldas/Mario's etc.

To be honest it's kind of like this in the UK already. It's pretty rare I see a game advert and it's almost always a certified blockbuster.

 

[Alienous]

Second option so I can laugh at people who buy lootboxes as they are technically funding the game for me. I'll just buy the DLC if it is worth it.

$70-80 is like 7-9 indie games. Game priced at that point are sent to die.

I'm ok with Nintendo tier graphics and scale, but I wouldn't sacrifice the polish for that.

Lootboxes can have an impact on gameplay design. If you can monetise tedium then you are incentivised to leave it in - meaning games with grinds that are designed to push you to pay money to circumvent them. It can still have an impact on your experience if you don't buy them.

 

[boiled goose]

Anything except loot boxes and dlc.

Digital content can't be resold and is not carried over to future systems.

 

[425kid]

Anything but loot box and on disc story “dlc”

 

[Branduil]

The only thing that could stop loot box abuse in games is government regulation.

 

[Jyester]

If Hellblade can be released at $30 and be successful, I feel like there's hope for the industry yet.

 

[friskykillface]

Loot boxes that are cosmetic only are not bad, I lol at people going crazy over skins
I'd take that and get free maps like overwatch does

Loot boxes that have locked single player missions that you can't unlock with in game money is a drag

Loot boxes with multiplayer advantages that you can't unlock with in game money is also a drag



I don't buy much games at release unless I am really hyped for them, they usually go on sale a month later but if I did I'd go for the second option I guess.

 

[Timeaisis]

All of them.

 

[shimon]

If I had to pick it would be C. But I don't like any of these options really. There are still great 60$ games without bullshit so it can be done. I want more of those.

 

[BTA]

Smaller scale, absolutely.

I do not need more than like one huge open world game a year, if that. I’d much rather play a high quality small/short experience.

 

[Tigress]

Easy for me, 70-80 dollar games (even 100 honestly if it stops microtransactions in games). But a 10-20 dollar increase is not that huge of an increase especially if you consider it's stayed the same price for > 10 years.

1). I would rather they focus on making the game as fun as possible in order to get my money (the other stuff makes them gear the game towards pushing you to want to pay to fix the game and/or just tries to aim the game to appeal to a gambler's mindset and isn't a game rather than just a manipulation of psychology). Microtransactions make games worse on purpose and I want the game to be as fun and well balanced as possible, not designed to annoy me enough to pay to skip the annoyance.

and

2) I like my graphics/AAA games so I don't want to give them up either. And I *love* my huge open world experiences. I don't buy short games. I buy a game I really love and play the shit out of it (but I don't buy many. Partly cause you don't get many good open world games). Honestly, I don't feel the 10 - 20 hour linear games keep my interest long (shorter than the game lasts usually even) and that makes them not that valuable to me (even if they lasted the full game way too short to be worth that money. I see my games more as toys that I want to be able to keep playing. Not experiences that I play and never touch again).

Unfortunately, they have already found that loot boxes and microtransactions make way more money than any price increase they could get people to stomach ever would so that ship sailed long ago (wish I listened to the guy warning me about mobile games that consumers should accept higher prices than 1 dollar for a game or they will go to shitty ways of making money, which is exactly what happened and now console games are getting in on the action).

(oh, and I like DLC... if I really like the game I want more to play. I'm talking DLC like Horizon's, Bethesda's, CDPR's, what Rockstar used to do for GTA. If I like the game I like them adding even more to play. And I don't buy that every time they do DLC they just shortened the game and sold me the rest. The games I buy DLC the vanilla game was easily worth the money without the DLC).

 

[Raysoul]

Lootboxes can have an impact on gameplay design. If you can monetise tedium then you are incentivised to leave it in - meaning games with grinds that are designed to push you to pay money to circumvent them. It can still have an impact on your experience if you don't buy them.

It depends on the implementation. I played and enjoyed DotA without spending any single cent for Skins.

 

[Arcteryx]

I'd take $200 games if they were like the Witcher 3.

 

[Tigress]

I'd take $200 games if they were like the Witcher 3.

Yeah, honestly the games I like best are worth 200 for how much I put into them and enjoy them. The only one I would say is not that I've played a shit load of is GTA because they purposely imbalance it to get you to pay for MTs and that makes it worth a lot less (it's worth the price I paid for it. 60 bucks for the SP part and nothing for online).

 

[Vlade]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

You assume the industry is unsustainable BECAUSE they don't have loot boxes. that is insane. You could just have pubs taking a smaller cut and do the same work that they do. This race to the bottom is not mandatory.

I'm becoming quite ready for another cycle of death and rebirth of what pubs become obsessed with, I think this avenue is as developed as I can stand.

 

[Dangansona]

It's clear the current AAA market is unsustainable in the long run. The biggest of the big who go on to sell countless millions can and will survive the current market, but the process of inflating budgets and yet unchanging prices or costs is a bubble that's just waiting to pop as more companies downscale and go under in the transition period,

At this point I'm not sure I buy that as much as publishers are greedy and don't funnel enough of the profits earned on games (which are selling to more and more people than they did back when games costed $80+, and also for the record I don't give a shit what they costed 20 years ago) to the development studio or the game itself.

But if I had to choose, option 3>1>2. Keep the game pure of this bullshit please.

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

$80 games. Make it content/feature complete before pressing the disc and include some premium stuff like the OST. Digital can be piecemeal.

 

[kmax]

I'm not picking any of those.

I'm not going to pay more than $60 for my games, and I have no interest in GaaS or any of that stuff.

I'll stick to my SP offline games, thanks.

 

[Plague Doctor]

A combination of 1 or 3. If 2 is the future and/or the new normal as some seem to be defending, looks like I become a casual and poking my head out for one or two titles a year and take up a less toxic hobby. I just can't find the same enthusiasm and passion for an industry that employs manipulative practices like that.

 

[RMI]

never pay more than $20 for a computer game.

I'll take $70-80 games because no way in hell am I paying full price anyway.

 

[Jacethemindtaker]

I'll take option 3 please. As long as the narrative is strong enough and the gameplay core at a decent level I don't care about a lesser graphical presentation, polish or if it's a smaller scale. I have never passed on a game based on it's graphics - only it's themes or gameplay.

That said, sequels should always iterate upon what made the first game good enough to warrant a sequel.

It's been interesting looking at people's arguments for why they think Evil Within 2 is a better game than the first (I don't agree but that's neither here nor there) and some people's reasoning for not buying the game.

I will say this - if it's a modern game that doesn't have an option for subtitles, I'm probably not going to play it.

 

[Classicblunder]

The point is, games are getting a lot more expensive to make and "just charge $60" isn't really working for devs and publishers anymore.

The market and audience are a lot bigger too. I remember when Chrono Trigger was $80 on SNES. The $60 price has held a LONG time, and plenty of big budget games do well under that still. I think developers need to think more strategically about how they make and market $60 games, aiming for a wider audience, rather than over-milking the audience they already have.

 

[Give War A Chance]

I guess lootboxes + DLC, unless the game is designed in a way that forces you to have to buy them to progress in the game.

Season passes are fine, IMO.

If they tune the game to make you buy lootboxes to progress, then I'll just pay more for the games I want. $70/$80 is fine, and I'll buy way less games and really make use of my GameFly subscription.

 

[Kthulhu]

Either more expensive games or smaller games/worse graphics.

Or better yet, these companies just stop putting microtransactions in paid games because they are always unnecessary.

 

[Tigress]

I'm not picking any of those.

I'm not going to pay more than $60 for my games, and I have no interest in GaaS or any of that stuff.

I'll stick to my SP offline games, thanks.

Good luck with those disappearing cause they make more money cause of 2 and they can't even mitigate that with making the price more.

I took a similar stance about mobile games years ago before they al turned to f2p. I was warned by some one developers will find new and probably worse ways to get money if they couldn't charge a good price for them on their games. Guess who won that argument? Look at what shit mobile games have become.

 

[uncleslappy]

With this in mind, how did Naughty Dog get away with charging $40 for Lost Legacy? I don’t think there’s any microtransactions in that game either.

 

[finalhour]

In Canada new releases are already $80 CAD and in some provinces with tax land at $90 CAD. I am not buying any new games if prices go to $70-$80 USD. Over $100 for a new release? No fucking way. It's not just America that gets hit with the price increases.

Yes, we already basically have this in Canada and it has driven me completely away from buying new retail games. I'd love to get a switch, but it's $400 and the games run for $80. With the accessories it just gets to be way too much. The other consoles are a bit better but not much. Even 3ds games are pushing $60.

In a way it's good because I just focus on backlog games and wait for sales. I guess if you have the money it's ok. Maybe it's not so different from most other industries where the high end customer leads the way.

No interest at all in loot boxes, card packs, etc...I just avoid those games.

 

[Animagne]

It's crazy that games only cost 60$, when they were just as expensive (or even more expensive) 25 years ago. I'm for option 1, with some games (like Cyberpunk) going for 100$.
Movie tickets for example now cost twice as much as they did in 1992.

 

[le.phat]

I choose 60 dollar games with high quality DLC. No lootboxes, no bullahit. Consumer choice only.

 

[acevans2]

Bump the game price up. I'll still get it for cheap 4-6 months later and I'd love for it to be free of loot boxes.

Oh, and smaller scale games is a-ok too. I don't need every title I'm interested in to compete in the visuals/scale arms race.

 

[CrashPrime]

Increase the price and be done with the inflation argument. Problem becomes the fact they can still put loot boxes in your CoD games and the game and boxes will still sell.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

How about let's keep games at $60 and publishers decide not to be rip-off artists?

Jim Sterling's "$60 Myth" video puts things so perfectly that I feel I just refer folks to that for my opinion on the matter.

 

[inner-G]

I can live with last-gen graphics

 

[lionpants]

I'm already paying 79.99 + tax for games here in Canada. Oh, they also have loot boxes. Yay.

 

[ViviOggi]

I choose the AAA crash

 

[Diablos]

No to $80 because not only is that a big hike for a new game, but they going to continue exploiting the DLC cash cow every time. Honestly if they’re that pricey I’m not sure how people will react and if it will be healthy for the industry.

 

[Off-Kilter]

You guys are living in a fantasy world if you think $70-80 games are just gonna suddenly drop microtransactions and things of that nature. Publishers want nothing more than to sell us $80 games with microtransactions. MT isn't going anywhere unless/until there's a substantial shift in design philosophy. Merely upping the price point is not that. You can also argue that $70-80 games will still be chock full of lackluster visuals and lack of polish, but I digress.

So really, the only two realistic poisons are #2 and #3.

 

[To Far Away Times]

I want what Nintendo has been doing.

 

[Last Prime]

What about a monthly subscription option?

 

[Saty]

False dichotomy: the thread.

Why are DLC+Loot Box grouped together as if you can't do one or the other? The bigger point is: You can have lootboxes all you want if it's alongside direct purchase. People who like the rush can have their fill, those who want to outright buy the exact thing they want can too. Is anyone really kidding himself that OW wouldn't make money over fist if you could also buy what you want?

The question you need to ask is why Blizzard only permits the player to spend real money on blind lootboxes. The question of this thread should be posed to the devs: pick one of the many honest monetization method. How about we go back to arguing 'is this content worth the asking price' instead of 'why are you poisoning game design and forcing a single unethical ,immoral, greedy, exploitative and dishonest way of earning'?

 

[autoduelist]

Build a game for $60 and budget design accordingly.

Assuming a higher pricepoint or lootboxes will equal 'worse graphics/polish/scale' is incorrect. Games are designed to stick to a budget, regardless of how many money making schemes are piled on. They don't suddenly put $90 worth of development cost into a $60 game hoping lootboxes will make up the difference. You get the same game either way, with an extra income source.

The issue with lootboxes is that they are blind buys. If you want X, you have no idea how much you might spend til you randomly get it.

 

[Tigress]

So really, the only two realistic poisons are #2 and #3.

Oh, I agree. The genie is out of the bottle and they make way too much on MT's for a price increase to even come close.

But if I were given the choice (and it truly got rid of mts) I'd go with one.

 

[Angelus Errare]

So some of you really think if publishers increase the price of games to $80 they'll stop putting DLC, microtransactions, lootboxes in the games?

lol, that's cute.

 

[DeathbyCheerios]

I'll buy indie or small games like Cuphead or Ori.