-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Polygon - Spending $60 on a video game doesn’t make sense anymore
- Thread starter CyberPanda
- Start date
- Clickbait
bitbydeath
Member
Jumping the gun, the article.
DunDunDunpachi
Patient MembeR
Polygon shilling for you-won't-own-a-single-game-in-your-library streaming and game-pass subscriptions?
lol normies
lol normies
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
They are somewhat right. I used to buy games all the time and rarely did I actually play them then rather than 5 months later. Backlogs and IRL are things to take into consideration.
Lionel Richie
Member
LOL not even once.
Dthomp
Member
I'll continue to buy GOOD games that I WANT TO PLAY. Thanks for your completely stupid opinion Polygon, but I'm working on an article that will be read by only me that says reading your site is bad for my health. I'll spend my money on whatever I damn well please. Best part of my non digital future is that all of my possessions have value and aren't tied to an internet connection....What was I rambling about again?
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
Oh yeah. That one is insane.
nush
Member
There's been very very very few games in decades that I've paid full price day-one for. I quickly learned during the 16bit age that games got discounted quickly or had an abundance of pre-owned copies. I barely finish any games anyway. I'm still not going to go full subscription mode though, I want the games available when I feel like playing them.
Petrae
Member
Paying $60 for a video game hasn’t made sense for years now. Just wait six weeks and get the game for up to 50% off of the early adopter premium price.
The video game industry preys upon the impatient.
As for Game Pass or whatever other subscription service, I have a hard data cap— so downloading games often isn’t a reasonable option. I’d rather buy the physical copy after a few weeks and conserve at least some data.
The video game industry preys upon the impatient.
As for Game Pass or whatever other subscription service, I have a hard data cap— so downloading games often isn’t a reasonable option. I’d rather buy the physical copy after a few weeks and conserve at least some data.
DrJohnGalt
Banned
Games drop in price so quickly these days, I've rarely paid full price. I usually don't buy games at launch anyway.
As a collector, I buy physical games whenever I can. I know I'm the exception, but I will fight a games-as-subscription model as long as I have the option.
And as
Petrae
said, there's the damn data cap...
As a collector, I buy physical games whenever I can. I know I'm the exception, but I will fight a games-as-subscription model as long as I have the option.
And as
Petrae
said, there's the damn data cap...
Last edited:
Potato Chip PRO
Member
Also... $60 for a game infested with Microtransactions is why I don't pay full price any more. The last time I bought a game at full price was Valkyria Chronicles 4 collector's edition.
Lionel Richie
Member
It's not even worth debating. Plus it doesn't correspond with reality, take one quick look at Nintendo and Sony sales and you can see the demand is still there. Her thoughts do not suddenly mold the industry landscape.
Edit: that's not to say that waiting and buying games at a discount isn't a better choice. You should always get what you feel is the perfect cost benefit.
Last edited:
manfestival
Member
>Polygon
>Good article
>Article by Patricia Hernandez
Pick one
>Good article
>Article by Patricia Hernandez
Pick one
ReBurn
Gold Member
I don't pay full price for games that have season passes. They're never day 1 purchases for me any more because I know that at some point I'll be able to get all of the content for half the price. Also, there are just so many games out there that there's little compelling reason for me to buy most games on day one.
ZehDon
Gold Member
Offline media and local compute isn’t going anyway any time soon, and anyone arguing for the death of that model doesn’t understand what they’re taking about.
I believe Polygon were also the publisher of the infamous article arguing IN FAVOUR of the original Xbone’s DRM systems.
These people aren’t here to speak out on behalf of their readers or video game consumers. They’re here to generate ad revenue for their parent organisation while pushing whatever agenda they’re told to. This is an extremely pro-publisher, pro-corporate, anti-consumer, anti-freedom stance to make. I hope the ad revenue was worth the price the devil asked.
I believe Polygon were also the publisher of the infamous article arguing IN FAVOUR of the original Xbone’s DRM systems.
These people aren’t here to speak out on behalf of their readers or video game consumers. They’re here to generate ad revenue for their parent organisation while pushing whatever agenda they’re told to. This is an extremely pro-publisher, pro-corporate, anti-consumer, anti-freedom stance to make. I hope the ad revenue was worth the price the devil asked.
Last edited:
MiyazakiHatesKojima
Banned
The last game that I bought on Day 1 was MGS4.
Yumi
Member
Everybody has a different sense of what makes sense. Some people have a disposable income, some people dont play games often. Im glad we have more options now and I think games pass is a grest service. Bur there a certsin games that I always be ok paying full price for, and I usually do enough resesrch or just know my tastes well enough to avoid short lived disappointment.
Shagger
Banned
I'm very ambivalent about the article. What they say about paying $60 (or equivalent) for a game doesn't make sence with rocky launches and incomplete games becoming more commonplace. It also makes sense to say that these streaming services, as long as you accept a lack of ownership of games, do offer value for money.
There is, however, a colossal problem. This is an attempt to hand responsibility for the issues that game industry has from the publishers into the hands of the consumers, and that's wrong and cowardly. As the customer, you're right to expect a $60 game to work without months of patches. You have the right to pay $60 for a game that includes all the content developed for launch. It's not our fault launch day is nigh and the game isn't finished. It's not our fault the publisher/developer has overspent on promotion and has to fuck us over to to make the ludicrous profit they really wanted.
Polygon should stop sucking the industry's dick and actually tell the full truth.
There is, however, a colossal problem. This is an attempt to hand responsibility for the issues that game industry has from the publishers into the hands of the consumers, and that's wrong and cowardly. As the customer, you're right to expect a $60 game to work without months of patches. You have the right to pay $60 for a game that includes all the content developed for launch. It's not our fault launch day is nigh and the game isn't finished. It's not our fault the publisher/developer has overspent on promotion and has to fuck us over to to make the ludicrous profit they really wanted.
Polygon should stop sucking the industry's dick and actually tell the full truth.
newtypepilot
Member
hey, let's pay another subscription for games!! Such good deal for games you don't actually own!
Totally not sponsored content, btw!
Totally not sponsored content, btw!
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Press Reset: The Story of Polygon - financed by Microsoft for $750,000
Thought Indie Game the Movie was overboard? Well heres PRess Reset. The Story of Polygon. You know that website that still isnt officially live yet? http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/8/21/3245100/polygon-press-reset-teaser-trailer
Iorv3th
Member
Her Argument is even worse when she is using apple arcade as her example and saying "instead of buying these games at 15$".
Never in my life have I thought of buying a 60$ game on a phone or even spending 60$ a year on phone games. But she is advocating in this model spending 60$ a year for phone games every year.
What? You didn't get MGSV on day one? Or Peace Walker?
Never in my life have I thought of buying a 60$ game on a phone or even spending 60$ a year on phone games. But she is advocating in this model spending 60$ a year for phone games every year.
What? You didn't get MGSV on day one? Or Peace Walker?
Last edited:
ExpandKong
Banned
MiyazakiHatesKojima
Banned
I was in a coma during that time.
JoeyWestSide
Member
This is why I don't like buying digital, its almost always a full 60 when I can find it much cheaper at Walmart/target/best buy.
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
I only buy for support purposes day one these days because I’m not that impatient any more. Or Nintendo... Their games don’t ever seem to fall in value.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
I don't like these subscription services for one simple reason, they promote the types of games that I don't typically play. This subscription model only fits GAAS games with microtransactions out the ass or cheap single player games, it makes zero sense to put a AAA single player game on a subscription service, the publisher now only gets $10 or $15 compared to $60 since you can finish almost all of them in one month. There's a reason Sony's games don't appear day 1 on PSNow like Microsoft's do on gamepass, because they make completely different games.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
What Can Games Journalists Learn From Sheep?
UltimaKilo
Gold Member
Honestly, it may be that I’m older now and have other things in my mind like traveling and work, but I prefer online and short games rather than over the top games like GOW, which to me are just too much and too cinematic.
I still go crazy for a great JRPG, but those are few and far between, so I welcome the new model.
I still go crazy for a great JRPG, but those are few and far between, so I welcome the new model.
Last edited:
spookyfish
Member
Funny — years ago I decided reading/visiting Polygon didn’t make much sense anymore.
Pithy responses aside, I agree with the sentiment, though not because of their reasoning.
Pithy responses aside, I agree with the sentiment, though not because of their reasoning.
#Phonepunk#
Banned
yes, that was two days ago for me.
im sure when you are game journalist you rarely have to pay for games at all. you get games free all the time and probably all your friends do as well. so there's all this extra money you aren't spending that goes to subscription services and good internet and devices and stuff. you'd rather be able to stream everything since you are always flying in planes and riding in taxis and stuff instead of mostly playing at home like people with regular jobs. streaming fits your go-go media saturation lifestyle. i get it.
i still prefer to own games.
Last edited:
Rya.Reisender
Member
Technically $60 is too little if you compare the costs to make games these days.
Sales are a big problem for developers because it makes people think games are not worth much anymore.
Basically the cause why subscriptions models and microtransactions are popular despite most people still saying they'd prefer if they could buy and own games and have all the features and locations included rather than having to buy them separately.
But people decide with their wallets.
Sales are a big problem for developers because it makes people think games are not worth much anymore.
Basically the cause why subscriptions models and microtransactions are popular despite most people still saying they'd prefer if they could buy and own games and have all the features and locations included rather than having to buy them separately.
But people decide with their wallets.
danielberg
Neophyte
it really depends on the game/person i hardly know anyone that wouldnt pay 100$ and even more if it means they could play FF7R right now or take dq11 that game has literally more worth than 60$ etc
Also what does lolygon even know the fuckers get the games for free
Also what does lolygon even know the fuckers get the games for free
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 738976
Unconfirmed Member
I mean sure at most we should go back to $50 for each console like it was in the PS2,GC,Xbox days. Besides everyone does DLC nonsense pretty much and online cost money so why not lower it.
www.nbcnews.com
You kind of already can do $50 at Walmart in store for new Switch games I guess.
Top video games may soon cost more
What price happiness? Today a top new title for your game console debuts at $49.99. But as development costs for some titles continue to climb, change may be in order.
www.nbcnews.com
Last edited by a moderator:
Stiflers Mom
Banned
For a person like me that subscription model makes a lot of sense.
I never replay games anyway..
And I also like smaller scale and shorter games, and not those shitty time sinks games have become.
I never replay games anyway..
And I also like smaller scale and shorter games, and not those shitty time sinks games have become.
shaddam
Member
Gavin Stevens
Formerly 'o'dium'
While I agree games are too expensive at launch, I have to also say, at least they drop quickly.
Unless you buy Ninteno. In which case fuck yo' wallet.
Unless you buy Ninteno. In which case fuck yo' wallet.
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
Indeed.
However...
I've been an adult quite a long time now. If there is one thing I personally find insufferable and try not to do to others is: preach about what you should do with your money.
Value is subjective.
Taking away all the Hernandez/Polygon/Corporate-shilling garbage aspects, this'd still be a piece-of-shit article because, unless they asked for it, very few people enjoy being lectured on how they should spend their own money.
It's your money. Do what you like.
Last edited:
sol_bad
Member
Oooohhhhh
It's a out subscription services. I was going to agree with the thread title because I do agree that $60 is to much for a new game these days. Companies are happy to sell season passes for half the price with a completion time much lower than the core games completion time. Content wise, season passes have much less than the core game too.
Base game should be $40 + $30 for season pass.
It's a out subscription services. I was going to agree with the thread title because I do agree that $60 is to much for a new game these days. Companies are happy to sell season passes for half the price with a completion time much lower than the core games completion time. Content wise, season passes have much less than the core game too.
Base game should be $40 + $30 for season pass.
ZywyPL
Banned
It never did to begin with - bare in ming games used to be 50$, the game that raised the price to 60 was MW2, which was heavily criticised for that, there was a real shitstorm all over the media, BUT - at the same time it was THE most hyped game of all times, so it got away with it, with ease actually. The only other game that could get away with 60$ pricetag at the time was GTA5, but somehow, other games followed, and nobody ever bat an eye.
And nowadays, we mostly have either a one-time, 6-12h single-player only games, which you can get on Friday, finish during the weekend, and sell on Monday with just a 5-10$ loss, or a 60$, literally beta-state, half-products (EA, Ubi etc.), and you need to pay another 30/60/120 and wait 6-12 months to get it into full state...
It's really damn hard nowadays to find a game with a justfied 60$ price. Again, as much as people hate on Activision being supposedly greedy, you do get a polished, AAA SP campaign, a most robust, content-filled MP out there, and a Co-op mode, which barely exists in any other game -all that package for the same 60$. And it all (mostly) works since day one, if not it gets patched very quickly. You can dislike CoD's gameplay, setting, story etc., like I do, but you can't deny it's value proposition.
Witcher 3, another game that clearly deserves it's price tag, we can even agree it wouldn't be much of an issue if it cost 80$, right? CP2077, GTA6, those games will unboubtly worth their price as well. But such games/developers are almost non-existent nowadays, and honestly? Who cares? As long as people keep buying 60$ unfinished, faulty half-products, the saga continues.
The publishers will obviously blame the development costs, which is arguable to say the least, and I won't be surprise at all if next-gen titles will bump the price even higher.
And nowadays, we mostly have either a one-time, 6-12h single-player only games, which you can get on Friday, finish during the weekend, and sell on Monday with just a 5-10$ loss, or a 60$, literally beta-state, half-products (EA, Ubi etc.), and you need to pay another 30/60/120 and wait 6-12 months to get it into full state...
It's really damn hard nowadays to find a game with a justfied 60$ price. Again, as much as people hate on Activision being supposedly greedy, you do get a polished, AAA SP campaign, a most robust, content-filled MP out there, and a Co-op mode, which barely exists in any other game -all that package for the same 60$. And it all (mostly) works since day one, if not it gets patched very quickly. You can dislike CoD's gameplay, setting, story etc., like I do, but you can't deny it's value proposition.
Witcher 3, another game that clearly deserves it's price tag, we can even agree it wouldn't be much of an issue if it cost 80$, right? CP2077, GTA6, those games will unboubtly worth their price as well. But such games/developers are almost non-existent nowadays, and honestly? Who cares? As long as people keep buying 60$ unfinished, faulty half-products, the saga continues.
The publishers will obviously blame the development costs, which is arguable to say the least, and I won't be surprise at all if next-gen titles will bump the price even higher.
Dirk Benedict
Member
That was an article to be easily written off as "I missed nothing"
The opinion of that person is equivalent to quick passing fart during high winds.. These youngins know shit about game costs. I paid close to 80 bucks for Chrono trigger. 70 bucks for SMB3. (several weeks allowance and chore money from parents and Grandmother) I could go on. But 60 bucks isn't much. I'd be more surprised if games went UP in cost.