Support NeoGAF

[UnravelKatharsis]

No one's even saying they have to buy games at launch.

Isnt that precisely why no is winning?

People simply wont buy them at launch. So the answer to the question would naturally be no for a majority of people. If there were a third option I'd have likely voted for it.

Yes
No
Only if I absolutely cant wait for a sale.

Most of the time i could wait.

 

[Jesb]

Fuck no. That’s almost 100 Canadian. You mad.

 

[AmuroChan]

I would say probably not for most games since I play very few games on day 1 anyway. If in the rare occasion where there's a game that I must play right away and I think it justifies the price tag, then I'm fine paying the $70. However, I really don't see that happening more than a couple times a year. For most other games, I'm perfectly content with waiting a couple months and getting it for $40.

 

[PendekarRajawali]

During pandemic situation? No.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I spent $200+ dollars on Fortnite.

$70 dollars for a game that can provide hundreds of hours of enjoyment is a no brainier.

Games like TLoU2...not so much.

 

[Alter_Fridge]

I can't remember the last time I paid full price for a game. Wait a few weeks and you can get a cheap second hand copy

 

[iorek21]

? huh? Lets focus on games that are not MMOs or subscription based or online or anything like that.

its like saying are they still going to make World Of Warcraft or EVE Online or FFXIV or something. Using that logic, those games are "unfinished". Its like trying to say the news is "unfinished" cause you never see an end to it you something or like a soap opera. It seems strange and doesn't really fit as those are just not games that are even made to fit the thing you are asking for...

Why not? Anthem and 76 were not only unfinished, but also broken for a lot of people. The same logic still applies, you can't release a game in that state even at $30, let alone $70. It doesn't matter that they are online games, their releases were pure disasters, and that can't be acceptable in any circumstances, they were never sold as early access.

 

[Grinchy]

Games in the 90s were more expensive because they were on expensive cartridges. Many of them even came with their own RAM or CPU chips to give extra features not possible on the system alone. This made them expensive.

Now it costs 3 cents to write a disc and slap it in a package. This is why prices started coming down on PS1 games and led to $50 normal pricing for PS2. So I don't really agree that just because an old SNES or N64 game using custom hardware in its cartridge was $70, it means that $70 is ok today.

 

[luffie]

NOPE. 60 in the past used to be justified with packaging and logistics, and they were making bank on it.
Now its 60 and digital, plus no sharing. Hiring celebrities is your choice, not mine. They ate selling for 60 and ceo are still laughing their way to the bank and try every way to cut content into many many pieces.

The only game that justifies a 70 is Witcher 4 and future Divinity titles.

 

[Blond]

Isnt that precisely why no is winning?

People simply wont buy them at launch. So the answer to the question would naturally be no for a majority of people. If there were a third option I'd have likely voted for it.

Yes
No
Only if I absolutely cant wait for a sale.

Most of the time i could wait.

The retailer you buy from would probably appreciate the 70 dollar price tag considering wholesale game prices are something like 52 dollars a copy.

People want physical retail but don't want to pay for it.

There has to be a balance, again, the US has escaped inflation with games for almost 20 years, well, the roosters have come home to roost. I'm not saying I want too, but it's clear for a reason, especially since wages are going up, that we can afford 70 dollars. I was 17 when I bought my Xbox 360 Elite, I was working for 5.35/hr and managed to buy a console worth 500 bucks and bought games that were 60. Now, kids are making anywhere from 12-17 an hour for their first jobs, the consoles will be be between 400-500 dollars and games 70, the increase i game prices would be roughly 10 dollars more after taxes so it's not like the kids who will make up most of their audiences won't be able to jump in for the console.

70 bucks will happen, it's just a matter of you choose to accept it or not.

NOPE. 60 in the past used to be justified with packaging and logistics, and theyt were making bank on it.
Now its 60 and digital, plus no sharing. Hiring celebrities is your choice, not mine. They ate selling for 60 and ceo are still laughing their way to the bank and try every way to cut content into many many pieces.

The only game that justifies a 70 is Witcher 4 and future Divinity titles.

This is such a weird argument considering we've been using celebrities since the PS1 Era. Rise of Honor anyone? Apocalypse starrring Bruce Willie? What about SSX tricky where the entire cast of a characters for a snowboarding game was entirely voice acotrs like Lucy Liu, David Arquette and Freddy Prince Jr which whom btw at the time were all 100% A-List actors in their prime for the game? Voice acting is a one and done thing, no one makes serious money off it and I doubt any celebrity game companies hire are remotely more than anything a film company like A24 would pay them to star in one of their films.

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

Am sure they will be cheaper from online shopping (not the stores of the various platoforms)

 

[Blond]

You didn't even acknowledge what I said. The money wouldn't be going to the people you think it should be. Paying even more would be fruitless. It'd go right to CEOs and investors.

The local shop I buy from started focusing on retro because wholesale games are 52 bucks a copy and must be bought in large numbers (30+ normally, bigger games like TLOU2 and RDR2 would be something like 100 minimum) and it doesnt make sense for anyone but target or best buy because of the hit digital took out of them. There's more than just CEOs and investors to really think about.

 

[adamosmaki]

is that 70 will be the whole game? i mean no micro transactions no Bs small size Dlc and no in game purchases? If so gladly if not then they can f off lots of games you need more than 100 already for the full game (and I don't mean full expansion DLC such as the witcher 3)

 

[PlayerPurple]

Willing to pay even higher if it means more innovative games can survive in the AAA space.

 

[Bankai]

I choose NO, because I never pay fullprice for a game. I (almost) always wait a little for the price to come down and then I buy it.
This won't change for me with nextgen,

 

[UnravelKatharsis]

is that 70 will be the whole game? i mean no micro transactions no Bs small size Dlc and no in game purchases? If so gladly if not then they can f off lots of games you need more than 100 already for the full game (and I don't mean full expansion DLC such as the witcher 3)

No one knows but....of course not.

 

[scalman]

Who buys ea games anyway? Games will cost same anyways, but if not 5-10$ more its not end of the world.
Its just money , worthless stuff so at least they can be used for something that gives you joy

 

[Dolomite]

Gamepass value just shot through the roof for me. I'll pay $70 for a game on its own. But if it's available cheaper then fuck that. I'm also not above buy the XBO version of Cyberpunk, Halo and any other game then using smart delivery for the next gen version

 

[SuoGrey]

Nope. Don't even buy at 60 now unless it's a game or company I am really looking forward to/cannot wait on. Even then I still look for a sale.

 

[Sacred]

Game Pass has spoiled me, so not a chance in hell I pay full price for any game ever again.

 

[VGEsoterica]

If they increase the value to make it worth $70...sure. If it’s just a cash grab...ugh.

Id even be happy paying $70 if the money went to normal employees to give them
better working conditions and security. I just don’t want the extra 10 to not provide any more value in the same / line the executives pockets with bonuses

 

[.Pennywise]

To people saying it's ok because game development it's unsustainable as production cost rises and prices don't.

How do you explain gaming companies and its CEOs becoming richer and richer and earnings/profits rising by the billions?

Nobody?

Seems like 30% of people likes to being shat on by billionaire companies.

 

[ZywyPL]

Seems like 30% of people likes to being shat on by billionaire companies.

Not really. The poll isn't very precise, it does look like it's either "yes I'm willing to pay 70$ for every singel game out there" or "no, I'll not pay 70$, not even once". I personally voted "yes" because I'm not dumb and I am fully aware that once a year or two there is a game which I do want to play ASAP, on day one, and the cost doesn't matter much, but generally I still find very hard to justify paying more than 15-20$ for video games, for 30-40 I really have to do the research, like is the game actually finished, free of bugs, without cut-out content, how long it is etc.

 

[93xfan]

I could maybe do it for a special edition of Forza or Gran Turismo, but $70 as a standard? Absolutely no way and I’ll leave a 1 star review when I do buy any of those games on sale if they don’t fully convince me within the first week that $70 would have been justified. I also encourage others to do the same.

 

[Ladioss]

With stagnating wages and a new recession coming soon ? Sure, looks like the best moment to raise prices on non essential commodities.

 

[Kadve]

I don't even buy games for 60$. 30$ is stretching it if it's something i "really" want. But the majority of "new" (last 5 years) i own where bought for 10-15$.

 

[Ashraf’s Lioness]

Fuck no miss me with that bullshit. Greedy ass companies

For Cory an co It ain’t no fairy tale MTX will continue to increase not in reverse

 

[quickwhips]

I will be paying 35 through gameshare so nope.

 

[bobone]

If its From Soft, Elder Scrolls, or Bioware I'll pay triple that.

Every other game is getting wishlished till its $25-$30 and I'll continue to play through my backlog.

 

[Ridaxan]

There's games from quite a couple of developers that I'd easily pay $100 or more for.

 

[Aggressive Carrot]

I'm willing to shell out $70 for a game I've been anticipating. I really shouldn't be too concerned though. I paid more for games just because they included things like soundtracks and art books.

 

[IbizaPocholo]

$70 games are ‘fair market value’ and consumers will ‘happily’ pay, argues analyst | VGC

“You do pay a premium, and you have been paying a premium, for years to play a game on day-one”…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[Entroyp]

Sure, but it depends on the game that f course.

 

[Montauk]

Yes i am. Why any of you expect games to stay the same price forever i don't know.

 

[John Day]

We all know this shit, as much as we fight it, is out of ohr control. We here at GAF may be against it, but the general market is way bigger than us, and they vote with their wallets.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

maybe a few games, im a big destiny fan, i usually buy the most expensive version of any dlc/new entry

 

[Batiman]

I’ll be a little bit more picky when it comes to buying full priced games but I’ll dish out the money if I want it enough

 

[Sushen]

I'm glad I've signed up for GPU. I don't buy many games nowadays and I'll be buying even less for $70.

When I do, it will be my way of showing support for the devs.

 

[DavJay]

No reason with game pass now. There’s always something new on it.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

pay the same price i might have paid for new games in the 1990s? why yes, i'll take that deal!

 

[Happosai]

pay the same price i might have paid for new games in the 1990s? why yes, i'll take that deal!

That's how I see it. I don't remember new premium games costing less than $60 or $70 their first year. Seems normal to me but also makes me feel like an old fart that I can remember.

 

[CitizenX]

I always wait until they are actually done and that time is maybe $20. Metro Exodus was just $15 including DLC but waiting for my new card.

 

[Megatron]

MY Gcu expired earlier this year. I still have been getting my games for $48.00. Jumping up to $70 is a tough pill. I will do it for the right game, but not frivilously.

 

[octiny]

I won't be getting any game that cost $70. Then again, I rarely bought a game @ $60 either.

 

[Warnen]

Sure, the $10 extra won’t turn me off a game I want day 1 but really there are very few games I want day one these days. Rest will wait for sales.

 

[iHaunter]

Yep, but only for games I really like. I don't buy many games in general.

Pre-ordered Demon's Souls and Miles Morales/Spiderman Remaster. Probably going to be it til FFXVI and some other exclusives.

 

[magnumpy]

i'm not worried new games are a very poor investment anyway seeing as they lose most of their value shortly after launch. just wait a little bit to buy your precious sports titles and you should be good

 

[apocaliptic]

Only games from CD Project Red

 

[The Leaked Truths]

The price of Microsoft and Sony games tends to drop really fast here in Germany. After a few weeks most games cost only half as much as they were on release day. Therefore I allways wait a few weeks.

But I would pay 100,00 Euro day one for a game franchise that I'm really interested in, yes I'm that crazy

Besides that I'm planning to get Game Pass which will save me alot of Money

 

[MrFunSocks]

If you want to play games you will have to be.

I am, I've been all digital this entire generation and the last year or 2 of the previous one.