![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
zamardii12
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,415
I'm 31 years old and have been playing games since I can remember. Back when I had a NES in the early '90s, games retailed for around $50 which (from Google searching) is around $90 in today's money. Think of the production values and increasing cost that has gone into making games these days. The costs of videogames have not gone up like other things over the years with similar trends, and I think we have to be mature and acknowledge this fact.
Star Wars Battlefront 2 without a doubt has way more content than the first game including a Single Player campaign, but you can still buy that game for $60. So what am I saying? I am saying that I am willing to pay a higher standard price for videogames if it means that these micro-transactions practices are vastly reduced or preferably just abolished altogether. I think at this stage of the evolution of video-gaming that is a fair trade-off. The increased upfront cost of a game could also stop the problems of Day 1 DLCs and maybe paid DLCs altogether.
Over the years many people have complained about cookie-cutter games and studios not being original anymore with new ideas, well with increased production costs and a flat-cost for games the incentive is to make the most back on their initial investment so they play it safe. EA wasn't always evil... in-fact I am playing through Dead Space right now (which I never finished) and I remember Dead Space being a risk for EA, but the guys at EA Redwood Shores (which became Visceral after Dead Space's critical success) convinced the higher ups to take a risk (I remember reading about this in a gaming mag from a while ago). Even though the original Dead Space was not a commercial success for EA it was a critical enough success that EA approved the sequel and Dead Space 2 became a commercial and critical success for them.
My point in that story is that I remember a time when EA had been great and I still think they are (their games not the company) in many ways b/c for the most part I enjoy their games whenever I do buy them (which is rare), but I think a way to foster a better atmosphere in the future of gaming is to pay more upfront money. People will read that and think it's insane that I WANT to spend more money, but that's not the point. The point is that despite inflation, video games have stayed at the same price for the better part of 30 years while production costs have increased and that to me is insane. A lot of people may disagree, and I know others will counter with the fact that there are other developers who can create "complete" titles without the need to resort to micro-transactions but I would say to that that development costs are different for every title, and perhaps for games such as SW: BF 2 it would make more sense since EA knows it'll sell b/c it's Star Wars and there is a lot more content packed-in.
TL;DR: Video game prices have not increased with inflation for 30 years despite increasing production costs. To possibly mitigate future micro-transaction problems, would you be willing to pay a higher bottom-price (say $80 as opposed to $60) for a game upfront to have a more complete experience?
Star Wars Battlefront 2 without a doubt has way more content than the first game including a Single Player campaign, but you can still buy that game for $60. So what am I saying? I am saying that I am willing to pay a higher standard price for videogames if it means that these micro-transactions practices are vastly reduced or preferably just abolished altogether. I think at this stage of the evolution of video-gaming that is a fair trade-off. The increased upfront cost of a game could also stop the problems of Day 1 DLCs and maybe paid DLCs altogether.
Over the years many people have complained about cookie-cutter games and studios not being original anymore with new ideas, well with increased production costs and a flat-cost for games the incentive is to make the most back on their initial investment so they play it safe. EA wasn't always evil... in-fact I am playing through Dead Space right now (which I never finished) and I remember Dead Space being a risk for EA, but the guys at EA Redwood Shores (which became Visceral after Dead Space's critical success) convinced the higher ups to take a risk (I remember reading about this in a gaming mag from a while ago). Even though the original Dead Space was not a commercial success for EA it was a critical enough success that EA approved the sequel and Dead Space 2 became a commercial and critical success for them.
My point in that story is that I remember a time when EA had been great and I still think they are (their games not the company) in many ways b/c for the most part I enjoy their games whenever I do buy them (which is rare), but I think a way to foster a better atmosphere in the future of gaming is to pay more upfront money. People will read that and think it's insane that I WANT to spend more money, but that's not the point. The point is that despite inflation, video games have stayed at the same price for the better part of 30 years while production costs have increased and that to me is insane. A lot of people may disagree, and I know others will counter with the fact that there are other developers who can create "complete" titles without the need to resort to micro-transactions but I would say to that that development costs are different for every title, and perhaps for games such as SW: BF 2 it would make more sense since EA knows it'll sell b/c it's Star Wars and there is a lot more content packed-in.
TL;DR: Video game prices have not increased with inflation for 30 years despite increasing production costs. To possibly mitigate future micro-transaction problems, would you be willing to pay a higher bottom-price (say $80 as opposed to $60) for a game upfront to have a more complete experience?
