Will you every pay full price for a PC game again?

Will you pay full price for a video game again?

  • Yes, always or most of the time.

    Votes: 8 2.5%

  • Yes, sometimes for high profile titles (SP / MP).

    Votes: 124 38.9%

  • Yes but only for games that are MP focused and there is disadvantage for late joiners.

    Votes: 29 9.1%

  • No, not for most titles that I am going to purchase.

    Votes: 110 34.5%

  • No, never for any title that I am going to purchase.

    Votes: 48 15.0%
  • Total voters
    319
Xathgoroth said:
...I feel strongly that PC games should still be down at the $50 mark as they used to be. I don't think there's a reason for the extra $10 being tacked-on as it started a few years back. The "cost of PC development" truly is not an excuse either.
Click to expand...

I disagree. video games have been $50 for top titles as far as I can remember (NES, early 90's). I understand that inflation occurs and wages increase over time.

Therefore, the cost of development has increased over the years. What we can take joy in, however, is that while gas has increased by 300% (remember $1/gallon anyone?), games are nowhere near $150 each.

I remember milk at $1/gallon as well, and now it's typical for $2/gallon. I'm not ready for $100 games.
 
games that i will definitely buy at full price in 2012: dota2, csgo, sc2:hots and hl3 if that ever comes out.
 
barring any pre-order deals, i usually pay full price to buy games at launch. that's not to say that i won't hunt for a deal, but i have no issues with paying full price if i don't find one. in the grand scheme of things it's such cheap entertainment. but you win some and you lose some:

MW3 - $60 (w/ free copy of COD4), played for 3 hours total
BC2 - $50, 500+ hours
Brink - $42, 8 hours of mind-numbing, trying to force myself to like it playtime
Skyrim - $60, 40 hours and counting
BF3 - $60, 120 hours and counting
Wolfenstein 2010 - $60, 3 hours
BF2142 - $40, 300+ hours
 
Depends on the game. If it's something that I'm really interested in then I'll pay full price for it. I paid full price for BF3 and I don't regret it. I paid full price for WoW and all of its expansions. I'll probably pay full price for Diablo 3 when it comes out.

If it's a game that I know I'm not going to play and spend dozens of hours on right away then I'll usually wait for it to go on sale. So far I haven't picked up AC or Skyrim yet, two games that I really want to try out, but I know I won't be spending a whole lot of time on them just yet because I'm still having loads of fun on BF3.
 
No for the vast majority of games, they simply do not retain their launch day pricing for long, except for abberations like Call of Duty games, Blizzard titles, and some Bethesda titles (Bethesda keeps them priced high longer than other publishers)

Normally you can buy a new game for half off shortly after launch if you really look around for good deals, that $50 game becomes $25.

By the way, let's stop saying that games cost $49 or $59, the true price is $49.99 or $59.99, which for all intents and purposes is $50-$60 :p

Go to cheapassgamer.com if you wanna keep updated on good deals, they often post good shit there first more than any other source.

Seen it with Batman: Arkham Asylum and some other games people were selling keys for cheap in FS/FT.

I even got Deus Ex for $35 the same month it came out instead of $50
 
J Macker said:
I disagree. video games have been $50 for top titles as far as I can remember (NES, early 90's). I understand that inflation occurs and wages increase over time.

Therefore, the cost of development has increased over the years. What we can take joy in, however, is that while gas has increased by 300% (remember $1/gallon anyone?), games are nowhere near $150 each.

I remember milk at $1/gallon as well, and now it's typical for $2/gallon. I'm not ready for $100 games.
Click to expand...

Its not as simple as inflation, its supply and demand. Yes, wages have increased, yes, development costs are higher. But we're also seeing a huge increase in the number of games being bought. Game prices aren't increasing because of inflation, they're increasing because publishers think they can increase them and not only are people still buying it, MORE people are buying it. The actual VALUE of a game is no where near $60, nor is it $50, if it were, they wouldn't drop in price so damned fast to half that or less.

I think its silly to just roll over and "well that's the way it is". People should keep complaining and keep supporting companies who release games cheaper rather than those who try and ask top dollar. This is especially true here in Australia where people try and price gouge you to hell. You're not ready for $100 games? They already fucking charge that out here, and believe you me, they'll keep increasing the price in the US until its $100 as well if they think they won't lose a lot of sales.
 
After my awesome pick ups during the STEAM sale, I will wait for future releases to go on sale, or wait for the GOTY editions, got the entire Dawn of War II series for under $25, and I have been waiting years to get that game, got Brothers in Arms HH for under $7, and the missus got Back to The Future for under $20.

I'm going to be busy for a few weeks with these triple packs and overlooked titles.
 
J Macker said:
I disagree. video games have been $50 for top titles as far as I can remember (NES, early 90's). I understand that inflation occurs and wages increase over time.

Therefore, the cost of development has increased over the years. What we can take joy in, however, is that while gas has increased by 300% (remember $1/gallon anyone?), games are nowhere near $150 each.

I remember milk at $1/gallon as well, and now it's typical for $2/gallon. I'm not ready for $100 games.
Click to expand...

Of course, the economy effects everything, from wages paid to cost of production. But I'm not here to discuss economics. It was just a point that, despite the fact that I'm not worried about green pieces of paper, that $60 is still pushing it, as far as I'm concerned.

But, that comes full-circle to my main point: despite the economy, I'll still pay full-price for any game I know I will thoroughly enjoy and spend a good amount of time with.

Some games are just definitively not worth the $60 price tag, but some are, depending on the size, scope and quality of a game, and/or whether or not it's something you will get much from playing, and perhaps return to time and time again.

I don't wait for things to go on sale if it's something I know I'm going to enjoy. Why wait? Life is too damn short, so enjoy it while you're above ground. There's always a way to make more money, but not make-up for time lost. So if I feel a game will be worth it for me, I'll drop full price for it, period.
 
There's very few games that I will actually pay full retail (release) price for. The last game I paid full price for was Mass Effect 2 And I'll probably do the same with Mass Effect 3. Other than that, there really hasn't been a game that I wanted to pay full price for.
 
I'm getting old enough to where I can wait for games. So, buying early is a measure of how much support I want to give.
 
Parmenides said:
I'm getting old enough to where I can wait for games. So, buying early is a measure of how much support I want to give.
Click to expand...

I'm getting too old to bother waiting for games :p I was much more patient as a kid when I actually had to spend a significant amount of time saving money for a game.
 
i'm not exactly poor either,buddy.neither am i a fool.i value what i have enough not to just spend it on overprice crap. why pay $60 for anything that you know is going to cost
$15 a month or two later.the whole price structure of gaming is based on fools like you who just have to be the first on the block with the newest pos video game on the market.
 
Last edited:
very rarely. When I do, I know its a game I enjoy. Some games I get near launch though for $30 REEK MAJOR ASS.
 
I can't remember who made the thread, but someone posted something here to the effect of "release day prices are a gigantic scam", which I agreed with.

Patient consumers who are willing to wait, even a single month, are almost always getting a discount of 25% or better.
 
revmouse said:
i'm not exactly poor either,buddy.neither am i a fool.i value what i have enough not to just spend it on overprice crap. why pay $60 for anything that you know is going to cost
$15 a month or two later.the whole price structure of gaming is based on fools like you who just have to be the first on the block with the newest pos video game on the market.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this, without the personal attack :)

It's kind of silly to buy a game Day 1 when you can get the game significantly cheaper by waiting a few weeks.

I'm sure a lot of you have backlogs to attend to that you can work on while you wait on the price to drop, and it isn't even a long wait at all, just a few weeks usually, sometimes even same month of release.

Hell, Duke Nukem Forever came out last year (yes, that sentence is actually true :p ), and you could get it for 5 bucks off the Steam sales if you wanted.

It's pretty simple math, the more you save on games, the more money you'll have to spend on games or other things you want.

If you avoid paying $60 for a game on release day, and get it during a half off sale 7 weeks after release for $30, you saved yourself $30, and during that time, you find a woman and in an attempt to be less Forever Alone, you spend that $30 you saved taking her out to a nice dinner.

Nerd logic, it works :p
 
As a general rule, if something is likely to fall in price, I might wait a little bit. But there are some things that never drop in price or drop very little, and in those cases it's pointless to wait.
 
Laffles said:
bf3 is the only game I've spent full price on in a long time.
Click to expand...

+1 and I bought it for full price twice; once for PC and once for PS3. Only game that I've deemed worthy of a full $60. Every other game I just wait for sales, especially Steam summer and holiday sales.
 
J Macker said:
The poll option "No, not for most titles that I am going to purchase" may be interpreted as there are exceptions that I will pay full price for.

Take out the word "most" and it'd be more clear. I voted this option because I interpreted it as less often than the "yes, sometimes for high profile SP/MP" option.

Namely, I can't imagine Diablo 3 having sales below MSRP when it's released. But I do have a pre-order from newegg for $49.99 that's about 9 months old. I hope they honor it. I don't want to pay $60+tax at release.
Click to expand...
Poll was purposefully designed this way. There is a positive or negative aspect to the decision. The "Yes" crowd is more likely generally to go ahead and pay full price. Whereas, the "No" crowd will almost always consider pricing even if it is a high profile title. It only reflects the pecking order of decision making and not really the decision itself since that can be similar.

As for more options in the poll, I already think the options are too many on there. Wouldn't have had it any other way.

Thanks for feedback, seems like more people would still consider paying full price for games which is a good sign. I, however, stand by my decision to NEVER pay MSRP on a game irrespective of it being a Blizzard, Valve or whatever title.
 
wonderfield said:
I'm not poor. I can afford to get burned on a full-price game every now and again.

If you're obsessed with the value equation to the point where you'll refuse to pay $60 for a PC game, you should consider a less expensive hobby.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is about being poor. This is about being prudent. Given that I am already in my thirties and have limited time for gaming, I don't want to be burnt by purchasing games at full price when my actual play time might be when they are already marked down.

P.S. Gaming is possibly one of the cheapest hobbies one can have.
 
Only for games that are for sure to be known to be good. AAA titles. I won't buy any game that sucks full price. The crappier the game, the lower the price it better be.
 
revmouse said:
i'm not exactly poor either,buddy.neither am i a fool.i value what i have enough not to just spend it on overprice crap. why pay $60 for anything that you know is going to cost
$15 a month or two later.the whole price structure of gaming is based on fools like you who just have to be the first on the block with the newest pos video game on the market.
Click to expand...

Say what? Are you referring to me there, "buddy"?

A couple of points...

1. Buying release day doesn't mean you'll be paying full price. I can't remember the last time I paid full price, but I still often buy games on release day.

2. $15 in a month or two is a bit of an exaggeration, no? Maybe for shit games, but I don't buy too many shit games anyway, so that doesn't really apply.
KickAssCop said:
I don't think this is about being poor. This is about being prudent. Given that I am already in my thirties and have limited time for gaming, I don't want to be burnt by purchasing games at full price when my actual play time might be when they are already marked down.

P.S. Gaming is possibly one of the cheapest hobbies one can have.
Click to expand...

I get what you mean, but I come from a similar situation and have the exact opposite view point. I have barely any time to game these days, so really I'd rather just buy and play a game when its new and fresh than wait a couple of months for the sake of saving maybe $10 or 6-12 months to save $20-40. I don't feel burnt paying an extra $10, I feel burnt wasting time when I don't have a lot of time to game anyway, so when I buy new release games I stick to buying games I know I'll like even before they're released... The Witcher 2, Skyrim, Space Marine, when it comes out, Darksiders 2 and avoid leading into games that I know have little chance of being good... like Duke Nukem Forever.

People always use the extremes, as if by buying games at release you're exclusively buying shit games at full price that'll be in the bargain bin in a month and that you never buy anying but full price games, yet I've bought several new games over the past couple of years and I've.... 1. Not paid full price for any of them, 2. Not regretted purchasing any of them when new, 3. Not felt like I wasted money because they ended up in the bargain bin quickly, 4. Most importantly, not felt like I've wasted time in playing them, 5. Also bought bargain bin games and even got some old abandonware games which I've played. Most recently I've spent a bit of time playing STUNTS (1991 game), One Must Fall:2097 (1994 game) and Re-volt (1999 game), all for zero dollars.

Saving $10 for the sake of waiting a couple of months just isn't an issue for me when I barely buy any games over the course of a year anyway, I spend almost that much on the fuel for my car getting to work each day.
 
Nope....maybe if devs start offering decent demos again so I can try a game beforehand or otherwise make it possible to sell used games, but seeing as both of those prospects are very unlikely I will continue to pay what I consider as being the real value of most games these days (i.e. no more $35).
 
KickAssCop said:
However, bottom line is that I am never paying full retail price ever again.

Are you in the same boat?
Click to expand...
I principally only buy games during Steam sales, and I get offended by anything less than half off. I tend to purchase stuff 75% off. Only exceptions in 2011 were SR3 with DLC and Season Pass for $24 from THQ UK, and Witcher 2 for $16 from Amazon.

Other than that I wait till a game hits $5-$10 on Steam, I got a long long backlog to keep me busy to wait for Skyrim to sell for $5 next Xmas, no biggie.
 
Thuleman said:
...to wait for Skyrim to sell for $5 next Xmas, no biggie.
Click to expand...

now somebody is exaggerating. It will take over 3 years for Skyrim to drop to $5.
I predict the lowest price for through 2012 will be $25-30.

I would bet that it will take 4-5 years for Skyrim to drop to $10. Oh well, a $100 video card would be able to fly through it then.
 
J Macker said:
now somebody is exaggerating. It will take over 3 years for Skyrim to drop to $5.
I predict the lowest price for through 2012 will be $25-30.

I would bet that it will take 4-5 years for Skyrim to drop to $10. Oh well, a $100 video card would be able to fly through it then.
Click to expand...

If anything pc gaming has taught me in 2011 it's never pay full price for beta testing games that are supposed to be release versions. Nothing is ever bug free but yikes!
 
Porter_ said:
barring any pre-order deals, i usually pay full price to buy games at launch. that's not to say that i won't hunt for a deal, but i have no issues with paying full price if i don't find one. in the grand scheme of things it's such cheap entertainment. but you win some and you lose some:

MW3 - $60 (w/ free copy of COD4), played for 3 hours total
BC2 - $50, 500+ hours
Brink - $42, 8 hours of mind-numbing, trying to force myself to like it playtime
Skyrim - $60, 40 hours and counting
BF3 - $60, 120 hours and counting
Wolfenstein 2010 - $60, 3 hours
BF2142 - $40, 300+ hours
Click to expand...

i call bs.
 
Tudz said:
Say what? Are you referring to me there, "buddy"?

A couple of points...

1. Buying release day doesn't mean you'll be paying full price. I can't remember the last time I paid full price, but I still often buy games on release day.

2. $15 in a month or two is a bit of an exaggeration, no? Maybe for shit games, but I don't buy too many shit games anyway, so that doesn't really apply.

I get what you mean, but I come from a similar situation and have the exact opposite view point. I have barely any time to game these days, so really I'd rather just buy and play a game when its new and fresh than wait a couple of months for the sake of saving maybe $10 or 6-12 months to save $20-40. I don't feel burnt paying an extra $10, I feel burnt wasting time when I don't have a lot of time to game anyway, so when I buy new release games I stick to buying games I know I'll like even before they're released... The Witcher 2, Skyrim, Space Marine, when it comes out, Darksiders 2 and avoid leading into games that I know have little chance of being good... like Duke Nukem Forever.

People always use the extremes, as if by buying games at release you're exclusively buying shit games at full price that'll be in the bargain bin in a month and that you never buy anying but full price games, yet I've bought several new games over the past couple of years and I've.... 1. Not paid full price for any of them, 2. Not regretted purchasing any of them when new, 3. Not felt like I wasted money because they ended up in the bargain bin quickly, 4. Most importantly, not felt like I've wasted time in playing them, 5. Also bought bargain bin games and even got some old abandonware games which I've played. Most recently I've spent a bit of time playing STUNTS (1991 game), One Must Fall:2097 (1994 game) and Re-volt (1999 game), all for zero dollars.

Saving $10 for the sake of waiting a couple of months just isn't an issue for me when I barely buy any games over the course of a year anyway, I spend almost that much on the fuel for my car getting to work each day.
Click to expand...


I got Skyrim, Dead Island, Batman: AC and Rage either pre-ordered or through some other avenue of getting the games cheaper $10-$15 or even more(got Batman: AC for $24 before release) upon release. It was all gravy until it came to my surprise that these games all were released advertised as brand new and fresh when in reality, they were half-assedly released. A developer version of Dead Island was released to everyone upon it's release day. Batman: AC for the PC was delayed and upon it's release, still had DX11 issues - it was delayed to properly implement DX11 in the fucking first place! Skyrim had a slew of bugs and Rage, well even Carmack pretty much admitted it was a sham. Sure, I could have purchased the games on day one and just forgot about them, launch the game a month later and most issues would have been addressed.

That is not the point. In the current state of the industry you pretty much talk with your wallet, and the more pre-order and day one purchase money these half-ass games make for publishers/developers pretty much lets them know what they're doing is okay. Just take a look at Activision and the COD series.

By waiting a few weeks to months then purchasing a game not only enables you to make a better decision about the game, but also tells the publishers/developers, "Listen, you had a good game, but it was only worthy at this current price point after so and so fix and so and so patch." - we need a surge of these type of sales for some games to make a statement, not day one purchase hype sales. Especially if you want quality video games to be released in the future.

That is not to say that no game is not worth buying upon release and even full price. I can think of one for the PC in 2011, and that was Portal 2. Sure it had it's quibbles here and there, but not nearly as bad as the previous games mentioned before and it offered an engaging story and not so new gameplay, but refined and expanded its area to coop- which was a blast. It was a game enough to warrant itself from it's predecessor and I'd say it was worth the pre-order and $45 bucks.

With all that said, how do we determine if a game is truly good or not if we all play the waiting game? Well, like Rage, it received some mixed reviews which skewed many people's decisions, so I don't think relying on "professional" reviews is best. Bring back demos. Release a demo for games 2-3 weeks before the game releases, just after going gold, so that people can get a better opinion about the game.
 
Last edited:
I'll buy a game day one if I really really really want it. 2011 I bought like 7 games day one, but even though I got great deals and didn't pay anywhere close to full price. If I had to pay the full $50 or $60 it is trending too, no I would be extremely selective and probably buy just 1-3 titles if that.
 
The only game I paid full price this year was Dawn of War 2 Retribution only because I love Dawn of War series. Everything else, now that I come to think of it, was never at full price. That in itself is an achievement imo.

However, I still feel burnt because I got games at 20% discount whereas, within days they were at 35-50% discount. Great examples are Batman AC, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 and Ass Creed Revelations.
 
I voted "Yes, sometimes for high profile titles (SP / MP).", but that's misleading, since I seldom pay full price. The games I pay full price for usually big MP titles. Sometimes I'll jump on a SP at/near release if I'm either really excited or there is a great deal (<$30). I'm pretty good at ignoring hype, so it really is uncommon. It's pretty easy for me to wait for $5-$10 deals (and it's easy to know which companies' games hold their price).
 
I voted yes, but I just remembered that the last full price PC game I bought (BF3) I still had a coupon for. I will buy Diablo 3 and Guild Wars 2 at launch, but that's about it. Mass Effect 3 would qualify as well but I started the series on the 360 so that's where I'll finish it.
 
I think you should separate the idea of not wanting to pay full price and willing to wait for savings. While on the surface it might seem like the same thing, they actually are not.

For instance I am very unwilling to pay full price for games, and their really is no reason to. You can even find preorder/launch day sales quite easily now that information sharing is so available with the internet. To me it seems like a very entitlement type attitude if you are not going to help yourself or limit your purchase options while complaining about launch prices.

I am however much less willing to wait for price drops on games I really want. This type of savings is quite different, you aren't actually finding a deal, but waiting for something to lose its value over time. For certain game the experience is also not the same depending on when you enter it, and the actual expenditure difference in absolute costs is quite small really.

I basically look for savings in things I buy to not be wasteful, not because I need those savings to afford the hobby. Every time I actually compare gaming to other hobbies and forms of entertainment/luxuries it is already quite cheap in my eyes and affordable already.
 
What a horrible poll. Yes I will pay full price for a game if I think it's a game that needs the support and my money to continue making something unique. How can the option to not support unique genres, exceptional developers, indie games, etc. not be there?
 
I don't buy PC games pretty much at all any more except from GOG. They're all laden with call-home-to-remote-server DRM. I can't "buy" a game that I need permission from someone else's server to play.

So for me it's just GOG, and I will reluctantly buy Steam games if they are rental priced, say under $10 (since they're essentially a long rental with their DRM). That said I've only ever bought 1; I feel like I'm wasting my money on something I don't really own.

And I f***cking mean it when I say that. I passed on Civ V (steam DRM) despite my abiding love of Civ games. Passed on Dragon Age 2 (thank god, it turns out). Etc. The last full priced PC game I bought was Dragon Age (and its expansion, Awakening). To me the move to either online DRM has been to lose me pretty much 100% as a customer.

My next purchase of a full priced PC game will probably be Guild Wars 3. DRM doesn't really apply the same way server driven games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top