So, why are we still paying 60 dollars for games?

[Thundercrack85]

Now granted, I have always found video games over priced. But, at least the companies making them had a somewhat reasonable argument for the price. Games cost a lot of money to develop. And you usually get a lot of content for your 60 dollars.

As time has gone one, that has changed. Destiny really brought this to my attention. Overall I thought it was a disappointing, mediocre game. Not God awful just sorely lacking. If it wasn't from Bungie, and hyped up to ridiculous degrees, we'd probably just give it a 6 out of 10, and call it a day.

But it really embodied everything that was wrong with the gaming industry. Among that is day one DLC, and on-disc DLC.

Now, I like the original idea behind DLC. More content, giving a game a longer lifespan. For a reasonable price, that sounds like a great deal.

But why the hell am I paying 60 dollars, if I don't even get access to all the content that's on the damn disc? Why am I not getting content that has already been created for the game?

Is this an unstoppable trend? Why am I still paying the same amount for an incomplete game? If you want to sell it to me in installments, the price should reflect the fact that it's being given to me in installments.

Video gamers are a savvy demographic, surely we can do something to stop this.

Am I the only one pissed?

 

[General Mike]

I don't know. Maybe it's just me but I remember as a kid saving up my allowance money and having my dad take me to the store to buy Tecmo Super Bowl for $50 plus tax. That was almost 23 years ago. There were cartridge games in the SNES/ Genesis era and N64 era that were well over $70.

I do agree with you about on-disc DLC and to a lesser extent day one DLC.

I think some of it is related to development costs of the game. These studios need to make money on games, and maybe the fact that video games have been mostly the same price for the last 30 years is related to that fact. If you sold a deluxe edition at launch with everything included for $80 is it going to sell worse compared to a $60 version where you have to pay to unlock extra costumes, extra characters, etc? Probably.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

prices of games have not changed at all in the past 25-30 years

i remember Sega Genesis, NES, and SNES games ranging anywhere between $50-$70 much like today's games

 

[Tanin]

Oh god not this thread again.

Games come out anywhere between 15-60 dollars. The 60 dollar price tag hasn't changed in 30 years and you should be glad because inflation says that it should be much higher.

Yes day one DLC and on disk DLC sucks and in most cases should stop. But that doesn't negate the base price of video games is still a very good price.

I'm sure you aren't the only one pissed about it. Just the only one pissed here.

Games of earlier generations used to take 10-50 minutes to beat. Now they can take 20-50 if lucky.

 

[KevanG]

I just wait until the price goes down unless I feel I have to have it. Wait 2-3 months and it's down at least $20.

 

[Marvolo]

I just wait until the price goes down unless I feel I have to have it. Wait 2-3 months and it's down at least $20.

This is my policy. I rarely pay more than $30 for a game.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Oh god not this thread again.

Yeah, getting deja vu. Wasn't there an exact thread like this started about why games are $60 not that long ago? Maybe it was started by someone else, though.

The simple answer is that I pay $60 for games still because...that's what they cost? I get the idea behind what you're asking, but that's the answer obviously. If you want to get a game day one for whatever reason: that's what you pay, simple as that.

I wait myself for most games, but I still pay the price if I want to support certain projects. Games like The Evil Within, Bayonetta 2, most Nintendo first party titles I want to get day one to support the art. 9 times out of 10, I'll get my value out of it, too, so it's not a big deal. I get burned from time to time, but that's just something you'll have to risk paying for any entertainment.

But if I don't have a huge amount of attachment to the project, I wait for it to go down in price. And I did that even before this gen, too. It's just sort of the thing you do when you want to pay less, excluding noted exceptions.

 

[Quasimod0]

I usually wait until a game goes to about 40 bucks. Unless its a MUST HAVE. But those are few and far between

 

[Benstamania]

I buy most games new at full retail cost. I don't have a problem with it. I paid 80 for DKC on SNES.. 90 for OoT on N64. I don't think the games of the past had a set in stone price.. they fluctuated. If anything, I think our pricing is good.. and all at a constant price.

If we go to an all digital future and we're still paying 60 then I could understand. Until that happens...

 

[-Arya-]

I rarely pay full price anymore. If it's a game I'm aching to play or a studio I want to support, the $60 will be worth it.

 

[Grievous]

It's not so much the 60 dollar price tag but the dlc on disk and dlc within the first year, that makes these games seem too expensive. With dlc prices your actually paying around 80 to 100 dollars for the actual full game experience.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's not so much the 60 dollar price tag but the dlc on disk and dlc within the first year, that makes these games seem too expensive. With dlc prices your actually paying around 80 to 100 dollars for the actual full game experience.

I do think this is going to hurt the games themselves, since people are going to be reluctant to immediately buy them.

Especially if they're going to be as bare bones as Destiny. It's almost like a free to play game. Except it costs 60 ****ing dollars.

But the market is already devaluing Destiny.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If game prices went down to 30 or 40 dollars I believe the quality would drop also.

The only reason all these game companies put so much effort into these games is because a top selling title could be worth hundreds of millions.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Who pays 60 bucks for games nowadays anyways? I never pay over 50 even for brand new releases.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm a late adopter who just bought a PS3.

Every game I buy is around 15 bucks.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Who pays 60 bucks for games nowadays anyways? I never pay over 50 even for brand new releases.

How's that?

 

[HauntedKnight]

Considering games of today are made like movies (huge production of developers, animators, coders, marketing, music, etc, etc...and this is a HUGE list) I for one am surprised these games only cost 60 bucks. Not bad really. And just like always, not everything is going to be a masterpiece.

 

[Destructus86]

I never spend $60 on a game
I usually spend like $40 to get them used.

 

[HauntedKnight]

Also if you really don't think a game is worth 60. Buy it used from gamestop. You have 7 days to return it for a full refund.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Or you can rent games from gamefly.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Gamefly fees are kind of high: $16 a month for one game or $23 for two. True, though, if you can finish a game in a month's time, it's a better alternative than buying.

 

[spidey-dude]

how do people complain that games havent gone down after 30 years?? Inflation should mean they have gone up so count yourselves lucky!!

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Gaming is relatively cheap now a days, compared to what it used to be. But as others have said, we didn't need this thread, we had one complaining about the exact same thing recently. Games are what they are because gamers have told the publishers that's what they are willing to pay. Answered. /Thread.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Gaming is relatively cheap now a days, compared to what it used to be. But as others have said, we didn't need this thread, we had one complaining about the exact same thing recently. Games are what they are because gamers have told the publishers that's what they are willing to play. Answered. /Thread.

In other words people here who happily pay 60 dollars are dumb?

Also, if you don't like the thread, don't post in it. I would appreciate that. I deal with enough rude people at work.

 

[General Mike]

To me, it's a comparison of my entertainment dollars. If I go to a movie, it's around $10 and if i buy popcorn and a soda its well over $20 for 2-3 hours of fun. Diablo 3 has given me 100s of hours for $60. I would always get over 100 hours per calendar year out of the college football games which is why I bought them every year.

No one is making anyone pay $60 for a game. No one has a gun to your head. Wait for a price drop or buy a used copy or both or borrow it from a friend or whatever.