- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Pricing for Games Should be Lower
Posted on 9/20/18 at 10:54 am
Posted on 9/20/18 at 10:54 am
Hear me out.
Developers say games need additional pricing models in order to pay for their graphics,etc.
But the question becomes "are higher resolution graphics really necessary to sell a game?"
How many people asked for 4K? Is the VR market really that big? And if you're going to have an ONLINE ONLY game, why not just make it a subscription service.
We should just have pricing in-game with no initial $60 investment. AAA is basically using freemium already.
Think about the # of pricing models.
1) DLC sold shortly after the games release.
2) Tied to 1, the continuing of season passes.
3) Remastering old titles for pure profit. Bonus points for not making it GOTY edition and reselling the DLC individually. (Looking at you COD)
Note: I acknowledge that their is some merit in remastering a game, but it's been very exploitative in certain cases.
4) Locking content ON THE DISC to be paid for later (Looking at Capcom mostly)
5) Early Access games that masquerade as complete titles while still being fixed ( No Mans Sky and Sea of Thieves)
Developers say games need additional pricing models in order to pay for their graphics,etc.
But the question becomes "are higher resolution graphics really necessary to sell a game?"
How many people asked for 4K? Is the VR market really that big? And if you're going to have an ONLINE ONLY game, why not just make it a subscription service.
We should just have pricing in-game with no initial $60 investment. AAA is basically using freemium already.
Think about the # of pricing models.
1) DLC sold shortly after the games release.
2) Tied to 1, the continuing of season passes.
3) Remastering old titles for pure profit. Bonus points for not making it GOTY edition and reselling the DLC individually. (Looking at you COD)
Note: I acknowledge that their is some merit in remastering a game, but it's been very exploitative in certain cases.
4) Locking content ON THE DISC to be paid for later (Looking at Capcom mostly)
5) Early Access games that masquerade as complete titles while still being fixed ( No Mans Sky and Sea of Thieves)
8
Posted on 9/20/18 at 11:00 am to volod
quote:
But the question becomes "are higher resolution graphics really necessary to sell a game?"
There is a niche market today for retro 8bit or 16 bit graphics but for the most part people want the best graphics possible.
Including DLC, most AAA are around $100 now. These games cost as much as a blockbuster movie to produce and they have to keep servers running for online games plus put out patches. Of course there's always sales. You don't have to buy a game the day it releases. I don't and enjoy the games just the same while paying half price or even less.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 11:11 am to volod
quote:
But the question becomes "are higher resolution graphics really necessary to sell a game?"
No, but good luck getting big publishers to believe you.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 11:24 am to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Including DLC, most AAA are around $100 now. These games cost as much as a blockbuster movie to produce and they have to keep servers running for online games plus put out patches. Of course there's always sales. You don't have to buy a game the day it releases. I don't and enjoy the games just the same while paying half price or even less.
Understood. And unless it's a title I have particular interest in, I usually dont buy it day one.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 11:40 am to volod
quote:think about the fact that N64 games were sold at $60 twenty plus years ago
Think about the # of pricing models.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 11:46 am to joeyb147
When adjusted for inflation.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 12:03 pm to volod
quote:depends on the game IMO
Pricing for Games Should be Lower
Zelda, Mario, God of War, Arkham, Spider-Man, Ori, Skyrim, etc type games are worth their price in gold on the gaming market
Madden, 2K, Call of Duty, Battlefront, etc and games that rely on additional purchases without giving you a complete game or a shitty game should be drastically reduced in base price
This post was edited on 9/20/18 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 9/20/18 at 2:54 pm to volod
5 downvotes.
You guys love getting played.
I bet those same people are upset EA is in legal trouble with Belguim over Loot Boxes.
You guys love getting played.
I bet those same people are upset EA is in legal trouble with Belguim over Loot Boxes.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 2:58 pm to partywiththelombardi
quote:
Madden, 2K, Call of Duty, Battlefront, etc and games that rely on additional purchases without giving you a complete game or a shitty game should be drastically reduced in base price
EXACTLY. Games that heavily rely on yearly releases don't need a base 60 to make a profit.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 3:05 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Brosef Stalin
Did you find a job? I'm asking because I remember you were looking for work. Have you tried Huntsville, AL. Very good place for a tech savvy guy.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 3:11 pm to volod
games only cost like 60 bucks
Posted on 9/20/18 at 3:23 pm to volod
Every video game could be 60 FPS native 4K, but developers would rather make games that the hardware can't handle then blame the consoles when the framerate/resolution is low.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 3:35 pm to volod
I'd rather not move at this time. Huntsville isn't really on my radar although it would be cool to work for NASA if they're still in town.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 4:06 pm to SEC. 593
quote:uhhh no
When adjusted for inflation.
turok was $79.99 when released in 1997
Endangering Turok's sales was its high price—$79.99 in the US, £70 in the UK, and $129.95 in Australia
Posted on 9/20/18 at 4:15 pm to joeyb147
quote:Yeah. Star Fox for the SNES retailed for $59.99 at release and Virtua Racing for the Genesis launched at $99.99.
uhhh no
LINK
Admittedly, these games contained special chips to make their polygonal graphics possible on their respective hardware, but games are cheaper right now than they've ever been.
I wouldn't be surprised if games for the PS5 and the next Xbox start at $69.99.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 4:20 pm to partywiththelombardi
quote:
Madden, 2K, Call of Duty, Battlefront, etc and games that rely on additional purchases without giving you a complete game or a shitty game should be drastically reduced in base price
YOU as the consumer, don’t have to buy the game for $60. I redboxed Madden this year as my free game with a movie rental, returned it the next day. I’ve been a madden buyer for years. It feels good to break the trend. If you don’t feel the game is worth full price, don’t pay it.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 4:30 pm to theducks
Also Battlefront is not a yearly title.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 4:38 pm to joeyb147
I remember seeing Strider on Genesis for $70 in the early 90s.
Posted on 9/20/18 at 5:31 pm to volod
I disagree, I am surprised they aren't higher. Movies with new tech have inflated to $30 for a new release from the more common $20. Game prices haven't shifted at all during that period.
Additionally, $60 now isn't what it was 15-20 years ago, yet prices remain stagnant.
What I do disagree with though is the lack of price difference in a downloaded game and the hard copy.
Additionally, $60 now isn't what it was 15-20 years ago, yet prices remain stagnant.
What I do disagree with though is the lack of price difference in a downloaded game and the hard copy.
This post was edited on 9/20/18 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 9/20/18 at 6:27 pm to volod
I remember when a dime bag cost a dime
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News