Would you pay a higher price for games if they offered more content/better gameplay?

Or would you rather still pay the current base price plus DLC? I’m personally in the boat that $60 is still an adequate price for games. But if paying $20 more meant getting a better, more complete game, then I would consider it. What about you, SW? What is a fair price to ask for an AAA game today?

@SolidGame_basic: You can pay 80$ for a game, they will still charge you for microtransactions, loot boxes and dlcs

Don't underestimate the greed.

DLC model I think is better.

why? because clearly and should be painfully obvious to everyone, not all tastes on quality are the same.

I, for example, would take Subnautica over Witcher 3 any day of the week, so being able to buy the core game cheaper to get an idea if one might like it I think is better

I never really feel short changed with content in the games i buy. Always get my moneys worth. Guess that’s why I’ve hardly ever bought any DLC.

I generally don't pay full price for games anyways, so i guess no

I do already, in essence. Certain games I commit to the season pass on day 1. But I seldom do so, only certain developers possess the rapport for me to invest confidently in unknown future content.

But yes, I’m not against games costing more if they are more content complete/tested.

Yikes, probably not.

Hate to be some normalizing douchebag but every game is pretty much a gamble anyway.

@Basinboy: Right I mean if their reputation proceeds them.... uhm... maybe?

THIS!!!

Every inch a company gets a foothold in, is another mile they can more easily claim, and a mile there will be no taking back from. Microtransactions were born in the F2P market, seen as a way of earning compensation via voluntary donation, rather than mandatory pricing from the conventional business model. Just taking it from the perspective of a reasonable trade off in foregoing that straight up entry fee, "pay to win" not with standing.

When the AAA market saw the potential for expanded profits, they adopted MTX in small subtle ways at first, with only few questioning why there's this voluntary donations when players had already donated in full sum of initial purchase in the first place. Because it's just like a drug addict; once the publishers got that taste, the $60 price tag was no longer delivering the same satisfaction (of meeting profit margins) as it once did. The few optional extras just weren't bringing in enough extra profit, it keeps raising the tolerance threshold because it's never enough for them - leading to new ways to expand & diversify the MTX structure that sees a revenue stream rivaling that of MMO subscriptions. (back when that was more prevalent)

What begins with small steps leads to escalation that brought the industry to the point of.... well what we got with Star Wars Battlefront II and Destiny 2. So severe to finally provoke the community to push back. But only when so much ground had already been lost, MTX even if improved or better balanced, is too deeply entrenched to ever see in full retreat.

So don't think for one second that raising the base price of games will encourage the publishers to offer DLC and micro-items (cosmetic or otherwise) for free as a "fair trade off". They don't see it as "everybody should win", just their share holders and board members are the only winners that matter to them. It'll just become another opportunity to establish a new standard of profit margin where $80 will only be seen as a minimum of revenue for each copy of a game... and from there the escalation will just continue on from an even higher foothold than it was before.

I think the $60 is fine. And I think most games are more bloated than they need to be these days, so content is rarely the issue. Like Nioh, BotW, and Odyssey were among my top games last year, and I felt they would've been even better had they trimmed off some of the fat.

Now if I knew for sure that paying an extra $10 or $20 would improve gameplay across the board? Well shit yeah I'd go for that lol. But of course that's not gonna happen. Medocire or worse gameplay isn't a matter of budget with these AAA games. They simply don't have talented enough game designers.

No, I usually wait for sales unless I really want it, anyway. And spambot ^

Not sure I really understand this question. If you want more content in games and pay more for it then aren’t you already doing this when you buy the base game then purchase the dlc for it? Also how does charging more for games equal better gameplay?

Anyway I’m fine with the current model because it allows for the flexibility of those who just want the base game and pass on any dlc to do so.

@Sam3231: It's an admitted risk and not one I assume often, but a handful of developers have earned my confidence in whatever they produce, namely Naughty Dog and FromSoftware. I also would trust CDProjektRed but I'm resigned from ever playing TW3 (just not enough time in my life available to commit to it).

With inflation taken into account video games should be 80-90 bucks so it's shocking they have stayed the same. But companies just figured out how to better monetize their games so they can stay at similar prices. Of course this means all the things we hate about the gaming industry today

$60 is already more than I'm willing to pay for the vast majority of games. Most of the games that have crappy microtransaction policies wouldn't become good games simply by removing their microtransaction structure, honestly. I guess it's possible that the resources that went toward figuring out how to milk the most money out of the customer while providing the least amount of content could have gone toward making a higher quality product, though.

DLC content has a way of feeling tacked on, like it sort of doesn't belong with the rest of the game. At least single player DLC often does. Some developers handle it much better than others, but for the most part, it just isn't worth purchasing.

I pay for quality not quantity. otherwise ubisoft open world games offer too much quantity but no quality so not worth anything.

no

If anything, games should get cheaper with all the money they make with DLC, Microtransactions and Lootboxes. $60 should be reserved for full games, not Shooters with half the maps or fighters with half the Rooster.

Ha charge higher prices for a "More complete game". Yeah I can't see how that would go wrong. Freaking hate how all the console can connect to the internet hence this stupid need to patch and over bloated DLC crap. But to answer your question no. I would just wait for them on sale alot more often.

I guess I misspelled it? What did I do wrong? Is it only one o?

No.

I am almost done with gaming. Most of them feel like a chore now.

Better gameplay shouldn't come with a higher price.

This. I'll buy DLC for games that I feel are worth it but I'm cool with it because I have a choice.