-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Polygon: Spending 60 dollars on a game doesn’t make sense anymore
- Thread starter Proven
- Start date
Thats pretty much my reasoning. I'll play Gears 5 now for a dollar and rebuy it later for 10 if I still want to play. This only applies to xbox exclusive games though.
It's funny that the market keeps driving price expectations down, yet people like Jim Sterling trot out "make games more expensive" as a magical solution to microtransactions.
Eh for me if i like the devs like the series for me it is more i am supporting the series so i buy it
Just reminds me how much I'm gonna miss my GCU pretty soon. I already rarely buy games at $60 new. I have no issues waiting for a sale for them to come down in price.
Nintendo games are the only exception because it takes forever and a day for that to happen.
Nintendo games are the only exception because it takes forever and a day for that to happen.
Besides xbox exclusives they know the games on gamepass can change and you can't play that game anymore... I'd rather have the games I want and play whenever I want. Also some of the games are classics I want to keep.
Lastly, if all games went to subscriptions then guess what! Microtransactions would be heavily implemented to make up the cost of $60 retail
Lastly, if all games went to subscriptions then guess what! Microtransactions would be heavily implemented to make up the cost of $60 retail
OP
OP
Yes, I noticed that. I straight up feel duped when I purchase a game for full price, even if it's not on gamepass day 1
I would rather pay one time for a game and know I always have that disc in my house than staple my credit card to some parasite of a corporation and lose access to it when I don't want to put up with it anymore or if I need to cut costs and cancel the subscription.
If I can get something on sale, awesome, but subscription models are the damn worst.
If I can get something on sale, awesome, but subscription models are the damn worst.
Honestly yeah, but not because of this Netflix model shit.
It's easy enough to wait a couple of months for a game's price to drop like a rock, especially when I have so much else to play.
It's easy enough to wait a couple of months for a game's price to drop like a rock, especially when I have so much else to play.
Jim is in favor of making games with micro transactions free, and thinks the "if we didn't have them the game would have to be more expensive" argument is bullshit
Don't worry, they are selling you games for 20 bucks/free now.
Plus annual season pass.
And tons of cosmetic.
And lootboxes.
It doesn't? Is this somebody playing weird bootlicker corporate defense for micro transactions and gambling mechanics?
Well, this only applies to Xbox. You still need to play $60 for Sony and Nintendo games if you want to play then day1.
It's not the "market" that did it, it's publishers. They keep putting games on deep discounts very quickly. People are still willing to pay full price for Nintendo games because they know it's going to be difficult to get those for cheaper.
"Spending $60 on a game* doesn't make sense anymore"
Translator's note: "Game" means "specific xbox exclusive games."
yeah ok. Microsoft wants to get as many people subscribed to gamepass as possible, so is willing to take a loss on games like Gears to do so. This model will bankrupt most AAA third party games, it isn't profitable enough. You want to play Call of Duty at release, prepare to cough up $60.
That being said, it's never made sense to spend this unless you're one of the hardcore who HAS to play the game at release. Most games drop 50% or more of the $60 MSRP within a couple of months.
Society is "a construct." it doesn't mean that Ownership as currently defined lacks value.
Translator's note: "Game" means "specific xbox exclusive games."
yeah ok. Microsoft wants to get as many people subscribed to gamepass as possible, so is willing to take a loss on games like Gears to do so. This model will bankrupt most AAA third party games, it isn't profitable enough. You want to play Call of Duty at release, prepare to cough up $60.
That being said, it's never made sense to spend this unless you're one of the hardcore who HAS to play the game at release. Most games drop 50% or more of the $60 MSRP within a couple of months.
Society is "a construct." it doesn't mean that Ownership as currently defined lacks value.
The inverse of this debate is that games are devalued too quickly now and any further devaluation will result in more predatory monetization practices.
In short I am happy paying full price for games that deserve it and I don't play games that don't.
I often skip sales for games from publishers/devs I respect because of my respect for them.
Conversely I won't buy a game from EA, 2K, or Activision even if its basically free.
In short I am happy paying full price for games that deserve it and I don't play games that don't.
I often skip sales for games from publishers/devs I respect because of my respect for them.
Conversely I won't buy a game from EA, 2K, or Activision even if its basically free.
So it's not the blanket thing because I think most PS4 Exclusives are still worth $60.
That's true too. What if I don't care about Gears 5, but want TLOU 2? lol
GP is great, but calm down.
Or you could just pay for one month and play what you want then cancel until the next game(s) interest you.
Yeah, same here. I really don't like subscribing to anything other than FFXIV.
Every game being gaas would be a dream come true (for me at least)
It's all about services and recurring engagement and payment models going forward. This will and does have deep ramifications on game design. We are already seeing it in many ways.
"Polygon: Spending 60 dollars on an XBOX game that's available on GamePass Day 1 doesn't make sense anymore".
FTFY Polygon. Seriously...
FTFY Polygon. Seriously...
Yeah lets make sure devs get less money or let's increase the amount of MTX in games! The reason why $60 doesn't make sense is because it should cost more, we've been paying $60 for years now...
The cheap side of me agrees.
The practical side of me thinks I should just be more practical in my spending. That's what demos and reviews are for. Is the game worth $60? No? Then wait for a sale.
The developer-in-the-making side of me thinks prices are fine. Big companies should just be more practical in how they fund their games and for CEOs not to be overpaid.
The practical side of me thinks I should just be more practical in my spending. That's what demos and reviews are for. Is the game worth $60? No? Then wait for a sale.
The developer-in-the-making side of me thinks prices are fine. Big companies should just be more practical in how they fund their games and for CEOs not to be overpaid.
Forget the subscription service, I just wait a few months. Most games drop their price like crazy after the first month or so.
I mean, by that logic you probably shouldn't buy much of anything Day One because if you wait long enough,it'll invariably be cheaper.
Ownership is overrated. How often are you going back and replaying games you own? Maybe some select favorites, but I've been gaming for over two decades now and I don't give a fuck about owning most games, I just want to play them. I think the premise of the article undervalues games though, it's kind of a slap in the face to devs/publishers.
At least Walmart has been selling $60 games for $50 which is 17% off.
I don't buy games on a monthly basis so I can't subscribe to a monthly basis so I can make companies more richest meantime i get poorer paying a service I don't have time to play more than one game in the entire month