-
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
We all collectively dreamed this when streaming movies/television came about. We know how this ends, you'll never get that. At least not in the way that you want.
Sony does not have a service like this.
Play older games for a sub != play brand new games day 1 for a sub.
Exactly why I don't think I'll ever get a Switch even if I'm pretty curious about it. I can live with playing 1+ y.o. games for 20 bucks, but paying 50+ for each game would be kinda prohibitive.
The overall point is fair regardless of Game Pass. Sony games cost $20 within a year, no exceptions, and typically hit $10-15 with all DLC included within 18 months tops. If you pay $60, fine, everyone can do what they want, but it doesn't make a ton of practical sense.
Good thing the price is $10 a month after your new user promotion ends, then.
Yeah man, I mean garbage like DMC 5, Monster Hunter World, , Ori, MGS 5, Forza Horizon, Dead Cells, Gears 5, Hellblade, Hollow Knight, Minecraft, Doom... who is even playing this shit? $10 a month for that? Can't understand it at all.
Good thing the price is $10 a month after your new user promotion ends, then.
Yeah man, I mean garbage like DMC 5, Monster Hunter World, , Ori, MGS 5, Forza Horizon, Dead Cells, Gears 5, Hellblade, Hollow Knight, Minecraft, Doom... who is even playing this shit? $10 a month for that? Can't understand it at all.
I don't think its so much of deciding that $60 is too much, more of a point that the market is oversaturated. I honestly can't keep up, and if I find a game I like I'll stick with it for a month or two alone. And I totally agree about it getting ugly. You have indie developers clamoring for attention and expecting it to be a storefronts responsibility to push their product . . . I don't see how they can considering the amount of games being released daily. Looking at Steam, it looks like 11 releases today. Three of them look interesting to me, but fuck all if I'm going to buy one now, I still have ten's to get to first.
Imagine thinking that Game Pass and PS Now are similar services.
I'm not interested in digital on consoles, but even then it's typically worth it to wait for price drops on physical copies. And for stuff like Nintendo games that tend to remain at full price forever, Walmart's $50 games are filling the gap left by GCU's demise.
I'm just tired of everything becoming a subscription. The only subscription model I like is AMC A List or Movie Pass because then at least you're paying for experiences rather than something you could own outright.
I know people don't like paying full price for games but this race to the bottom can't be healthy for the industry or consumers in the long run.
I know people don't like paying full price for games but this race to the bottom can't be healthy for the industry or consumers in the long run.
I never understood why anyone ever paid full price for a game. With stuff like redbox and gamefly, it makes things easier not to pay full price. I get tons of free redbox codes every month and you can buy like 10 redbox codes on ebay for a few dollars. I've beaten so many single player games this way. With redbox I do feel rush because I want to beat the game in just two sittings.
Game pass and EA access makes things easier. I don't feel rush. I can take my time. I see at least 2-3 awesome game I've never played each month. I also see yearly EA access codes selling for around 15 dollars all the time.
Game pass and EA access makes things easier. I don't feel rush. I can take my time. I see at least 2-3 awesome game I've never played each month. I also see yearly EA access codes selling for around 15 dollars all the time.
Sorry I thought you were suggesting game prices should be higher.
Spending 60 dollars on a game doesn't make sense anymore because so many games are launching light on features, light on polish, and heavy on in-app purchases, not to mention the rapid price cuts.
Subscriptions seem nice now, but it won't be long before every publisher has to have their own subscription and the costs start adding up again.
Subscriptions seem nice now, but it won't be long before every publisher has to have their own subscription and the costs start adding up again.
Yah this, and I reckon games will be adapted for sub model, unlike how they are now. Lite versions will be in the sub and they will have mobile style stores with add ons for story, MP etc. AAAs like capcom etc afe just probably testing out GP now but as XB are probably their smallest market, they dont mind. Whole different story when there big customers start doing it. That's when they start probably changing the game design. Devs will mind losing out on 3-5 million month 1 sales at full price.
Lets see how this subscription model plays out for games. Interesting times.
Well the thing is... The price for developing games have dramatically gone up for gaming companies, and games nowadays have far more content and length than they were 20 years ago.
More advanced AI, more advanced physics, .ore objects on screen HD-4K textures, higher polygon counts all cost money and can take several years to develop and can take more than a hundred easily to develop.
More advanced AI, more advanced physics, .ore objects on screen HD-4K textures, higher polygon counts all cost money and can take several years to develop and can take more than a hundred easily to develop.
I really don't mind spending $60 on a game I'm excited for and want to play immediately. It's not something I do all that often, but for the right game it's totally worth it.
In general though I feel like we're living in a bit of a golden age in terms of value in gaming. Even at the top end, $60 is not all that much, especially when you consider how long the average game is nowadays. Single player AAA games released in the last few years definitely take more than 10 hours to beat on average, and something like the Witcher 3 can be like 50 hours. Long gone are the days when your $60 only got you an 6-8 hour campaign.
In general though I feel like we're living in a bit of a golden age in terms of value in gaming. Even at the top end, $60 is not all that much, especially when you consider how long the average game is nowadays. Single player AAA games released in the last few years definitely take more than 10 hours to beat on average, and something like the Witcher 3 can be like 50 hours. Long gone are the days when your $60 only got you an 6-8 hour campaign.
I disagree on the large sense. There are more games with microtransactions and DLC, but there's far more games with proportionally more content than there was +10 years ago. Like How long is the average RPG nowadays? Easily +50, with the most popular titles taking 100-200hrs to 100%.
Fighting games in general have more content than they did 20 years ago.
Some of the biggest publishers that have proven they can't be trusted, already have too much control even without "the Netflix model". I'd rather have the option to be in control of my purchased content. We're living in some paradoxical timeline where more options and pro-consumer moves are celebrated, yet we're also seeing praised heaped on services which are ultimately Trojan horses for publishers to attain even more control while making you think you're getting it ALL because value™. I think it's too easy to forget the lovely issue of licensing that causes games to either be delisted or removed and you're left holding nothing unless you have the disc you paid $60 or less for. There's nothing senseless about any of this.
This, and also the fact that not only is there no guarantee that games will come to the service, but also no guarantee that they won't be removed at any stage as we've already seen happen.
That would be a sweet deal if I bought games every month but I typically don't. It also doesn't give me the option of buying physical like I tend to do with certain single player only games. If money was my sole issue I could easily wait till prices of the games I want come down in retail, and with frequent PS Store/PS Plus/Steam sales games are already cheap enough for me. I appreciate the value GP provides but I feel they are for a certain type of gamer whose gaming habits don't necessarily align with mine. This is why I believe spending full price on games should always be an option for people like me. Subs are great for people that like them but at the end of the day, they aren't for everyone. People like myself that want to own a permanent digital/physical library will always prefer buying their own games outright.
Last edited:
Exactly this. The tools are better, but the expectations from consumers have also went up at the same pace so the workload has generally not changed and in most cases has went up.
I don't consider it all that practical to wait an additional 18 months to play a game I'm excited about now.
By your rationale, why not just wait five or six years and pick up a game for literal pennies on the dollar at a yard sale?
On a long enough timeline, the value of most consumer goods shrinks to nearly zero. Why buy anything 'new'?
What is with peoples fascination about how other people choose to spend their money? Generally I don't spend $60 on a game, but if I do it is because I want to pay it at launch on my console of choice and couldn't get a discount or find a cheaper price for whatever reason. This isn't a huge mystery that needs solving.
And yeah, maybe I will find a copy at a pawn shop 3 years from now for $5 or something, but why should that even matter to anyone other than me?
And yeah, maybe I will find a copy at a pawn shop 3 years from now for $5 or something, but why should that even matter to anyone other than me?
This isnt surprising. GamePass is a nice service, it really is.
Its also not surprising Polygon writes nice things about MS. A simple google search will explain why.
For the price though, GP is amazing.
Its also not surprising Polygon writes nice things about MS. A simple google search will explain why.
For the price though, GP is amazing.
1. A vast majority of games I really, want to play are not part of any subscription service. Entry fee is $60 physical or digital - no other options.
2. I would get them on a cheaper subscription model if it's available there, but it ain't.
3. Living in Asia, discounts can be rare both in physical and digital options. The frequency of lower prices and deals are significantly lower.
4. Gaming is my hobby, not just in the act of playing games - but the act of discussing them and being part of the 'zeitgeist.' And that involves, many times - getting the game as early as possible in the current climate where spoilers are taken for granted in mere weeks after release.
5. To a far lesser extent, I still value the notion of ownership of a product in the loosest sense. ( I know we don't actually 'own own' it, but you get the gist )
2. I would get them on a cheaper subscription model if it's available there, but it ain't.
3. Living in Asia, discounts can be rare both in physical and digital options. The frequency of lower prices and deals are significantly lower.
4. Gaming is my hobby, not just in the act of playing games - but the act of discussing them and being part of the 'zeitgeist.' And that involves, many times - getting the game as early as possible in the current climate where spoilers are taken for granted in mere weeks after release.
5. To a far lesser extent, I still value the notion of ownership of a product in the loosest sense. ( I know we don't actually 'own own' it, but you get the gist )
Makes as much sense to me today as it always has for physical copies. Full price if I'm highly anticipating it, I can wait for a discount if not.
I think it's a very valid argument for Xbox exclusives tbh. I certainly won't be buying full priced games anymore due to gamepass. I'll wait for a few exclusive games to release that I'm interested in and sub for a month to play them all. And given how infrequent the good exclusives release on that platform you might only ever have to subscribe 3 times across the entire generation! That seems like a good deal to me!
As far as third party titles go however...gamepass doesn't really make for a compelling service imo. The same way relying on ps+ or games with gold isn't either. Because waiting upwards of 2 years to play a game isn't my idea of a good time, especially if it's a game you are legitimately psyched to play. This rings true for Sony too. There is no way I would be happy waiting 2 years to play last of us 2, or Spiderman etc, even if it meant I could pick them up for £5 in a bargain bin at that time. My desire to play them far outweighs me wanting to save money. And ultimately, buying and re-selling mitigates any cost advantage of gamepass anyway, so....
As far as third party titles go however...gamepass doesn't really make for a compelling service imo. The same way relying on ps+ or games with gold isn't either. Because waiting upwards of 2 years to play a game isn't my idea of a good time, especially if it's a game you are legitimately psyched to play. This rings true for Sony too. There is no way I would be happy waiting 2 years to play last of us 2, or Spiderman etc, even if it meant I could pick them up for £5 in a bargain bin at that time. My desire to play them far outweighs me wanting to save money. And ultimately, buying and re-selling mitigates any cost advantage of gamepass anyway, so....
if you own a Xbox or Sony system you can save a lot on games if you wait a month I remember horizon drop to 40 after 3 weeks.........Zelda still at 60
only system you can buy games day 1 is Nintendo exclusives because a year later or more it's still same price
Nintendo games that bomb do get cleared out. Also sometimes they have such a low print run or trade in rate that they actually go up in price.
Games released by September get a decent discount on Black Friday
Sometimes in October too
But yeah, just wait a month or few weeks and it'll be $45
Sometimes in October too
But yeah, just wait a month or few weeks and it'll be $45
A month these days is more like 30 or less, especially in the fall.
Gamepass is great but it's not quite enough just yet. Big 3rd party games aren't close to being subscription only. EA is probably the closest out of all of them and even then they still have a noticeable delay in getting their games into their subscription service.
How to devalue your product, a.k.a, race to the bottom. Thank god Sony and Nintendo are not participating in this nonsense, and hopefully never will.
I've personally held off on Control, The Surge 2, and Star Wards Jedi: Fallen Order at full price as they're only singe player shorter experiences. Those types of games are now sale/wait for game pass only for me.
Well, yeah. I'm the guy who bought a PS2 in 2006 and never paid more than $20 for a game. I don't put any value on playing something now vs. playing it later. Either way I played it. Unless it requires an active multiplayer community, why spend more?
But 18 months is just to get the "complete edition" for $15. If you wait 4-6 weeks you can get almost any Sony exclusive for $40. Paying $60 really is kind of foolish, in my opinion.
That's fine. I don't think MS is about to stop selling their games (indeed they're in the midst of expanding to Steam/PC), and the rest of the games in Game Pass are from 3rd parties who obviously sell their games on multiple platforms. So everyone should be covered.
I haven't bought a single game for full price this year, even Nintendo games I used vouchers on. It's great. Realizing I can wait 2 months to pick up a game at 40 keeps me from falling into FOMO due to my massive backlog.
I would probably only get a game at $60 if I knew I was going to play it all the way through immediately, like Smash Ultimate.
I would probably only get a game at $60 if I knew I was going to play it all the way through immediately, like Smash Ultimate.
Why do I need to wait six weeks to play something I want to play now to save 20 bucks, which isn't a particularly large sum of money for me? Why is that foolish when I can afford it?
Again, to each their own. I respect people's purchasing proclivities but labeling the choice to buy something at launch as 'foolish' is both myopic and a tad insulting. I'm chomping at the bits to play Jedi: Fallen Order and saving a few bucks to wait another month or longer seems absolutely pointless to me.
Sony "devalues" the crap out of their games. I don't think I've spent more than 15 bucks on a Sony first party game these past two generations.
Does this only apply to Sony exclusives because that is what you keep talking about. Your opinion is noted and I disagree. Btw you do know re-sale is a thing for physical games? You can buy for $60 and sell for $40 to $50 after you finish it. No need to wait.
Finally don't concern yourself with how other people spend their money.
Nothing devalues games to the level Game Pass.
And that's a good thing, its also better that its independent of a subscription service on top of paying for XBL.
If Sony want to sell their games for cheaper prices individually, its a lot better than expecting people to shell out to continue playing software at cheap prices on the whole. You dont own the content. Its just a way of turning games into a service faster by making the entire library a pool to be accessed rather than individual products.
Games drop in price too fast anymore. I'll buy a game day one if I want to support the dev, otherwise I only buy games that are on sale.