If games changed from 60 dollars to 70 dollars would...

>>386164152
Its hard to trust the game industry. They would most likely just take your money and make shit dlc.

File: 1464102460977.jpg (144KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 768x1024px

Nope! they'd charge 70, then still release DLC as they do now, because people are willing to pay for it. If people would stop buying loot crates, DLC, etc, then it wouldnt be as bad as it is now. But since people are still happily buying it, its only going to get worse.

I'd be fine with that. But isn't that what season passes are?

>>386164878
He's right, they'd still pull the same shit even if it cost 70 dollars.

>>386164152
They would still have day 1 dlc, micro transactions. All that would happen is you pay 10 more dollars.

>>386164152
Of course things wouldn't get better. If they raised the prices they would keep every shitty business practice they're currently doing because people will pay for it and they can get away with losing the people that are sick of that shit.

>>386164152
Didn't EA try and do this only to be blown out by the entire industry who said there was no reason to do so?

>>386164878

Well in a perfect world of course people would just stop buying all dlc but that's not gonna happen. If everyone was charged a little more at least for a couple of years we'd see fuller games with no dlc (I think at least)

>>386164886

No because only a percentage of the player base chooses to pay that, so they have to charge more for it. If everyone was charged a little bit more then there would probably be no need for them to charge more to get the entire game because they get the same amount of money (maybe even more)

>>386165008

You're probably right, but at least for a time it would level them out and give us the deal we deserve (minus the 10 bucks difference [but even that is less than a 50 dollar premium pass or whatever])

>be A FUCKING LEAF
>games are already $79.99
>rounds up to $90 after taxes

End me.

>>386164152
Prices go up and it won't change the dlc prices.

Game prices have went up in Canada and it didn't affect a thing.

>>386167572

RIP. Get over here to the states before we get a wall to block snowbeaners

>>386167714

Yes because the games are made and distributed from the states, they're not gonna make a different package for another country. If this was a standard increase in price for the entire world then they'd make even more money and we'd get a full game. Win win

File: 1500590309889.png (124KB, 327x327px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 327x327px

>>386167368
It's been a while since I had seen one and completely forgotten about stuff like 50 dollar season passes.

>>386165135
They just hide the 60 dollar standard editions in fine print on their store pages and advertising now.

>>386164152
No. They were going this direction, regardless. While we still live in a system that favors unfettered greed on behalf of shareholders, this will only get worse. There are actual economists and Sociologists fighting to try and change policy and conceptions about how businesses should be ran and what they should be focusing on... but for now there is no hope.

Even when companies stand to make profit on something (yes even SUPERIOR profit) they'll forgo it because it doesn't feed the long term goal of CEO and shareholders. They're long term is getting this shit to be completely controlled, streamed with as much payable content as possible so you don't own it, can't torrent it, and they can basically force you to link your debit/credit card to their "service" and can unconditionally charge you whenever they want just because you "agreed" to it by playing the game.

It's really telling when there is blatant evidence that JRPGs, Horror games, and singleplayer games in general are profitable (heavily so in some cases) but many big companies still ignore that because they would rather complete their future dystopian agenda that forces profit than earn their profit the traditional way.

>>386168039

This. What's worse is that the 70 dollar versions give you such little content. The 70 dollar BF: Hardline version gave you like a single round's worth of battle packs

>>386168109

This wasn't meant to be a "muh capitalism" commie thread, arguably the opposite.

>>386167736
>Canada getting a net migration of people from the states
We're building the wall not you cletus

>>386167841
That's hopelessly naive. How long do companies have to tell people like you how "desperate" they are whilst they keep making record profits before you just understand they have been full of shit ever since 2006. Nothing made DLC necessary. In fact, it has actually hurt some companies so badly that they went bankrupt from backlash and lack of support. THQ and gutted teams of EA are a good example.

>>386168291
Ummm... well that doesn't really matter what you wanted the thread to be. I'm just telling you what these companies want. Since most people are too stupid to see it. They really believe all that bullshit about "we like competition" and how "they want to serve the fans". That's always been a gigantic lie. If you have any ability to read between the lines and watch their actions rather than their words then it's quite obvious that they've thrown away perfect market feedback just to further their agenda. Only a select few companies even bother to utilize market feedback... until they get too big and the mighty shareholders come in. Then, ironically, they seem ever so willing to homogenize and become like every other company for the sake of "increasing playerbase" or "helping newcomers". Or whatever other bs excuse they like to throw around these days.

>>386164152
your saying this as if business men have some kind of limit as to how much money they want to make.

>>386164152
>If games changed from 60 dollars to 70 dollars would they not need microtransactions
>Year 2020
>If games changed from 80 dollars to 120 dollars would they not need microtransactions
>Year 2028
>If games changed from 180 dollars to 250 dollars would they not need microtransactions
No.

>>386167572
You understand CAD isn't worth as much as USD, right?

>>386164152
Are DLC, microtransactions, and season passes going to cause consumer disinterest and eventually the 2nd Crash?

>>386168867
Pretty much this. If it's smaller companies run by people that are business weary but have better motivations then yes... I could see this. But we're talking about gigantic corporations that are so disconnected from whatever satisfaction they could have gotten from any real creative work that the only satisfaction they can find it in making increasing profit for doing almost nothing. I mean I guess if I didn't do anything I would need something to validate my existence too.

>>386169116
I can only hope so. Because, just like after the first crash, we will at least have a 15 year period where companies will be really small and won't be able to risk the kind of bullshit that initiated the crash so they'll have to play ball and actually give developers control over their products... I mean I would like to say it would fix everything permanently but I mean... the first crash didn't. We now have games that are just as bad, if not worse, than the kind of garbage that caused the crash in the 80s.

File: amYmbA4_700b.jpg (98KB, 690x1035px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 690x1035px

Companies will do everything they can to make every penny they can.

>>386164152
What needs to happen is companies need to finish a game and then start working on the 60$ huge expansion.

>>386164152
if they can get you to pay $70 or any amount of money on top of everything else instead of $60 they will

>>386169432
Tooby's skirt isn't that short, you slut

>>386169116
I can't speak for everyone. But a lot of my friends and I pretty much torrent every game until we find a decent one that we want to buy because you can't trust anything and most games aren't interesting anymore because they are all based on each others mechanics. And even then I sometimes don't even pay for a game that i found somewhat interesting because the business practices it implemented are so fucking disgusting that I couldn't possibly support it or I'd be basically saying it was okay.

>>386164152
Even if a game costs $300 you would have DLC and microtransactions out of your ass, they only care about making big money.

>>386164152
They already cost 70$ instead of 60 and they still have DLCs and microtransactions

>>386169631
This.

I can't remember what the video was called. But that fat fuck, Jim Sterling did a video where he basically named out every way companies scheme to make money/save money and then still complain they aren't making enough. It was something like:

>advertising deals with food and candy companies
>DLC
>Microtransactions
>reselling old content as new
>Pre-orders to try and maximize top dollar sales
>using cheap/free advertising through Youtube
>underpaying and mistreating employees

I mean, people gave them an inch and look at that...

>>386169098
Yeah but it's not like they're getting paid 5000 CAD a month either. It's worth less but they still don't earn more.

>>386164152
Games are already more expensive in several countries and it's still the fucking same.

File: 1271386164332.jpg (35KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 554x439px

Daily reminder that when you take inflation into account, $60 2017 dollars is the cheapest default price for games in history.

>>386164152
>no more dlc
>no more content updates like titanfall 2
>no literally a whole new game like Witcher 3
Yeah nah fuck off nu/v/ if you look for shit all your gonna find is shit.

>>386170553
This is correct. By now we'd be paying $90 USD but publishers found a better way to make money (microtransactions)

>>386170553
>caring about inflation
Sure, when wages compare to inflation then I will consider that. But as it stands inflation on all buyable goods including cost of living have vastly outpaced wages. And national averages that include the top earners don't make sense because the top 10% don't represent the average person, obviously..

Maybe the EA CEO doesn't need a 90 million dollar paycheck. Or a bonus. That's capitalism.

>>386170553
In our modern, inflation for inflation's sake, world I don't see that as applicable. Companies are richer than ever in history and people are poorer, so how it doesn't really make sense to view this as charity.

>>386170971
Did you completely miss the point? The price of games HASN'T been rising with inflation, just like wages. Games have been $60 since 2005. $60 in 2005 would be $75 today

>>386164152
Don't give them ideas you dork

>>386164152
No in the same way that moving labor overseas does not lower the retail price of finished products

They are already 70 yurops in ASSpain, I don't even know how people can afford to buy videogames here.

>>386171762
Judging by all the wide language localization available in pirate files, they don't.

>>386164152
>would the game not need to have micro transactions or DLC and maybe even not as much as a preorder reliance?

They would still do all of that anyway, just because

Who cares, I'll still buy the cheapest shit off g2a or whatever.