Why is US$59.99 unreasonable for a new video game?

>DLC, microtransactions and lootboxes out the ass
>day one patch, so physical copies are full of bugs and other issues if you don't download it
>most modern games are absolutely soulless
There was a time where I gladly would have paid full price for a new game, but these last two gens pretty much ruined it. Anyone that doesn't pirate or wait for them to be at $15 or less is retarded.

Because it should $79.99 when you account for inflation

Because more and more games have less and less content than they did 10-20 years ago. Most games aren't worth a 60 dollar price tag.

Because where I come from I earn proportionally less than you westcucks.
If you pay 1/20th of your paycheck for a vidya I have to pay 1/10th of mine and nobody seems to give a fuck. Only Russia somehow has regional pricing adequate to their earnings.

For example the monthly money I have for life (after tax, rent, bills and other necessary payments WITHOUT food spendings) is about $700 (or 600€) after conversion. Yet somehow companies think it's ok to charge me €60 - the same amount a German or Brit scoffs at, because he earns 3000€ a month.

I never buy games full price, only on sales because of that.
Oh and cancerous game publishers expecting me to buy DLCs, in-game microtransactions or subs. They can go fuck themselves desu.

Attached: 1522126846700.gif (387x427, 2.4M)

It's not that $60 is an unreasonable price for a game, it's that all the games that are released for $60 are uninspired shovelware where the publisher only cares about extracting as much money as possible from you.

$20 - $40 is the golden range of games.
$10 - $20 and $40 - $60 are risky.
everything else probably isn't worth your time.

I remember it was 50 for gamecube

this

also digital games should be cheaper than physical games because you're getting a worse product

Games should be $40 max

reminder that $40 in 2000 is $59.50 in 2019 thanks to inflationary fiat currency

Yep, and even after that, a strange thing is when a game, a fine example being Far Cry: New Dawn has pretty much none of that and releases at $29.99, I still find it too much, but then again, that's still like....4 hours of content.

Depends on the game. Imagine playing Destiny without the expansions. Some you can wait on, but if you're interested in the game and it's mostly online, you'll be getting nickled and dimed all the way.

>adjusted for inflation
You do realize video games have gotten cheaper over the years if you adjust for inflation. In the 80s you would literally pay $80+ (adjusted for inflation) for NES fucking golf, so really you're paying less for a lot more game.

Yeah but most peoples salaries didn't inflate much to match and even more people than ever are playing games not to mention the amount of cost cutting they can do now.
No more printed manuals, digital sales for about half the sales which means saving in shipping and manufacturing. Getting the general public to beta test for free. If your game it niche you can even save a ton on marketing via streaming and e-celebs. No to mention DLC and micro transactions for additional sales.

>$59,99 for base game which is barebones, can be beaten in 5 hours and is 80% cutscenes
>$20 worth of day 1 on-disc dlc
>$29,99 season pass
>$8,99/month to play online

Attached: 1536509476418.png (643x483, 268K)

>games used to cost 59.99 in my cunt
>tfw they cost 89.99 now

Attached: 1472223510925.jpg (480x360, 31K)

A large demographic of this board are teenagers who struggle to afford a full priced game

>PC game
6 months maybe
>Playstation game
Maybe
>Nintendo game
NEVER EVER

It's not about being affortable, it's just that it's a waste of money.

i remember when $50 was the standard after all the garbage of selling SNES, NES and Sega games for $50-$80.

Then the rotten xbox 360 came along and fucked that up

Attached: 1369891816329.jpg (200x200, 10K)

Youre right, they should be free.

A game being to short has never been a reason why I've regretted a $60 purchase

If you bought gears of War 3 for 60$ you got a 4 player coop campaign, horde, beast and multiplayer. Dozens of character unlocks on both sides and weapon skins. If you buy gears 5 for 60 dollars you get a 2 and a half player coop campaign, horde and escape and a multiplayer with about 18 characters and line 2 or 3 skins. If you paid for a map pack in gears 3 for 10$ you got maps, skins and weapon skins. If you pay 10$ in gears 5 you get an emote.

Inflation

A dozen eggs costs $3 on average. That's 240 eggs. I COULD buy a game for $60, but god damn...240 eggs is a lot of eggs.

Attached: eggs.jpg (345x396, 32K)

that was not inflation you fuck

$60 game
$30 season pass
$10 lootboxes
$5 skins
$15 battle pass

Attached: 1561590422797.jpg (577x537, 33K)

or I could just get all that shit for $20 in a year's time and work on my backlog in the meantime

Video games are literally and unironically visual and auditory Jewish propaganda, and you all disgust me for keeping this industry alive or for partaking in it.

Because most games feel too dry/lacking on content to be a $60 game, not to mention season pass, battle pass, pre-order bonuses etc. which can be anything from nickel and dime jewing for cosmetics to actual worthwhile content they sliced out for a quick buck to sell to you later. Great for waiting for sales when they bundle shit or just outright pirating though.

Because despite the cost of distributing games getting significantly cheaper, the customer hasn't seen a penny in a price cut
>With digital there's no need to print discs, make cases, print manuals, and then ship them all over the country
>Still charge the same as physical
Any and all cut costs are just taken as profit

I remember the days when games cost more than they do now

Attached: 88dacdca54ab290bf0cef6974539c587.jpg (1023x818, 192K)

Manufacturing costs were way more expensive and the market was much smaller so the fixed cost of developing the game was more significant.

Because I can get them for $0 easily

Because the people complaining about them weren't alive before sixth gen.

Attached: 1455639206088.jpg (819x1000, 232K)

You try playing Battlefield 4 with no dlc ? Its like trying to win reverse russian rulette with how many dlc maps there were.

i could get 2 grams of heroin for that price, i would much rather have heroin than a shitty game i would barely play. the only game i pay for is wow because i get so many hours out of it.

>One game potentially costing a third of the console itself
What the fuck

>tfw games are all $0 for me

Attached: 1564119888359.jpg (790x702, 349K)

That's cartridges for you. At least cartridges have the excuse of being expensive to manufacturer. PS1 and Saturn games were like $40.

That was normal during fifth gen too. I remember buying WWF No Mercy with my saved up allowance and birthday money, and it was $69.99; I remember because I paid in exact change, since I had figured out how to calculate sales tax.

KI came with a CD and Earthbound came with a full strategy guide.

The KI CD was the soundtrack to every school field trip in primary school.

Holy fuck! That's a lot of Canadian bucks for just one game

Attached: 1499397218032.png (330x291, 79K)

>what is inflation

It’s unreasonable if it’s a Nintendo Switch game. You shouldn’t be paying AAA prices for poor graphics and performance. No Nintendo game is with $60

Are you clinically retarded?

With inflation some of those games are more than $100.

Should probably be more honestly. Nintendo 64 games cost this much. If prices kept up with inflation we might not have to deal with so much bullshit today. (Pretty big might tho desu)

$60 base game +
$40 season pass +
always online DRM for a single player game +
80 gigabyte download with 20 being uncompressed german language pack and another 20 being uncompressed french language pack +
$200 worth of nickle and dime microtransactions including a $10 cheat mode and a $10 blood and gore addon and various clothing DLC stolen directly from modders +
lootbox gambling system tied into the base game reward system +
preorder bonus +
mandatory 3rd party game launcher program the developer nigger-rigged together

Feels good to not be a buyfag.

Attached: 1551931312061.png (623x410, 658K)

it just has to be a massive title.

because i've found more games that i enjoyed that were around $20

also piracy is free

It's not unreasonable, if it's a game I have been waiting for, counting the days and hours until release.
Especially if it goes to a local non-chain brick-and-mortar store.
That only rarely happens, though, so I'll wait for the eventual sale.

I haven't legally bought a game since 2011

Game devs and publishers are subhuman, they don't deserve money.

New Wii and PS2 games were still $50.

Inflation adjustment is not a good reason for game prices as cost of producing hardware and software has gone down through scale of the market and technological advancements. Especially software when it comes to comparable products, along with increasingly lesser need for physical distribution.
Now I am not saying videogames is a given moneyprinter, but aping those reasons for price increase is just wrong.

Yeah, today a single person can create a game and distribute it for purchase pretty easily. That wasn't really possible 15+ years ago.

It'll depend on the hours, for me usually $1 per hour of enjoyable solid gameplay (not cutscenes) means a game was pretty worth it. If I pay $40 I expect 40 hours of fun gameplay, $60 for 60 hours etc. At least that's how I like to gauge it

Attached: 1434522187471.jpg (543x405, 141K)

If anything it's too cheap.

something that makes prices go up, not down

A friend also had this kind of thinking and it's pretty dumb
RPGs or games with repetitive gameplay will always have an advantage. Other genres are shorter but a fugton of fun. You should measure if a game is worth it by how good it was.

Once a game starts going over 10 hours it's usually padded with boring content. I'd rather have a shorter game that only has high quality content that I'll replay.

They sold super nintendo games for $80 back in the day. I'm surprised the base of games stagnated at $60 when developing modern games have increased in cost. DLC was a way to bring money back. Too bad devs found it easier to do gacha in their game. High money yield for low effort with gambling.

>developing modern games have increased in cost
Except there are a bunch of indie games with lower production costs that are better than expensive AAA games. They waste a lot of money on shit that doesn't actually make their games better. Also, they spend a lot on advertising, which shouldn't really be considered with actual game development costs.

>Singleplayer only Game 40ish $
>Multiplayer game 20ish $
>Combined 60ish $
>Add DLC to make more money off consumer
>Add Microtransactions for more money
>Add a random element to microtransactions so they are likely to spend even more money
Welp the 60$ isn't bad as long as both single player and multiplayer are good enough and the multiplayer lives long enough. It's the additions that make it somewhat unreasonable. Especially DLC which might as well be game content that wasn't added from the start, is far less when it comes to content but still costs about as much as half the game.

Attached: 1563778358892.png (1920x1882, 2.5M)

>Play game, 10 hours of fun
>Payed 40$ for it
>After the game is over have to replay the same stages over and over if you want more fun, when you could be experiencing something new.
Maybe that's okay for some, but unless the game is AMAZING, I'll probably never do this.

And if it were amazing it would have had more gametime to take advantage of it's amazing gameplay.

Attached: 1545379507179.jpg (1124x1080, 139K)

>DKC & DKC2 almost the same fucking price

>After the game is over have to replay the same stages over and over if you want more fun, when you could be experiencing something new.
Some games take replayability into account and give you a reason to replay it. Like DMC games, your first time on normal isn't going to be the same as playing it on DMD difficulty. Also, I'd still rather experience something great multiple times rather than something mediocre just because it's new.

>your first time on normal isn't going to be the same as playing it on DMD difficulty
Even so, DMD isn't for everyone and is more of a test of patience than actual fun. It honestly just felt like I was praying I would make it through each encounter in 1 and I was so tired of it that when I got to Sparda I spammed restorative items because I could not care about that auto-scrolling segment or dealing with all the fire. It's an alright challenge to overcome, but the nichest of the niche are the ones that are going to do stuff like those modes. Same deal with something like NG2, anyone who isn't a masochist is barely going to beat Normal let alone even attempt Master Ninja.

And that's fair enough, but few games can ever really make that list for me, one of them being F.E.A.R. because of the AI being so interesting to fight. Collectibles and achievements, are meh, difficulty levels are mostly redundant to me, It's the hardest mode or if that's locked the closest to it, I adapt or keep losing untill I figure it out,I don't put training wheels on. And once I finish the game, go through it without them. Especially when I have a backlog of games I could be experiencing once I'm done.

Attached: 1555655905796.png (623x306, 225K)

It's mostly meant for people who really like the game and still want a challenge, even for me it's still difficult at times and I've been regularly replaying it since it was released, but sometimes I like that. Even without that though, sometimes I like to just replay it on normal or hard and focus on using different weapons or abilities more. Other games will let you do different builds, or take different paths, etc. I just think if a game has no replayability that usually means it's shallow or has a lot of filler content.

One of my favorite games is Ziggurat, which uses randomization and procedural generation. I know a lot of people here don't like those things, but I think it was done well for that one. The game is short and can be beaten in less than an hour, but I've played it dozens of times because of all the different modes it offers and each time playing feeling different from the last because of all the randomization.

>Content taken out from base game to be sold as "DLC"
>has lootboxes and terrible cosmetic microtransactions that cost $5 or $10 each at least.
gee I wonder why

>Nintendo game
>Never ever
Splatoon2 for 60 bucks + 20 for octo expantion dlc

Weird, they've all been free for me for years.