Would you prefer to pay $150 for a AAA release, Yea Forums?

if the game was quality with shit ton of content I would pay 150 bucks without a question
but how many games that fit the above requirements are there? none

he says, as many publishers are fast moving towards cheap, pay-per-month subscription schemes because you never know how the market will respond to a new title.

DLC is what keeps the prices of games down. Lootboxes have nothing to do with it. More recently microtransactions also lend a hand.

Lootboxes only encourage more shit games with shit mechanics. They design the game around lootbox mechanics. The actual gameplay is implemented based on maximizing the magnetism of loot box purchases. The lootbox IS the game. Everything else is just decoration to draw you to it.

CEOs earn millions a year
They have money to spare

>L-loot boxes are the only thing keeping game prices low
>Big budget AAA games without loot boxes still exist
>Several AA games release at $40-50.
This idiot is literally just repeating EA propaganda.

>How do we make money back if we don't use loot boxes!?
>Maybe spend less on marketing.
>No!

Attached: 1463601881492.jpg (960x540, 39K)

>I'm just going to start pirating everything
>start pirating
sure sure retard

Yeah, just up your product's price by over 100% in a highly competitive market already competing against FREE products. What could possibly go wrong? This "GAMES WILL GET EXPENSIVE" shit is a boogeyman to make you accept getting nickle and dimed. If publishers could get away with increasing the cost of their product that much, it would have happened a long time ago on top of lootboxes. A high barrier of entry would more than halve their consumer base. Why do retards think corporations are their friends? Corporations are never operating under what's sustainable or making slight profits. The goal of publicly traded corporations is pleasing the mouth breathing retards that invest in them which demand infinite growth. Video games are the most profitable entertainment industry at less than half the age of every other entertainment industry. Not even 10 years ago the medium was half the size. Corporations already make huge profits with nothing, but selling the base game at $60 to tens or hundreds of millions. Lootboxes aren't about "turning in a profit" lootboxes are just the only way possible to meet inverter demands of increasing profits year by year.

the real bad guy is capitalism

>marketing
this is absolutely not the fucking reason though, why the fuck would they spend money on marketing if it didn't directly result in an increase of revenue
they need to stop spending money on other garbage

Integrating online into a game means it suffers less from piracy.
It's simply insane to make a sp AAA game that can be pirated and will have meager margins at the best case scenario.

Completely ignores Splatoon which had no lootcrates. Unionists would only drive up the costs of western trash, games from Japan will continue costing much less, Nintendo will probably be the biggest pusher for sane game prices which is somewhat ironic. Games won't cost $60 forever, that's just the reality of inflation, I don't know what it's like where everyone else lives but the standard price for my country is around $100, with some games hitting $90, but Call of Duty and Bethesda games always cost $140, or almost $90 US.

You'd probably lose out on sales as well though, people don't seem to understand how significant advertising has been as a tool for third parties and their domination of Playstation and Xbox consoles, FFVII didn't sell as well as it did because of it's quality, it isn't even the best RPG of it's generation, not by a long shot, it had an enormous marketing budget, and was possibly the largest marketing budget at the time. Assassins Creed managed to become the sales juggernaut it was entirely off of it's marketing budget. you're sentiment is partially right though, companies should budget more conservatively instead of overspending on shit they don't need for the game.

Can't speak for everyone, but EA straight up spends 100 million+ On marketing. Might just be money laundering, though.

Attached: 1362836952254.jpg (400x620, 113K)

Twitter threads should be range banned

> Assassin’s Creed Odyssey releases in 2018 at 60 dollars
> Check the Xbox store the other day and a complete edition with all DLC is on sale for thirty dollars

The pure amount of games I’ve bagged in steam and Xbox sales alone is more than I could ever want to play.

The panic of these game price increases should just encourage everyone to revisit the backlog.

Anyone in this thread saying they would pay are just baiting shut the fuck up you retards

Do these people not realize games like Witcher 3 exist where they included a slip case, a map, an actual manual, and a huge fleshed out game all for a $60 price tag?

Rather than seeing the medium being taken over by predatory practices that actively hurt its integrity as both entertainment and art, yes, I'd prefer paying more.

Careful. /pol/ might call you a communist if you suggest something like that.

How do they explain all the Jap games that don't have lootboxes costing less than $150 then? Checkmate westacuck apologists.

Doesn’t matter how cheap the game is if it’s shit

So what? /pol/ would probably call me worse things than that if they knew my views.

If you can't make your game without it being affordable, then don't fucking make the game.

No, I'll just wait and buy it for less than $20 in a few months like always.

Devs can split their games in 2 or 3 parts like FFVIIR. I mean, I'm sure square isnt interested in dragging this remake for 4 or 5 episodes.

>WAAAAH I CAN'T MAKE 6 FIGURES MAKING A VIDEOGAME ANYMORE
Imagine if game companies had to actually make good games to stay afloat.

The free market has simultaneously kept the prices of games below inflation and has also driven the price of games down to fragments of its initial price mere months after release. Capitalism is the only vehicle that has allowed games to flourish as they are.

No I'd rather we go back to ps4 graphics with most of the game development put into stuff that isnt graphics.

lmao all the greedy developers are scared and are already paying people to shill the idea of "if loot boxes get banned then games will cost more!!".

weird, i dont remember games being any cheaper before loot boxes were a thing, or games becoming cheaper with loot boxes. seems to me AAA devs added loot boxes without ever passing any of the earnings onto costumers in the form of better products or cheaper prices.

>microtransactions are neccesary to keep the base price low
How fucking retarded do you have to be to believe such a stupid comment?

Even if prices did increase, lootboxes aren't going away.
They're here to stay now whether we like them or not.
If they didn't work, they wouldn't have infected so many games.

>Lootboxes are keeping the base cost of games relatively low
Games stopped being 60$ when DLC and addons became a thing. 60$ is simply the entry price into a game. Lootboxes increase that price nearly infinitely for people who are completionists.

I could easily see four being the length of the full game.

I want PS2 - Half Life 2 tier games, that's all

yeah bro, just gamble your entire product on word of mouth. its not like advertising is a multi billion dollar industry around the world for a reason.

>afraid of a post-lootbox world
but lootboxes have barely been around in their current form and gaming before it did well enough.

what percentage of that is marketing?

>EA straight up spends 100 million+ On marketing.

which is why there games continue to sell well despite being mediocre. normies buy the games they see on tv or on banner ads (because they dont know what an adblocker is), not the games that are actually good and get discussed on gaming forums.

i might pay what it's worth to me

Why aren't you already:

A) pirating every new game
B) sticking to better, older games

If the prices get too high without microtransactions we get a market crash, which is a good thing. This shit has been escalating for over a decade now, let it crash and burn. I'll happily work through my backlog while the industry unfucks itself and is purged of so many cancerous elements that have become standard.

>wow, cinema tickets are too cheap!!
>this single song is too cheap
>this book is too cheap
Why do game devs hate their playerbase while its the mosts bootlicking and cucked user base?

This also caused the death of multiple beloved game franchises that couldn’t match the unrealistic expectations in exponential sales increase required by public companies. It caused the rise of loot boxes and predatory DLC practices. It caused prioritizing of annual franchises while new IPs begin to meld into one type of game that is designed to keep people playing at all costs.

It’s bad dude

I won't even pay $60 for a video game to begin with, so sure - price it at $150.
If it has lootboxes though I won't play it even if it's free. Pick your poison.

So games are made to satisfy the gambling addict whales, because that's where the money is, at the expense of plebs who just buy the game. Why wouldn't you want to change that?

If publishers could get away with it they would already be selling games for that, lootboxes or not is irrelevant.

>/pol/ might
You mean trolls might?
Or are you seriously implying that those posts isn't just trolling?

Delete this you negationist piece of shit

Well, tuff luck. Better hope for the crash.
In current era of diversity hires, overpaid management and continuous spending schemes, there is no place for quality.
Not to mention devs being told to crunch while also knowing they are 100% kicked out after finishing the code, will not produce quality game mechanics.

You're right, under central planning those franchises would have flourished.
Or they never would have existed at all, especially the 3D accelerated video cards that run them.

I don't care what new games cost. I will simply keep not buying them until they fall below $20.

You are the percent of a percent that cares about those features. A good game is good regardless of gacha or gambling. No one will miss you if you KYS as well.

This is when you realize game prices have stagnated for 14 years and the higher digital sales (fewer used market sales lost and no physical costs) are not offsetting it enough.

>A good game is good regardless of gacha or gambling
Zoom zoooooom

did these people just not exist before 2015, of course you can have a game with no loot boxes that's reasonably priced

>This is when you realize game prices have stagnated for 14 years
Nice bullshit argument. New AAA releases used to cost 50 bucks

You can eat all the shit you want, but I choose not to endorse bad practices with MY money.

well, that's why I didn't update my PC neither brought a console after PS2 yet and buy older better games at 75% discount

I can count with one hand the games I want to play in this current gen so I stick to the cheap and good classics

Attached: 22-9-2019 16.9.0 2.jpg (397x316, 21K)

what was the pre loot box world like

diversity quotas = huge loss in productivity.
don't blame me games cost so much when it's your fault.

Most of those IPs were killed through incompetence of it's designers, many of which were original development staff. Yet again it's the only system that would have allowed video games to exist as they have.
It's not an inherently bad system, just one that's open to corruption, a trait that exists in all systems, but it's less severe than other systems. The real problem are the consumers who would always demand more, they always want the latest shiny thing and video games expanded at a rate too fast for it to be stable causing many companies to collapse internally through no fault of their own. It's a shame too technology didn't keep up with development. Technology which has decreased the development costs of video games, had a lot of this existed during the start of the 7th gen the survival rate of smaller A/AA developers would have been significantly higher. Things like Youtube and Social media have also helped lower the barrier to marketing for games and helping developers find an audience. Too late.

then explain a single game that doesn't have lootboxes you fucking shrimp brain

Reminds me of steam drones pre-refunds
>Refunds will mean the end of steam sales! I'm actually retarded enough to think they're done out of charity!

People don't understand economics.

>A good game is good regardless of gacha or gambling

Jesus Cristo, imagine being this doublenigger...

Attached: 23-6-2019 23.6.23 6.jpg (541x367, 34K)

The only outcome of his hypothetical situation is simply the well-deserved death of AAA games, or at least the shittier publishers.

You can respect the good aspects of a system and still acknowledge when it has mutated into something out of control and damaging. Regulation is necessary

This
>2008
>no judenboxes
>vidya used to cost 40-60$

>1980s
>$60
>1990s
>$60
>2000s
>$60
>2020s
>GUISE! WE NEED LOOTBOXES OR ELSE GAMES WILL BE MORE THAN $60 dollars!!!!

>What is E3
>What is Video Game Mags
>What are Betas
>What is grassroots marketing.

Why don't Twitch faggots disclose when they are being paid to promote a video game?
I remember everyone hyping and playing Apex Legends at launch (not targeting Apex specifically, just using it as an example) and at least from the streamers I watched no one said that they were being sponsored / paid by EA to play it.
EA later confirmed that they spent x many millions at launch to promote the game "including paying streamers to play".

In my opinion these people are in many cases sociopaths that have found an unorthodox way to make huge amounts of money, I believe their "opinions" are genuine but biased by the fact that they are being paid by companies.
They make sure to suck up and promote just enough to not lose the publisher's money but at the same time not alienate their viewers.

Ok but games now cost exactly the same as when they didn't have lootboxes

then bring back to me the physical all-in-one-box-game and manual again.

E3 is literally nothing BUT a concentrated shilling event.

>lootboxes are keeping the base cost of games relatively low
Or they're afraid that even a $10 price hike in an industry that has standardized the $60 price tag would have serious backlash.

I don't see how a market so saturated with games that you need to spend half the budget just advertising it could ever get away with a price increase

The worst part it is implies peolple would still be buying these things at enough of a volume. At least with lootbozes some people can just pay the entry fee while others can incrementally buy it.

I already live with aussie game prices and barely buy new AAA games. If them shits get twice as expensive, or even just get buped up a few dozen dollars, I dont think anyone on the continent could justify buying another AAA game.

Games are also increasingly being designed to be as unfun as possible unless you buy microtransactions, so what does that $60 base price really get you?

I'd rather see devs unemployed, they can just learn to code

>did these people just not exist before 2015

Obviously not. The video game industry has been able to function since the 80's on a single purchase model. And the same relative price point.

If it's too expensive to make AAA games and put a sane price tag on them now, then stop fucking making AAA games. If your games were actually fucking enjoyable to play, you wouldn't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a thousand coders, 3d modelers, animators, commercial spots, and a celebrity cast, just to get anyone to pay attention.

Loooooooooooool. Lootboxes keep the base cost of games relativly low.... Yeah... No.. Fuck that shit. That is pure bullshit. Lootboxes is how game devs gate content behind a paywall that you will be forced to shill money to unlock. When it used to be you playing the game and you unlock it. Not, pay us money, and maybe you get the item. Lootboxes should be illegal. Since it IS gambling. Even if its cosmetic items, its gambling. You dont have to be a genius to understand that its using.. well. children. To trick them into bying stuff. And fucking over their parents. Its literaly saying, Get them whille they are young. And its disgusting.

Exactly. The fact is simple: Companies spending upwards of millions upon millions of dollars on marketing is idiotic when there are a multitude of avenues that can be taken to lower, if not negate, the cost. E3 exists. Video game "journalists" exist. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and tons of other places exist. Further, video game pricing should be decreasing, due to products being shipped and sold buggy, unfinished, and generally worse off than their earlier counterparts.

Finally decent opinion on a subject

Speaking of steam, I can't stand people getting pissed at them being forced to add a second-hand market. If people can resell games for a portion of the cost back they'll be more adventurous with their purchases, and the stuff they get back - which is effectively a free discount of other games, will probably make people more likely to buy games. So the one sale that gets removed through the original owner being encouraged to buy other games.

Especially pisses me off because people seem all about protecting consumers and having games be owner by the consumer that buys it - except now that its impacting ol'precious steam.

tl:dr these people are walking, talking advertisements and you can't trust a thing they say since they don't seem to care disclosing it.

>lootboxes keeping prices down
We were paying the same price relatively for more content for years. This is just bullshit greed justification to convince normies and zoomers that games are supposed to have this cutdown model.

I already don't buy games that have this lootbox garbage in lmao.

>This also caused the death of multiple beloved game franchises that couldn’t match the unrealistic expectations in exponential sales increase required by public companies.
Then those franchises deserved to die. If they were so beloved they would have generated enough profit to continue to exist.

I'd rather not pay for a AAA release at all.
An oatmeal flavored gruel of streamlining catering to literally every person on the planet and "press F to awesome" gameplay.

Also it's been proven that games cost less to make than ever these days, with so many game sales being digital requiring them to produces and ship out less or none, and powerful existing game creation engines that takes out a staggering amount of work.

Lootboxes/DLC aren't there to "make up the cost", they're there to make even more profits on their projects which are already making more than in decades past.

If anything AAA game prices should be dropping heavily.

>people defending giant corporation that would sell your mother for organs if they were allowed to
You're being had, you stupid motherfuckers. AAA publishers could sell their games for $30 and still make a profit if the game was any decent. If they find a way to make more money they will, no matter the cost - the industry, the quality, the LAW can go fuck itself as long as they make a larger profit margin.

Stop making excuses for them.

Attached: 1314593981627.jpg (237x195, 6K)

I have a huge backlogged library of physical console games, steam games and ROMs. Bring on the crash, at least the industry might be interesting after it.

Attached: DOl9Q37X4AEOdbv.jpg (640x512, 53K)

Not when publisher massively overspends on the sequel expecting the audience to triple, and killing the franchise when it doesn't.

Actually most of PC games were 40-50 on release.
Until Activision rised it to 60 with CoD:MW2, and others followed overnight.

>What is Video Game Mags
you tell me?

most games aren't even worth the 60 dollars they put on themselves, people already pay over 150$ most of the time for the full game thanks to DLC. and when it comes to marketing its not enough to have commercials everywhere, they have to buyout damn near everyone to shill shovelware.

Attached: catscream3.jpg (790x767, 157K)

Maybe instead of price gouging the consumer post purchase with DLC, micro transactions, and gambling for pixels, they could stop spending 50 million dollars every fucking title.

I used to buy some games when they were relatively close to their base price years ago but nowadays I don't even bother because they come out a year or two later with everything included. What's the point of paying more to get an inferior product ?
The only recent game I made an exception for was Kingdom Cum and even then I regretted it because of the Royal Edition which includes everything.

The more they try penny pinching the less I'm inclined to actually pay for the games.

there is LITERALLY nothing wrong with loot boxes that award only cosmetics

Why bother with a franchise with no potential for growth and continuous exploitation?

there is literally everything wrong with content that is not obtainable ONLY through gameplay

Year after year game industry keeps growing.
Year after year wages as % of GDP get smaller.
But you totally have to pay us more, you worthless consumer cattle!

why

"IT'S JUST COSMETIC!"

Attached: file.png (672x372, 194K)

How fucking retarded do you have to be to think this?

i don't like playing them for free

I haven't bought a single AAA game this year, and only plan on buying a couple come christmas season releases because I enjoy playing them with my dad - on no world would I buy a $150 USD game, for the price of those two games I could have bought a decent laptop for work. On no planet are two games worth that much.

>Oh no muh billion dollar companies would literally starve on the street without lootboxes
The billionaires don't do this just because it's the only way to make a profit because game development costs have skyrocketed (a completely fabricated lie), they do it because it's the best and fastest and easiest way to make a profit. When you could make a million dollars making a good game or a billion dollars making gacha lootbox Skinner box simulator the choice for any company that doesn't have a soul (all of them) is obvious.

This but only if you can't buy them with real money
Cosmetic lootboxes obtained solely by gameplay are fine
Gameplay altering things should never be in lootboxes because progression should not be a matter of random chance

It makes companies and devs more lazy. They don't need to make a good game anymore to make profit if they can just add a few shiny skins in a game to catter for some audience

its a good things the overwhelming majority of loot box systems allow you to acquire them through just playing the game
because they dont affect gameplay. at absolute most you can argue that you just want your cosmetics sooner, however you cant argue anything even close to "REEE THESE ARE RUINING VIDEO GAMES" when they are purely cosmetic

I wonder how many Chrono Trigger would cost in today's market.

>base game can do basic story $60
>Magus DLC, $10
>Masamune quest , $5
>GeoDome, competion of Robo's quest line, $15
>Future racing side game DLC, $5
>Founders Edition $90

>Cosmetic lootboxes obtained solely by gameplay are fine
Remove the word "lootboxes" from this sentence.

I would prefer not to buy AAA games at all.

Cosmetics are still content.

I'll keep paying 0, thanks.

this but unironically
thats fucking retarded, the game itself has to be enjoyable on some level for people to buy it. as much as im sure you hate fortnite you have to admit people find the game fun.

I already wait a year to play any new AAA so it's on sale
I'll just wait longer for my $5 deal

Are you retarded or you're blind? Do you see the word "ONLY" in my post? Do you need me to point a giant arrow to it?

Attached: redditors.jpg (3276x3493, 1.29M)

>2025
>developers are charging $120 for game
>hype game at events, gameplay, tech demo,
>game release
>you just press start button and the credit roll
>journalist everywhere give a 9/10
>more developers follow, game are now press one buttons and watch
>still $120, $200 for 5 sec scene dlc
>people eat it up
>Yea Forums still bitch and moan how they got away with it
>everyone just get on the floor and do the dinosaur

>Would you prefer to pay $150 for a AAA release, Yea Forums?
I don't even pay $1 for AAA games.

Attached: 1557399776490.png (976x658, 283K)

so? you can unlock said content by playing the game

You don't need to be running non-stop commercials on major cable channels or plastering your shit on every gaming and streamer website along with youtube and facebook and twitter for months leading up to release. All these retarded AAA publishers look at their sales numbers to justify dumping most of their budget into advertisement when they'd probably make a better profit off of less sales just by virtue of saving money on advertisement.

The industry is ruined by whales. Just because some people have more money than brain and they don't give a flying fuck about being reasonable with their purchases we're being fucked in the ass by publishers.

no it's not lmao

because you can unlock these through gameplay i assume the only fit you're having it about people who can pay for cosmetics and effectively getting them faster than you, in which case the absolute most you have to stand on is "ree i want my guy to look a certain way faster". Hardly ruining video games

with insane grind sure.

you have to be a complete brainlet to buy something because of ad exposure without researching the product yourself in anyway before dropping money. I refuse or at least don't want to believe the vast majority of people are this dumb.

then once more, the biggest complaint you have here is a very specific "i cant make my guy the way I want him to look soon enough" which is a far cry away from ruining video games.

I like to play my games naked.

keep seething poorfag, meanwhile I'll enjoy my cosmetics

Attached: 1562419481061.png (723x666, 163K)

user, you don't become a successful company by being stupid. Sad truth is that advertising works. GTAV is the most successful $60 game in a decade not because it's better than everything else, but because it had the largest marketing budget.

The possibility of a game failing shouldn't be a reason to stoop so low as to resort to the lowest tactics to earn money, manipulating people with gambling. The possibility of a game failing should push developers and producers to strive towards making the best game they possibly can. A game made with nothing but revenue in mind is hollow and empty. A game made with the mindset of overcoming the odds, and proving your worth to the world? One that you put all of your heart and passion into? That's a game.

The game industry is currently only a hollow shell of what it used to be. What used to be about bringing smiles to the children of the world, and filling people with awe and amazement, is now just about profit. I understand that profit is needed to survive in the industry, but if you truly work to create something amazing, then profit will come to you. There is no need to go searching for it.

Attached: 1561952210418.jpg (371x353, 13K)

>filename is redditor
>text is written the same way your average wojak poster writes
really makes me think

1. Nobody is trying to ban MTX entirely, just lootboxes
2. If games were $150, they'd still be competing against $10 indie games and $0 phone games

It's 2. that keeps the price down, not lootboxes

we had all the cosmetics inside the DVD with the price of the game years ago, no one likes cut content except you

making video games tedious and dull is about the closest thing to ruining video games as you can get

>literally who on Twitter
Kill yourself.

But all the games with lootboxes have 200$ special editions

The newest Jewish trick is to lock especially desirable cosmetics behind timed events like battlepasses that you would have to play for 12 hours a day to complete if you don't buy skips. You think this is reasonable?

I agree. But sadly ruining video games doesn't mean ruining your business.

This is some of the dumbest shit I've read, the industry has always been and will always be about making money. There's no other motivation behind it.

>Assassins Creed managed to become the sales juggernaut it was entirely off of it's marketing budget
What makes you think that? AC was fairly novel for its day and therefor made a big splash from the first game onwards, after 1 and 2 the games would've basically sold themselves. The climbing, parkour and historical settings all meant the press was going wild long before release. I'm not doubting the spent a lot on marketing and I'm not saying the games were so amazing when they had plenty of faults but they set themselves apart more than enough to not need astronomical marketing budgets. Who even spends 1 second on advertising when adblockers exist and have for a while.

I don't buy any game for $60 as it is, so no.

They make all of that money back, though, or else they wouldn't spend it. Most people who buy video games do not actually know about EA's reputation.

Respawn and EA are scum that like to prey on children with lootboxes and gambling.
They are called out every single time they pull greedy shit that is unacceptable (iron crown gambling event), they wait a week so they make money from the kids that are paying with their dad's credit card, they come out and semi-apologize (WE HEAR YOU CLEARLY BUT WE'LL DO IT AGAIN) and offer a way to purchase their cosmetics directly (for $18 each) so that these kids double dip, no word on refunds for the kiddies that bought the lootboxes via gambling because they were told this was the only way to get them.
Also the game was great at launch, now it's a bug fest.

>Dev tries to charge $150 for games to make up from "losses" from lootboxes
>it doesn't sell
>Cost of game lowers
けけけけけけけけ

Sure. They're cosmetics. They should be exclusive, or else they have no value.

t. zoomer

I forgot games were $150 in 2005 before lootboxes existed

If anything, AAA needs to die for a few years so new, creative vidya is put out there on the market without being stuffed down into the void of failure. I dream of times when video games are exciting and new, and devs aren't scared to try crazy new things because of MUH OLD MEN INVESTORS IN SUITS. I hope most of Yea Forums realizes that if vidya has been feeling shit lately, it's because of literal boomers being investors for these big game companies. Same with Japan. Nobody can escape these faceless old faggots in suits.

didn't Flash Sales go away entirely, though? Steam Sales are no longer as legendary but I'm sure that started prior.

the real problem is that it'll encourage subscription services.

Keep sucking that dick
Purchasing a game should give you an access to all of the content
If your game has mtx - instant pirate
if your game has day0/day1/.. DLC - instant pirate
Fuck your stupid ass revenue models, you spent a massive budget for your trash game, you cut it into pieces and start charging for those as well, but somehow this STILL isnt enough for you fucking jews

why is so blatantly pro courp, i don't think iv ever seen a more Pro courp group on the internet

Cosmetics used to come with the fucking game.

>Respawn and EA are scum that like to prey on children with lootboxes and gambling

playing victim is fun

Because marketing adds no value to a consumer and its dumb as fuck to have the consumer paying for the cost of marketing for you.

Attached: 57hzckrnk5h21.jpg (4032x3024, 1.66M)

Dishonest BS. Cosmetics were barely in any games before MTX came around. You were lucky if 1 in 20 games had any unlockable skins at all.

Anyone who thinks lootboxes are keeping prices low is an idiot, and should look into why videogame development costs are bloated as fuck

The subscription model isn't sustainable either, it literally ONLY works now because most of these companies have a huge backlog of shit to offer. Eventually they're going to run out and will have to develop again and won't actually get any benefit out of the not actually fraud this time subscription model.

Replying with one liners while ignoring the example given does not make you seem very clever.

Why are people such retards? EA admitted to their investors losing lootboxes in Star Wars Battlefront 2 isn't gonna dent the bottom line and they will make bank either way.

If they have the same shitty quality games as now
Fuck no

>Had literally 0! lootboxes few years ago
>Games were still better and had actual singleplayer and multiplayer parts

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Shit guys. Alternate colors of characters in smash melee retroactively don't exist because of a shitpost on Yea Forums

>Because marketing adds no value to a consumer
Completely wrong. To your average normie, belonging to communities and getting swept up in the hype matters more than the genre itself. Whatever experience they have with the game will be warped by this too.

are you too dumb to understand how price impacts demand and profits user?
AAA games are not going to cost any more than they do now.

One example counters literally nothing of what I said. Take any character from Smash and try counting how many of them had alternative costumes in their respective franchise.

As 'correct' as you may be that it is tedious and dull, it is still objectively the most owned and profitable game of the last generation. It is *still* currently the most profitable continuous live service game.

>live in a shithole
>Whenever a triple A release comes around it can range from 40 dollars to al the way through 120 dollars
>That is already with lootbox bullshit

I'll take my chances, thanks.

I didn't try to be clever faggot. Stop pretending that you're a victim. You're just a spoiled dude looking for something to be upset about like the rest of the western world.

Holy fuck this!! Were it not for EA lootboxes, how could nintendo keep their prices so low???? No wait

>Would you prefer to pay $150 for a AAA release, Yea Forums?
As I don't play "AAA Games" anymore. I don't give a fuck. I hope they cost upward to 500+ USD for all I care and go out of business.

>One example counters literally nothing of what I said

Attached: 1567952408980.png (782x758, 158K)

Baby got outplayed, baby post wojaks now.

>how could nintendo keep their prices so low?
Nintendo games are primitive, developed for underpowered systems and cost barely anything to make. They're $60 phone games. They also never drop in price.

That would actually be fantastic because it would bring re-popularize AA games. Most AAA games nowadays are soulless cash grabs that spend way too much money on having pretty graphics.

No one supports Micro-transaction and I hope people who do get fucked over for it.

Kill all whales.

imagine paying 60 dolarios for propaganda and shitty gameplay only because it have a beautiful looking makeup (except for female characters)

Attached: 8-6-2019 21.6.48 2.jpg (352x400, 20K)

t. poorfag

AAAAAAAA I really want dragons dogma 2

You don't seem very clever, don't worry.
>post premade wojaks since can't form an argument
>can't support own opinion
>defends multi-billion dollar company's scummy practices
>muh west is fucked

You're a caricature, boy.

Game devs have gotten it into their heads that there's no point producing smaller, lower-budget games for a niche audience and are instead always chasing the latest trends. Because of that, they're always in direct competition with each other, and have to constantly up production values to beat out everyone else. On top of that, they're chasing profits for shareholders. So all games end up the same or similar, and have stupid amounts of monetization to compensate for ludicrous budgets.

If devs would just diversify their output in terms of genres they could make smaller, chepaer games that are still competitive in their particular niche without aggressive monetization. I'll quite happily watch them all drown in their own shit as lawmakers finally cotton on to how cancerous they are, because none of these publishers add anything of worth whatsoever to the world.

>make a skin in 2 hours
>make thousands with it
Sure greed isn't the problem here. If they actually would need the money instead of greedy money grabbing they would price their skins differently. Like a few cents instead of 10 euros or more for 2 hours of time for a bored designer.

GTAV didn't even need marketing, those games sold by themselves, retard

I can't remember the last time I actually went out and bought a AAA game.

Considering most AAA games don't even look fun these days, that's gonna be a hard "no" from me.

Stop hiring movies actors
Stop hiring the same 5 voice actors
Stop doing face/motion capture when unneeded
AAA games now cost 30% less

The power of suggestion is a frighteningly powerful thing when you're not aware of its pull.

You are absolutely fucking clueless, my man. A solid 90% of customer base for things like GTA are not people who follow gaming news on their own.

based retard

I don't buy many games, I put many hours in the ones I do.

So, if the game is actually finished and tested at that price, sure.

If you can’t fit the budget into a reasonable price, reduce the budget. It’s really not that hard.

I don't need an argument here, you're just whining about meaningless shit like the rest of the internet.

That's absolutely retarded though. Lootboxes are extra money large corporations discovered they could unethically obtain on top of the base $60, not something they absolutely need just to stay in business.
If you, as a large corporation, consider yourself entitled to that extra revenue from lootboxes, then that logic might hold water, but only from the greedy corporation's perspective. Objectively though, they are not entitled to the extra unethical lootbox money.

Attached: 1557257524721.jpg (757x1024, 78K)

When you realize that loot boxes are only there so that these fuckers can live in expensive ass california homes where they get buttfucked by california tax laws so they just pass the buck onto the consumers suddenly you get alot less understanding about the price of games.

So stop buying them, problem solved.

Me neither, I just buy them digitally so I never have to specifically go out and buy them.

Games should cost around $200, excluding the DLC that should cost an additional $100-300. Stop being poor.

This. Fuck the poor.

ITT: Bottom of the system retards thinking they're the 1%.

Well first adjust for inflation $59.99 -> $100~$115.
Your DLC-partitioned version is still cheaper.
Whereas games cost many times over more to make today than they used to.

If a crash were to happen, a result afterwards would be an inflation adjusted price correction.

Attached: 1556320227591.png (540x543, 266K)

More like idiots pretending they don't have free will and have to buy this shit.

I stopped long ago, but the problem doesn't seem to be going away...any idea why that is?

Nothing major is gonna happen.
>try to increase the price
>people riot and you have to revert it
>try and cut content and sell it later
>sale go down like what happened last gen
>make smaller games
>people abuse refund systems to beat it in 3 hours and refund
>all options also have mainstream piracy as an option too
Every company will do what Capcom did and like Capcom every company will fail in the end

You keep paying attention to things that don't concern you, thus creating fictional problems for yourself.
Let the industry be, do you really care? Are you really running out of things to play?

You don't have an argument.

>Whereas games cost many times over more to make today than they used to.
It's always this same bullshit argument. Yes, but the the customer base also exponentially grew as a result of games production values increasing, meaning a shitton more people are buying games now, so it's offset by this fact more than enough.
But somehow people always forget about this fact when thy try to play this card.

No argument is needed. Outrage culture won't get you anywhere.

How does not getting any good new games not concern me?
I'm not magically going to want to play old games I had no interest in before just because new games are all trash.

What? Of course I care, how does it not concern me? I love video games. I just don't buy them, I pirate them instead precisely because I don't support the business model.

>I don't buy product
>wow why do I not get product tailored to me???
All of you are an irrelevant vocal minority publishers will be happy to ignore as they continue to swim in mountains of cash. You are not the target audience anymore. You no longer matter.
Video games are no longer for you.

Attached: fag.jpg (3276x4393, 2.4M)

>stop buying shit
>I don't...
>See? You don't buy shit, THAT's the problem!
Which is it, faggot?

>Yea Forums so contrarian they're now 'lootboxes gud'

his next line is >I'm not the same user

I'll just wait for a game to be like 20 dollars again, or pirate if they go too high.

Video games aren't going to change to suit your whims. Find a different hobby.

Based.

What is this called? Backpedalling? Moving the goalpost? Being retarded?

Either publishing houses with unrealistic expectations killed them or devs squandered an IP, successes move product, despite your argument

>he thinks devs are going to put in extra work because their games got more expensive

These platitude fucks don't understand that people do actually have patience. And because every year more games get added to the catalogue of games that EXIST in general, a perpetual backlog forever, I can always find something new.

Maybe stop spending obscene amounts of money on game development if that creates a strong possibility where it won't be profitable, while still not creating a fully functioning product. Maybe then, you can make a big profit while not asking a retarded price.

Tl;dr make your game good, and I would be willing to pay more. Actually ima pirate all your stuff lmao

Regional pricing.

>sales and price decreases over time don't exist in other countries

interesting

What with all the recent headlines implying shit like this?

Attached: adfdsfasdf.jpg (846x597, 40K)

to and all other people citing the 80's, 90's and so on, inflation is a thing and 60 usd in the 90's would be about 115 usd today

How is he so retarded. The amount of games that don't have lootboxes far outway the lootbox cancer. How is this imbecil think that works. Do lootbox oriented cancer companies distribute their wealth to global developers?

Attached: 1379061312585.jpg (739x482, 61K)

If you haven't realized yet, all of mainstream journalism is an organized propaganda center. And this is the newest agenda.

Wasn't 60$ for consoles? I remember pc games used to be around 30$ back in the day.

But PC and console games became the same games in the '00s, so the prices matched since then.

Isn't that just Americans and shitty indy devs? I use only steam and I loved the fact that they implemented refunding

Vidya industry is already more profitable than movie and music industries, fuck off jew.

It will only work if steam takes a minority cut from the second hand sale and gives the majority cut to the dev as well as people not being fucking Jews and trying to game the system

Revolution when

Why should a dev earn anything at all from second hand transactions?

This idiot doesn't understand how economics work. Prices aren't set in stone. If game prices start existing at 100+ per game. That means overall less sales. Which means overall less money. This fuckhead is retarded if he thinks that lootboxes were "keeping game prices low"

>Pay some streamers to play the game
HOLY FUCK HOW DID APEX BECOME A TOP 3 MOST POPULAR GAME THIS YEAR??

I'm pretty sure it's just Americans. Those guys absolutely loath everything that is pro-consumer as far as I can see. I don't understand how they can live their lives that brainfucked.