Alright, I’ll pay up to $50 for a DLC pack that includes a new continent, at least as much story and content as the current game, at least 2-4 new character classes, and several new game play concepts. If you want me to pay the price for a new game, I need the equivalent of a new game out of it. As for $100, no. Ain’t happening.
What is it is 1/3 of a continent, 20% more characters, and 5x more buggy, but… they add more microtransactions to the game so you could give them even more money.
I’ve always been of the “vote with your dollar” or “If you don’t like it, don’t buy it” mentality until recently. Now it seems like the heavy concentration of market power into a few companies is spurring on the continued development of “pricing innovations”.
Remember when they said digital distribution would make the games cheaper and they would pass the savings down to us? (surprise that was a lie). That’s just the cost of innovation.
Diablo 4 isn’t a “bad game” but for games as a service that contains microtransactions, it certainly isn’t a game worth a $100 expansion pack. They didn’t even include the game with the collectors edition. Sell the collectibles without the game for a premium! Get paid twice! Innovation!
As more and more disappointments land face first on the concrete floor of the empty swimming pool surrounded by apathetic"entitled " gamers they still will not learn from their mistakes because the money says otherwise. They would rather go out of business then sell you a product you actually want to buy. That’s the cost of innovation.
I don’t know if this is the right place to say this. I urge everyone to collect physical copies of games, back them up, share them and archive them. We’re never getting back what we’ve lost no matter how much we’re willing to pay for it.
Relative to the cost of everything else / inflation, games actually were pretty cheap. They had been $50/60 for nearly 30 years. Now we’re in the shitty time where it’s $70 for the base game, $30 for day 1 dlc, battlepasses, micro (really macro) transactions, etc.
Games were cheap for a long time. It was a competitive market. When the N64 came out, game cartridges were 80$ in the US (depending on the title). Neo Geo games were $200 a cartridge new before that. The prices resembled a (arguably) higher quality item.
The Sony PlayStation had games typically around the $30 to $40 dollar price point and that enabled Sony to sell endless copies of Blasto and other (arguably shovelware) games at the time. This loss leader strategy Sony had destabilized a lot of the market. Systems makers had to lower the price of games to increase the install base and they constantly lost money (sega Saturn games used to sell as low as 10$ new in 1997).
$70, $80, even $120 Dollars for a triple A title like Elden Ring or Super Mario Galaxy wouldn’t be that crazy to me depending on the state of that market. Some people are buying OG PlayStation games like MegaMan Legends in excess of $200. In the end though, you have the game. It is your copy.
The wake up call for me was when Microsoft has to be shamed into walking back their weird anti consumer Xbox game cd key sharing policy because Sony made this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA
I’m not going to buy it, because I don’t like the series or genre. Feels really shallow and repetitive to me.
But in general – say, assuming some hypothetical developer of a game that I like, sure. I’d buy a $100 DLC. Hell, lots of games have more than $100 DLC (though it’s commonly broken up into smaller chunks).
But that sword cuts two ways. The DLC that the hypothetical developer is making has to actually be worth $100 to me. And I can get a lot of really good games for considerably less than $100. Which means that whatever they’re coming out with would need to provide a great deal of really good gameplay to be competitive.
If bg3 came out with a dlc that added more playable classes, playable races (kobolds), more story content with raised level cap, etc they could have my $100. But they won’t do that, all their new content patches are free.
But those types of games tend to be manipulative and giant wastes of time. I pretty much just avoid F2P games as a general rule, because if they don’t think their game is worth charging money for, neither do I. The likelihood that a F2P game is worth my time is very low, so I don’t bother playing them.
I swear they’re spiking the water with acid down in silicon valley, how can so many companies be making so many dumbass decisions all at the same time?
They’ve got a location in Southern California – not Northern California, where Silicon Valley is – and another in Boston, Massachusetts, and something in Austin, Texas.
Diablo 4 isn’t that good of a game and not even close to the best arpg. I admittedly got hosed on buying it at launch and am not giving them more money. Why would I spend over 150$ total to get the equivalent of 1 mediocre game assuming they fix all the bs. Definitely regret the purchase at this point, and if a fixed version is going to be locked behind absurdly priced dlc in the future I feel like I got scammed twice.
First of all, after the shitshow that was the launch of D4, that’s just hilarious. S2 is certainly better than the start, but it is no holy grail that magically fixed everything.
Secondly, you’re dreaming if you think a DLC is worth more than the base game.
And finally, I like how they’re “asking” players if they’d “be okay” with it. Are you telling me that if the majority of the player base said “NO!” they’d actually listen? If there is anyone who believes that, well I’ve got a bridge in Sanctuary to sell you.
Depending on how extreme the NO! answers are, they may delay it or split the 100$ DLC in 2 50$ DLC, which you both have to get to actually play the game.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
I think the craziest thing is, that the survey starts at 50$. They just assume that must be the minimum prize everyone is ok with.
Lunatics…
$50 is, like, a week of median per-capita household income.
Man, things are a LOT worse in the US than the media makes you believe if the median income is $2600 a year.
Found the American. Your US is a rich small country by population, so US income sizes have virtually zero impact on the world-wide median.
I’m Swedish… A rich small country.
I didn’t realize you were talking global median income, since it was not defined.
I don’t know how great of a barometer for economics a luxury goods/service like a AAA video game is, though.
Neat trick, isn’t it ?
Seems like they’ve got experience…
What…? That’s 20$ short of the whole game…
Alright, I’ll pay up to $50 for a DLC pack that includes a new continent, at least as much story and content as the current game, at least 2-4 new character classes, and several new game play concepts. If you want me to pay the price for a new game, I need the equivalent of a new game out of it. As for $100, no. Ain’t happening.
What is it is 1/3 of a continent, 20% more characters, and 5x more buggy, but… they add more microtransactions to the game so you could give them even more money.
Rant
I’ve always been of the “vote with your dollar” or “If you don’t like it, don’t buy it” mentality until recently. Now it seems like the heavy concentration of market power into a few companies is spurring on the continued development of “pricing innovations”.
Remember when they said digital distribution would make the games cheaper and they would pass the savings down to us? (surprise that was a lie). That’s just the cost of innovation.
Diablo 4 isn’t a “bad game” but for games as a service that contains microtransactions, it certainly isn’t a game worth a $100 expansion pack. They didn’t even include the game with the collectors edition. Sell the collectibles without the game for a premium! Get paid twice! Innovation!
As more and more disappointments land face first on the concrete floor of the empty swimming pool surrounded by apathetic"entitled " gamers they still will not learn from their mistakes because the money says otherwise. They would rather go out of business then sell you a product you actually want to buy. That’s the cost of innovation.
I don’t know if this is the right place to say this. I urge everyone to collect physical copies of games, back them up, share them and archive them. We’re never getting back what we’ve lost no matter how much we’re willing to pay for it.
Relative to the cost of everything else / inflation, games actually were pretty cheap. They had been $50/60 for nearly 30 years. Now we’re in the shitty time where it’s $70 for the base game, $30 for day 1 dlc, battlepasses, micro (really macro) transactions, etc.
Yes that is true.
Games were cheap for a long time. It was a competitive market. When the N64 came out, game cartridges were 80$ in the US (depending on the title). Neo Geo games were $200 a cartridge new before that. The prices resembled a (arguably) higher quality item.
The Sony PlayStation had games typically around the $30 to $40 dollar price point and that enabled Sony to sell endless copies of Blasto and other (arguably shovelware) games at the time. This loss leader strategy Sony had destabilized a lot of the market. Systems makers had to lower the price of games to increase the install base and they constantly lost money (sega Saturn games used to sell as low as 10$ new in 1997).
$70, $80, even $120 Dollars for a triple A title like Elden Ring or Super Mario Galaxy wouldn’t be that crazy to me depending on the state of that market. Some people are buying OG PlayStation games like MegaMan Legends in excess of $200. In the end though, you have the game. It is your copy.
The wake up call for me was when Microsoft has to be shamed into walking back their weird anti consumer Xbox game cd key sharing policy because Sony made this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I’m not going to buy it, because I don’t like the series or genre. Feels really shallow and repetitive to me.
But in general – say, assuming some hypothetical developer of a game that I like, sure. I’d buy a $100 DLC. Hell, lots of games have more than $100 DLC (though it’s commonly broken up into smaller chunks).
But that sword cuts two ways. The DLC that the hypothetical developer is making has to actually be worth $100 to me. And I can get a lot of really good games for considerably less than $100. Which means that whatever they’re coming out with would need to provide a great deal of really good gameplay to be competitive.
If bg3 came out with a dlc that added more playable classes, playable races (kobolds), more story content with raised level cap, etc they could have my $100. But they won’t do that, all their new content patches are free.
$120 is my yearly budget for games.
deleted by creator
So you would pay 120 for dlc every year…
Blizzard is an out-of-season April fools joke.
Vomit. Blizzard gets worse and worse. Good ole capitalism.
It encourages innovation
Blizzard hasn’t done shit for innovation for a very long time
I’ll play D4 if and when it’s free. Otherwise I’m not interested.
That would probably make me less likely to play it, because then there’d be even more MTX crap. I’m just not interested at any price.
Sure, but it won’t cost me anything to try at that point, and if it sucks, so be it.
I guess.
But those types of games tend to be manipulative and giant wastes of time. I pretty much just avoid F2P games as a general rule, because if they don’t think their game is worth charging money for, neither do I. The likelihood that a F2P game is worth my time is very low, so I don’t bother playing them.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha… Fuckin idiots.
I swear they’re spiking the water with acid down in silicon valley, how can so many companies be making so many dumbass decisions all at the same time?
I don’t think that Blizzard is in Silicon Valley.
googles
Yeah.
They’ve got a location in Southern California – not Northern California, where Silicon Valley is – and another in Boston, Massachusetts, and something in Austin, Texas.
People keep purchasing the product. Diablo Immortal told us what Diablo 4 would be, they still had significant launch day sales.
… which will be stuffed with real-money charges anyway, because oink oink.
Diablo 4 isn’t that good of a game and not even close to the best arpg. I admittedly got hosed on buying it at launch and am not giving them more money. Why would I spend over 150$ total to get the equivalent of 1 mediocre game assuming they fix all the bs. Definitely regret the purchase at this point, and if a fixed version is going to be locked behind absurdly priced dlc in the future I feel like I got scammed twice.
I am okay with $5000 DLC because i don’t play this bitch-ass game.
What?
First of all, after the shitshow that was the launch of D4, that’s just hilarious. S2 is certainly better than the start, but it is no holy grail that magically fixed everything.
Secondly, you’re dreaming if you think a DLC is worth more than the base game.
And finally, I like how they’re “asking” players if they’d “be okay” with it. Are you telling me that if the majority of the player base said “NO!” they’d actually listen? If there is anyone who believes that, well I’ve got a bridge in Sanctuary to sell you.
Depending on how extreme the NO! answers are, they may delay it or split the 100$ DLC in 2 50$ DLC, which you both have to get to actually play the game.
I think you mean 2 $70 DLCs because “the $100 was a discounted bundle” now available for $120.
I’m hoping the collective answer is: “stop smoking crack”.
Who wants to pay $100 to run into a thousand cellars?
phew they Didn’t do the forbidden paradox