• 90 results
  • 1
  • 2
Edited 1 year, 6 months ago

Poll: The Official GiantBomb $70 next gen games poll (313 votes)

Doesn't affect my purchasing behavior. 16%
Will avoid some lesser known or lesser interested titles that I might have bought 17%
Will only buy 1-3 most highly anticipated games of that year at release 25%
Will stop buying any games at $70 on release. 43%

So EA seems to want $70 retail games next generation, going by their investor's call or whatever it was lately.

Instead of trying to predict the future, think about the games you bought in 2012, and if those being $70 would have changed your purchasing behavior.

I personally have been buying PC releases for the last half of the year and most of those are under $40 at release. The console exclusive games like Metal Gear Rising, I might have waited for a price drop, but I do think I would have bought at least Metal Gear Rising - probably not some other titles like Ni No Kuni or Forza Horizon, or even CodBlops 2.

#1 Edited by FluxWaveZ (19342 posts) -

I rarely buy games new nowadays and the games I do buy on day 1 are games I really want, so this would not affect me. Game prices lower so quickly nowadays too.

#2 Edited by Legend (2659 posts) -

I haven't bought a console game on release day for a long time now. I bought quite a few new PC games at around $30 each in the past few months thanks to great deals on PC games from various sites. I'd pay up to $45 for games I really really want. There is no way I'd pay $60 for a new game right now, nevermind $70.

#3 Posted by Demoskinos (14835 posts) -

Wouldn't stop me but then again I don't think this will happen.

#4 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

I very very rarely buy them at $60 these days. $70 is far more then I'd be willing to pay for a game.

#5 Edited by DigTheDoug (178 posts) -

I buy maybe one game a year on release day. I much prefer to wait for the price drop or steam sales and pick up most of my games at $5-$30. I will rarely pay more than $30 for a game. So personally it doesn't affect me too much.

Now adding microtransactions to full price games on the other hand, that does affect the game, so fuck that.

#7 Edited by Morningstar (2161 posts) -

I don't buy EA games at launch anyway, they don't get more than half price from me anymore.

#8 Edited by MikkaQ (10290 posts) -

EA can charge whatever they want for their games, because they don't hold any value. Almost all of them have been price dropped in a month or two.

#9 Edited by AiurFlux (902 posts) -

I won't buy any games from that shitty company for 60 dollars, much less 70. Why should I give them 70 dollars when they want to put on disc "DLC" in their titles, and the most recent bullshit about how they're putting micro-transactions into everything that they make now? Why? I work hard for my money, and even though I have a good job it doesn't mean that I should give my money to a company that treats it's entire legitimate user base as thieves and walking dollar signs. Having a disposable income doesn't mean that I just throw it at shit.

#10 Edited by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

EA is already charging 70 bucks for digital releases of PC games. I don't think they'll sway the other companies to bleed their customers like that.

Games are already over 100 USD here(Norway) anyway

#11 Posted by StarvingGamer (8245 posts) -

I never buy shooters day one, so the EA games I end up purchasing are typically larger experiences like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. If I'm willing to pay $60 for Rising and its ~6 hour campaign, I damn well better be willing to pay $70 for a 20+ hour RPG.

Good thing I won't have to.

#12 Posted by DG991 (1344 posts) -

The shadow effect looks so nice on the new website.

#13 Edited by Beforet (2922 posts) -

I rarely spend 60 bones on a game nowadays. Sure as hell wouldn't drop 70.

#14 Edited by djou (875 posts) -

I am by no means an EA defender but from looking at a summary of the investment call its unclear what exactly they mean by $70 per game. Does that include deluxe editions for instance the Simcity Deluxe edition? Or is this the new base price for all games?

I wouldn't mind if some games were $70 if (and this is a big if) there was price parity across their lineup. Not every game should release for the same price. I wish EA wouldn't cram in unneeded features/modes into a game to justify a $60 price. For instance, if a game like Spec Ops which consensus seems to have turned around on, would have release for $40 without a multiplayer mode and different marketing it would have done better. As they come more heavily reliant on Origin it would be nice if they diversified their pricing tiers.

edit: After posting this I saw this PC Gamer article about how all EA games will have microtransactions. That's a real cause for alarm. http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/27/ea-planning-microtransactions-for-all-of-our-games/

#15 Edited by Pr1mus (3911 posts) -

I rarely buy games at 60$ anymore and would stop entirely at 70$.

They can't justify it with the amount of DLC they release.

Anyway games drop in price so quickly now that doing this would only accentuate this trend by having fewer people buy at full price.

#16 Edited by mosespippy (4185 posts) -

I paid $70 for releases in the PS2 days when the exchange rate was bad here in Canada. I was in middle school then and have more money now so I can't say I won't pay $70. I probably wouldn't be buying a game a month like I was a few years ago.

#17 Edited by ArbitraryWater (11740 posts) -

I imagine my purchasing habits won't be especially impacted, considering that I rarely purchase games at full price anyways.

#18 Edited by OldGuy (1557 posts) -

I'll just drop this in here again: Games are cheaper than ever.

Inflation is a real thing even if you don't want to admit it. Oh, hey, look the Inflation Calculator says that what cost $60 on 2005 would cost you 69.77 as of last year. Hrm.

#19 Posted by mrfluke (5156 posts) -

it wont go up to 70 dollars, if they do that, then the middle tier level games will be destroyed i think. cause then thats where reviews are more all important, and people will avoid anything that doesnt get 4 stars and above

#20 Edited by LikeaSsur (1532 posts) -

$60 is already a lot. 3 games are $180, and that's before tax. If they went up, goodbye day 1 purchases.

#21 Edited by Barrock (3533 posts) -

Won't support it if it's EA only.

#22 Edited by TyCobb (1972 posts) -

Won't affect me. I have no problem spending more than $60 for any Elder Scrolls game. They usually give me more play time than any other game at that price (excluding MMOs). I normally don't buy games at release anyway. SimCity next week will be the first game I bought at release since Skyrim and Dark Souls.

#23 Posted by Chop (1997 posts) -

I haven't bought games new on release for a long time now. So yeah, this wouldn't change a damn thing for me.

#24 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Microtransactions and 70 dollar games. If EA does both of these they will doom them selves.

#25 Posted by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

Fine by me. $70 for 365 days of fun (or more)? How can you complain about that? That's just pennies a day.

#26 Posted by sarahsdad (1092 posts) -
#27 Edited by OfficeGamer (1087 posts) -

Anyone who voted the last option while they continued to buy games after the jump from 50$ to 60$ is lying to themselves. You'll keep buying them.

Personally I rarely spend 60 on a game and will not spend a single 70$ on one.

#28 Posted by YoungFrey (1321 posts) -

I don't buy $60 games at release, so $70 wouldn't affect anything. Well, it might mean I'd be waiting a little longer post release to pick them up.

#29 Posted by Jimbo (9813 posts) -

I'd be ok with a price rise if it meant an end to being nickel and dimed constantly (and to games being designed with that practice in mind). That won't happen obviously, I'm just sayin'.

I think there should be much greater variation in game pricing in general. A few games do deserve more than $60, but many would probably do a lot better if they launched at a more realistic price.

#30 Posted by Gamer_152 (14078 posts) -

With game prices the way they are right now there are still a lot of games I can't afford or have to get used, it would only get worse if they started putting up prices further. I also think making the standard RRP for video games even higher would only raise the already pretty high barrier for entry for a lot of video games.

Moderator
#31 Posted by FunkasaurasRex (847 posts) -

I very rarely by titles on release as is, so I don't see this having a particularly significant impact on my purchasing habits.

#32 Posted by SuliPatchouli (18 posts) -

When I can buy games for five bucks that last me longer and offer just as much enjoyment than most of the $60 games there's no way I'd be happy to spend an additional $10 just to play the latest "bleeding edge" game. I'm not content to keep throwing increasing amounts of money at the same experience with slightly shinier graphics over and over again. When games actually change and offer something new I might be willing to pay a premium price, but from what I saw of the PS4 announcement? No way.

#33 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

I wouldn't buy any EA game for $70, that's for sure.

#34 Edited by DrFlapjack (234 posts) -

@SpudBug "We’ve been contacted by EA Corporate Communications to clarify that Blake Jorgensen “misspoke” and that he actually intended to use example pricing tiers of $59 and $49 in this “hypothetical discussion about pricing patterns at the beginning of a hardware cycle.” Source

I rarely if ever buy games on release day so if games where $70 or higher on launch day, I would wait for a price drop.

#35 Edited by AndrewB (7617 posts) -

I'll continue to not buy games until they've dropped in price to what I can reasonably afford to pay for them.

The thing is, I play a lot of single player games and I jump around a lot, so I'm not buying one game and getting endless hours out of it like a multiplayer experience or an open-world game where I'm crazy enough to do every menial side task. I also don't often buy used unless it's one of those games no one likes to keep in stock otherwise. Basically, regardless of the cost involved in making them, I can't justify spending that much. I'd feel entirely irresponsible given the way I play games.

#36 Edited by Canteu (2821 posts) -

Buying new games is for people with too much money, and not enough hobbies.

#37 Edited by Count_Zero (301 posts) -

@canteu said:

Buying new games is for people with too much money, and not enough hobbies.

I wouldn't totally agree with that sentence, but I mostly agree. Anymore, if i want to get a game, I either have to pre-order the game well in advance and use the pre-order system like a semi-layaway (making payments on the game until its release, at which point I either just pick up the game or pay off what's left)*, or I wait until the price drops due to competition from used game sales. If the price doesn't drop, then I just get the game used.

*This method requires me to get the game from a brick & mortar, since you can't "pay-down" a pre-order through digital services like Amazon. Previously this has been Gamestop, but as over the past few years I've discovered a few local FLVGS** which I think I'll be giving my business to in the future.

**Friendly Local Video Game Stores, derived from Friendly Local Game Stores (or FLGS), a term used among players of tabletop role-playing games to describe their favorite store for getting those games.

#38 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2220 posts) -

Doesn't affect how I purchase my games since anything in my country that goes over $79 I buy off Ebay anyway.

#39 Posted by seamus85 (116 posts) -

no ill wait for the game to drop in price ....$40 for most games

#40 Posted by JJOR64 (18994 posts) -

Wont bother me really. Games aren't cheap the make.

#41 Posted by Ramone (2966 posts) -

Game prices are the worst, I can't wait until big publishers start being realistic and flexible with their pricing strategy instead of just slapping $60/£40 on everything.

#42 Posted by rentacop (107 posts) -

Most EA games aren't worth $40 let alone $70.

#43 Posted by ripelivejam (3970 posts) -

last game i bought at (almost) full price was diablo III so no, probably won't buy at $70.

#44 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4208 posts) -

I'm okay with it.

#45 Edited by iam3green (14390 posts) -

i don't know if i would buy a new game if they increase. i barely buy games as it is. i've just been trying to beat all of the games that i have. the last game was forza horizon and that game was a pretty big disappointment to me. the game wasn't that long compared to the other 3 games that i played of them.

#46 Posted by PenguinDust (12518 posts) -

I don't buy games at $60, you think I'll buy them at $70? Nothing is that important that I need to play it immediately. I look for deals, I wait for sales, I bide my time until the game is reasonably priced. And, I actually enjoy games more this way because I don't have $60 expectations. When games are below $40, I am more accepting of their flaws. When games are $30 and below, I am much more willing to experiment and take chances. A $70 game would have to come with a pair of tits and a cloth map before I even consider buying.

#47 Edited by WarlockEngineerMoreDakka (432 posts) -

I don't see this affecting me too much. Outside of holiday season, I generally buy cheaper stuff or take advantage of sales. ESPECIALLY since pretty much all of my out-of-holiday season purchases are digital.

So the only time I regularly/consistently buy games at full price- retail or otherwise- is during the holiday season. And I don't think this'll change that.

#48 Posted by Jams (2961 posts) -

@oldguy said:

I'll just drop this in here again: Games are cheaper than ever.

Inflation is a real thing even if you don't want to admit it. Oh, hey, look the Inflation Calculator says that what cost $60 on 2005 would cost you 69.77 as of last year. Hrm.

The problem there is wages haven't kept up with inflation.

Not only that; I don't think the perceived value of video games have increased either. If anything their value has dropped with all of the indie and mobile games. So the only thing you do when you raise the price of games, you push more and more people out of the hobby all together.

I've made it a statement to not buy games at $60 when they started coming out at that price. It was just too high a price to pay. Although I've faltered a couple of times (games I really wanted), I've stopped buying new releases all together thanks to Steam sales. Does that hurt AAA games? Yeah, but that's not my problem that they need 600 people to make 1 game. I don't care if 1 guy makes a game let alone 600. Even if we do lose a bit of graphic fidelity.

#49 Posted by BigBoss1911 (2463 posts) -

Because games are already $60, I buy a full price game maybe 3 or 4 times a year at most, but $70 is completely out of hand, fuck that.

#50 Posted by Subjugation (4720 posts) -

I don't even buy games at $60 now. I'll wait for a price drop or discount of some sort. Going beyond $60 is just dumb, because $60 is already dumb. Do they not understand that a large portion of their core market isn't flush with discretionary cash? A ton of the people buying games have really lackluster jobs.

I just don't understand. Do they do any market research?