• 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.

#51 Posted by lettuceman44 (109 posts) -

Yea, definently would NEVER buy a game for $70.

I already don't buy games for $60, so it is no big deal. Just wait for that price drop or sale before snagging a game I want.

#52 Posted by SpudBug (633 posts) -

@oldguy: aside from not understanding why you're defending the companies, people don't give a shit about inflation. Movies cost more to make, but a DVD doesn't cost more this year than it did 10 years ago.

#53 Posted by Andorski (5268 posts) -

Was Diablo 3 released at $60? If not, then I cannot remember the last game I bought at the full $60 price tag.

In the short run, it probably makes the most sense for EA to go to the $70 price tier. They are such a hated company that even if they dropped their game prices to $40 the their sales figures wouldn't increase. Those who hate EA would still refuse to buy their games. Most people who like EA's games would swallow the price increase. The money lost bu the few who drop out of buying their games at full price would probably be made up for by the price increase.

I say EA should definitely try it out. If the market can't take it, then the market will sort it out.

#54 Posted by hawkinson76 (359 posts) -

I don't think I've ever spend $60 on a game. I've been a steady consumer of video games since middle school (Simon's Quest Bitches!), but I can't budget more than 10 dollars a month on personal entertainment. At least half of that is spent on steam sales, leaving room for only a couple of $25-$30 console games.

I bought the Xbox 360 holiday 2007, plenty of price drops by then. I may have paid full price for Batman in early 2009, but that was with credit from trading all my first year purchases (except for the orange box).

So for me, the $60 price point has always been too much. Even though gaming is my primary form of entertainment (and Giant Bomb is the rest).

#55 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4716 posts) -

I don't think I've ever spend $60 on a game. I've been a steady consumer of video games since middle school (Simon's Quest Bitches!), but I can't budget more than 10 dollars a month on personal entertainment. At least half of that is spent on steam sales, leaving room for only a couple of $25-$30 console games.

I bought the Xbox 360 holiday 2007, plenty of price drops by then. I may have paid full price for Batman in early 2009, but that was with credit from trading all my first year purchases (except for the orange box).

So for me, the $60 price point has always been too much. Even though gaming is my primary form of entertainment (and Giant Bomb is the rest).

I think you meant $100.

#56 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3799 posts) -

I'd certainly become more patient and wait for price drops for all but my most anticipated games.

Already have been trending that way since I got rid of Gamefly.

#57 Posted by Dalai (7017 posts) -

It won't stop me from buying games I really want. I tend to buy only 3 or 4 full price games per year anyway.

Plus, shit costs money, especially at first. Wait for a price drop if you want to save. Simple as that.

#58 Edited by Hunter5024 (5614 posts) -

I would basically only buy games I knew were a sure thing. 10 dollars doesn't seem like that much more, but $60 is already pushing it. If anything games should be cheaper, because most games aren't worth what they cost at launch, and people just wait to buy them used, giving the developer no money.

#59 Posted by JasonR86 (9657 posts) -

I'd buy 1-3 of the games I really, really care about and know that I will like. But, on principle, I won't buy those games until they come down to $60 or less. This also probably won't happen.

#60 Posted by ShadowConqueror (3050 posts) -

I only buy a few games a year as it is, so higher prices would reduce my purchasing further.

#61 Edited by HerbieBug (4212 posts) -

I voted that it wouldn't affect my purchasing habits, but keep in mind I only purchase a few full retail boxed copy games a year. The majority of my game purchases are smaller developer/indie niche titles.

edit- I think it's great that digital distribution allows for smaller games to be released that would have never got a chance in previous generations. This plays nicely with my slowly changing taste in games, to where I do not care at all about production values so long as the game is fun for me to play. Hotline: Miami provided some of the most fun moments I have experienced in video games for years. It was made by one guy and a couple helpers. I think that's awesome. It makes me feel good about the direction at least one part of the games industry is currently heading.

#62 Posted by HairyMike87 (1016 posts) -

I have no problem with them wanting to sell those games at $70, but I probably won't be buying any games going forward at full price unless it's the 1-2 must have games of a year to me.

#63 Edited by TheUnsavedHero (1255 posts) -

I already only buy games that I really want new. I don't know about this new price hike.

#64 Posted by zoozilla (978 posts) -

I bought the Mass Effect 3 Collector's Edition for $80. Never again.

I will never pre-order a game ever again, nor buy a game at release for $60.

Online
#65 Edited by Druminator (1676 posts) -

Over the last year I've been buying games after they've been out a while. I realized it doesn't matter if you get games at launch. Don't get me wrong, there are some titles that I'll still want at launch but only for something epic like new GTA or Half Life, not for say a new Call of Duty or EA Sports game every year. I'm willing to pay $70 for a game I'm going to be playing for more than a year before on to the next one.

#66 Posted by Caustic_Fox (112 posts) -

I never buy games on launch. I usually wait a few months and pick it up online for cheap. So this won't affect me at all.

On a more unrelated note: Is EA DELIBERATELY trying to sabotage itself?! They can't be that stupid can th- ooh... It's EA. No surprises here.

#67 Posted by Morbid_Coffee (955 posts) -

It's EA, so when they say $70 they mean "buy the retail game for $60, and then a few months later the ending to the game as $10 DLC."

#68 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

If was a game like Skyrim or Fallout 3 I would easily pay $70, infact we are paying less for games than ever in terms of inflation and minimum wages.

#69 Posted by hawkinson76 (359 posts) -

@hawkinson76 said:

I don't think I've ever spend $60 on a game. I've been a steady consumer of video games since middle school (Simon's Quest Bitches!), but I can't budget more than 10 dollars a month on personal entertainment. At least half of that is spent on steam sales, leaving room for only a couple of $25-$30 console games.

I bought the Xbox 360 holiday 2007, plenty of price drops by then. I may have paid full price for Batman in early 2009, but that was with credit from trading all my first year purchases (except for the orange box).

So for me, the $60 price point has always been too much. Even though gaming is my primary form of entertainment (and Giant Bomb is the rest).

I think you meant $100.

What? I didn't mean $100 in any context. $10 a month = $120 a year, that is my limit for games in a year.

Although, I did spent $80 plus tax (like 8% at the time) for Final Fantasy 3 (6) when it was new. That was crazy.

#70 Posted by Nodima (1164 posts) -

Voted for 1-3, because NBA 2K will always be a guaranteed buy, but I honestly probably wouldn't buy anything else new unless PSN prices came down ala Steam next gen.

#71 Posted by TangoUp (307 posts) -

Waiting for GOTY editions is the way to go. It helps not having to deal with the 'Season Pass' nonsense.

Dear Gearbox, I loved Borderlands but I'm not buying Part 2 until you consolidate all that DLC with the game.

#72 Posted by wwfundertaker (1400 posts) -

Currently im buying 3 to 4 new games a month but if they do raise the price, ill probably need to think about what im buying. One thing for certain i will not buy an EA title on release, i disagree with their current strategy and ill vote with my money.

#73 Edited by Tajasaurus (843 posts) -

I'm Australian. I have no doubt I could be paying $120 for launch titles at certain retailers.

#74 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

I don't usually spend more than $40 on a new video game, so this probably wouldn't affect my purchasing behavior beyond decreasing my chances further of paying full price for a game. I mean, it's not necessarily unrealistic for publishers to want the price to go up as the cost of development on these new consoles is said to be more expensive. Then again, it's not like the industry has a lack of revenue in the first place..

#75 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

I'm Australian. I have no doubt I could be paying $120 for launch titles at certain retailers.

Why the hell are games so expensive there?

#76 Posted by BoFooQ (666 posts) -

I think there really needs to be more of a scale. I'm ok with spending 70 dollars for skyrim or GTA something large that I'll sink tons of hours into. At the same time a game like uncharted or call of duty (single player) with a story that is only 5 hours long should be in the 40-60 range. Before everyone bitches I only mean to include these games for their single player storyline as I couldn't come up with better example.

#77 Posted by Wraithtek (59 posts) -

I don't usually have a problem buying at $60 if I'm already sold on the game, or the mood strikes me.

I think it's too soon to go up to $70. It was only 2005 when we saw the start of $60 console releases. If EA starts doing this regularly, I'll just wait for the inevitable sale or price drop on games I'm interested in.

If that $70 included a DLC season pass, and I was potentially interested in the DLC, I'd have less of a problem with it.

#78 Edited by Ares42 (2622 posts) -

I have a hard time seeing how $70 would really expand their profits much. The only group of people I imagine having more money to spend on videogames than they're already doing are the people that buy like Madden and CoD every year and that's it. Other than that you have the people that buy more games but on a budget and lastly the devoted fans that are the people that would actually react to something like this. I dunno how it is in America but over here the retailers are already using pricing as their main weapon in fighting for customers, so hiking the prices up seems very counter-intuitive with what the market is saying.

#79 Edited by Hunkulese (2698 posts) -

I don't know why people get in such a huff over the prices of games going up. Games have cost $60 for ages and the cost to make them has gone up significantly. Maybe you haven't seen all the studios shutting down.

Price of games go up ... people bitch

Publishers try to offset the costs with DLC ... people bitch

Developers focus on sequels because if they try and create a new ip and fail they're done ... people bitch

The price of everything else goes up why shouldn't the price of games? If you want nice things you have to pay for them.

I guess it's one of the problems where the industry's main audience is teenagers.

#80 Edited by ajamafalous (11959 posts) -

I literally cannot remember the last game I payed more than $25 for.

Also, Sony already said that $60 was the ceiling, didn't they?

#81 Posted by Veektarius (4772 posts) -

It'd take some time to acclimate during which I would buy fewer games. Then it'd be the new normal, let's be honest. It used to be 50 and we were having the same discussion then.

#82 Posted by vonFlampanker (327 posts) -

Of course it'd be EA who wants $70 games. That translates to $100 games when you add in their insistence on every game being stuffed to the gills with in-game purchases and DLC. I'm not against change when it's beneficial for everyone but by making their products less valuable for the people who buy them, they're spearheading the ruination of the medium.

#83 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

I rarely buy full price games so it will not affect my purchasing behavior much at all.

#84 Posted by prontopup20 (30 posts) -

Very rarely do I buy games at launch anymore, Last one I did was Red Orchestra 2, and that was like 30 bucks and is really good.

#85 Edited by CallMeTetris (72 posts) -

I barely buy more than a couple games a year, and when I do I almost never pay more than 30 bucks, the only games I buy full price/day 1 nowadays are fighting games, so I can't honestly say it'll affect my purchasing at all. I still wouldn't be totally okay with it, though.

#86 Posted by MentalDisruption (1622 posts) -

It depends on how much money I have at the time of a games release. The actual price tag wouldn't change my purchasing decisions beyond more quickly draining the amount of money I have to spare on games in a given year. Games being $10 more would just result in me buying a few less games each year, and probably less pre-orders on games I'm not fully confident in as well.

#87 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4338 posts) -

Other than Halo 4 I haven't paid full price for a game in several months and I like it especially when I'm getting great discounts on games that haven't even released yet on a better platform.

#88 Edited by Jeust (10550 posts) -

I won't buy a next generation console, so it won't change my expected purchase habits.

Online
#89 Edited by Hunkulese (2698 posts) -

Cliff Bleszinski pretty much says everything I've said but unlike myself his opinion may carry some weight around here. Try and gain some perspective about the costs of the gaming industry and read his last blog post.

#90 Edited by casper_ (903 posts) -

EA is fucking up so hard in the pr department recently.

keep your evil ass plans to yourself until you spring them on us please.

#91 Edited by Robot_Sneakers (418 posts) -

I often no longer buy games at 60$ now and having only ever purchased 3 limited edition games at higher than 60, 70 would be too much for me. Its more likely that I'll just stop buying 60$ games as it is, and wait for sales or price drops.

#92 Edited by Aetheldod (3552 posts) -

Hell no ... lately Ive been putting off new releses due to money shortage and I rather wait for sales on steam now ... and the only game that EA has that I really care for would be Dragon Age 3 and now I will not support their DLC shennanigans and day one purchase