Would you be okay with a 70 dollar single player games if it meant no more microtransactions and DLC?

Would you be okay with a 70 dollar single player games if it meant no more microtransactions and DLC?

Absolutely

better have a ton of content for it to be $70 in the first place

only if its actually worth paying 70$

ill have your wife tonight tony

No, because they'll eventually have microtransactions, DLC, and always online. What the fuck do you think this is, a magical world where if something happens it'll never happen again? fuck off shill

Yes. But raising the price wouldn't stop the DLC and microtransactions.

Nigger I would pay $100 if it meant the game was complete and the development team wasn’t rushed or restricted beyond reason.
Some of my favorite games from the last decade have been marred by scumbag and/or stupid publishers and the unfortunate circumstances the otherwise talented developers forced to play along.

Of course not, you greedy bastard.

No because developers wouldn't have put anymore effort into making more content for the game than they already do

with microtransactions you at least get the game cheap and have the options to pay more if you actually care enough

It's a hypothetical.

So is you ever getting any normal female contact besides your mother

Fucking up Hazel's aspect raidou, don't you have any shame ?!

Yes, but in reality we would get both, and the extra profit would go to more marketing.

Microtransactions aren't an "option". The game is intentionally designed to be tedious, time-consuming, and frustrating in order to increase the likelihood that you'll spend money on microtransactions. It's not an "option". They have a negative effect on the very design of games and thus affect you regardless of whether you give in or not.

I already pay $80 for ones with it

Reminder that the price of videogames is almost half of what they used to be, despite massive budgets and huge technological advancements.

Thats not how that works user

Modern games do not cost $60. That's the base "shell" price. In order to get the full game, you have to pay more than $60.

Take Star Wars Battlefront. Sure, it's $60. But if you want the full experience, you'll be paying $110.

well duh, if it's too much of a hassle it'll show on their sales so that's a line the developers would have to deal with

i'd still much rather keep it as is over paying fucking 70 dollars for my video games

>massive budgets

And who's fault is that? The audience never asked for games to be so expensive to make. We never asked for MGS5 to have a horse that shits itself in real time. We never asked for Lara Croft to have individually animated strands of hair.

That's why the OP is asking if you'd be willing to accept a higher "shell price" in exchange for no DLC or microtransactions being necessary for the "full expierence". Of course publishers are too greedy to do away with dlc and microtransactions but it's nice to think about a world without greedy cunts.

Boy you stupid as hell. Battlefront is not a typical game at all. For typical games, look at the best sellers, like Madden. Madden 2000 cost $60 (around $86 modern), and Madden 2018 costs $60. Games are getting cheaper.

The market demands high-quality games at low prices. The games industry delivers, but apparently there's no market for higher quality games at a higher price. Fucking cheapskates. You fucks are holding back the artform.

but what about inflation?

>The audience never asked for games to be so expensive to make.

They kind of do. Games with better graphics sell more. Having shitty graphics is le blunder of le century according to Sup Forums.

No. Because I'd just question why they didn't do this when games were $60.00. Then I'd strawman and move goalpost asking why did Bravely Default offer a better Final Fantasy experience at a cheaper price than Final Fantasy XIII? Or bring up Hellblade's visuals at such a low price when AAA devs keep cumming over 4K, TressFX, ambient occlusion, and other visual shit to justify unwanted visuals.

>buy at best buy
>get complete games without micros for $56
>???
>profit

>Games with better graphics sell more

Minecraft or any major Nintendo franchise (Mario, Pokemon etc.) proves that this is bullshit

No games in general shouldn't cost more than 30 bucks.

>Would you be okay with a 70 dollar single player game

If it was fun and had 70 bucks of content, then yes.

So in other words, no.

t. guy who complains if a game has shitty graphics and little content

Exactly, $30 is a fair price. They shouldn't be anymore than $25, otherwise it's robbery! I'll never pay more than $20 for a game.

That's not true at all. Just because games sell well without good graphics doesn't change whether investing in your graphics is a good idea (it is). It's like pointing to a breakout indie film with no-name actors, and saying that having stars in your movie doesn't help.

>think this is a magical world?
That's exactly what OP is talking about though

If they provide more than $30 worth of content, then yes they should

I enjoy simpler, fun games with 2d or low poly graphics actually, but keep projecting, faggot

t. Dobson

Sure but most games nowadays don't.

(((((:¬o

Remember when Nintendo released this unoriginal turd for $92.50*-$112.50*
>*Not including DLC Classes, Skills, and Amiibos bringing the grand total to $218USD as of Feb. 28, 2018

no
i would be happy paying 40 for a full singleplayer game and 20-25 for an X-pac though