Skip Navigation
67 comments
  • I bet it will still be stuffed to the gills with buying things using real money, and the grind will be intentionally miserable to force people to take the shortcut.

  • So they think if GTA6 is worth $100, then their latest climb the towers, fill the map, Ubislop title will also be worth $100?

    Good luck with that thinking.

    Plus Rockstar don't need to charge $100 for their game because it will likely sell 200 million copies over the next two gens.

  • I'm okay with game prices going up -- they've fallen far behind inflation over the decades -- though personally I favor DLC rather than one large shebang. Lower risk on both sides.

    And there are a lot of games out there that, when including DLC, run much more than $100. Think of The Sims series or a lot of Paradox games. Stellaris is a fun, sprawling game, but with all DLC, it's over $300, and it's far from the priciest.

    But if I'm paying more, I also want to get more utility out of what you're selling. If a game costs $100, I expect to get twice what I get out of a competing $50 game.

    And to be totally honest, most of the games that I really enjoy have complex mechanics and have the player play over and over again. I think that most of the cost that game studios want is for asset creation. That can be okay, depending upon genre -- graphics are nice, music is nice, realistic motion-capture movement is nice -- but that's not really what makes or breaks my favorite games. The novelty kind of goes away once you've experienced an asset a zillion times.

67 comments