Controversial thread: Is $70 the worst?

Started by the-pi-guy, Sep 25, 2022, 05:20 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Would you rather have the same game as a

the-pi-guy

$70 sucks, and it's getting a lot of attention.

But is it the worst monetization scheme in the gaming industry?

There are games that are packed with literally $1,000's worth of microtransactions. There are lots of practices to me that feel a lot more predatory. Some of them seem to be becoming more common, and yet they seem largely more accepted than $70 games.

Legend

A great game at $70 is fine. Just sucks that the microtransaction curse infects most $70 games too.

SWORDF1SH

A great game at $70 is fine. Just sucks that the microtransaction curse infects most $70 games too.
Both models are fine as long as the $70 game is light on micros. I don't mind constantly pumping money into a f2p games as long as it keeps me interested but a $70 game should be close to the full package and DLC should add a good amount to the game.

darkknightkryta

Publishers are making more than enough money from micro transactions.  The problem with 70 dollars is that, with micro transactions, is a total greed move.  You can even somewhat justify micro transactions as an adaptation to tech.  Can they suck monkey balls?  Yeah, but it's a different option of content distribution.  It also gives publishers more than enough money.  They don't need to raise the price of games.