Skip to main content

How game development is changing the way we buy

The coming year is shaping up as a promising period for Microsoft's gaming efforts, following the launch of last year's flagship console, Xbox One X. Now the time to prove the hardware's true capabilities, a variety of ambitious titles are on the horizon, expected to leverage its additional horsepower.

While games continue to push boundaries, one aspect has remained unchanged. Scale, potential and development costs grow, yet the standard $60 price of entry has remained constant between recent console generations. Here's how recent development trends may change the way you buy.

Big games, better value

Games are now bigger than ever. Open worlds, cutting-edge graphics and hours of content are all familiar sights in today's influential titles. Marketing often drives the scale and depth of these digital worlds, with each iterating on its predecessors in some regard. Top publishers now dedicate teams of hundreds on individual projects, continuing to scale alongside consumer expectations. Games simply demand an extraordinary quantity of resources to develop.

An industry-wide shift towards the "Games as a Service" (GaaS) model plays a significant role in this, with heightened investment in titles after they've hit store shelves. Buyers now come to expect post-launch content, tweaks, and other types of active support, meaning that development cycles are longer than before. Many games are now sold as a platform, on the promise that time and monetary investments carry through in the months or years ahead.

Buyers now come to expect post-launch content, tweaks, and other types of active support.

While not the ideal way to experience many GaaS titles, it's now possible to make a single $60 purchase and still have a regular flow of content going forward. The time to dollar ratio has always been higher for games than most media and it's only more apparent with this model.

More than just a game

STAR WARS Battlefront II

STAR WARS Battlefront II (Image credit: Electronic Arts)

Following the adoption of GaaS models, it's more expensive to develop, ship and maintain a game than it was a decade ago. Development costs have grown with the industry, while games are still priced around $60 at launch. If the cost of making games is higher, why isn't the price of entry for consumers too?

Across many titles, the increasing costs of development are offset through other monetization methods. It's now widely known that downloadable content, microtransactions, and loot boxes have all proven successful as additional revenue streams. Publishers frequently source these monetization schemes as a tool for supporting development after launch, without modifying the initial asking price. While there's strong debate over intrusive microtransactions, there is some truth to the reasoning.

Browsing the Microsoft Store, there's no shortage of deluxe editions and additional content.

Browsing the Microsoft Store, there's no shortage of deluxe editions and additional content.

The cost of gaming has steadily increased, albeit not through the price tag on the shelf.

In many ways, the base entry price of games has already risen – just that many of us haven't noticed it. If you look at any modern big budget title, there's no shortage of "deluxe editions," "gold editions" and other variants with supplementary content at launch. To get a "complete" experience, you'll likely be paying more than $60 in some way.

Through these practices, publishers have found routes to indirectly raise the price of their titles, while obscuring the change from the average buyer. The cost of gaming has steadily increased, albeit not through the price tag on the shelf.

Changing the way we buy

Sea of Thieves will be the first Microsoft Studios game to hit Xbox Game Pass at launch.

Sea of Thieves will be the first Microsoft Studios game to hit Xbox Game Pass at launch.

While buying discs and digital licenses is likely here to stay, other means of obtaining games are making an appearance on the market. As seen in other entertainment industries with Netflix and Spotify, all-inclusive streaming services can offer an appealing library of content for a monthly fee. Upcoming services like "Xbox Game Pass" apply this distribution model to games, providing access to over 100 Xbox games for $9.99 per month.

Microsoft continues to expand Xbox Game Pass, recently committing its upcoming first-party blockbusters to the service at launch. Going forward, all future Microsoft Studios titles will be tied to the service's library at release, under the same monthly fee. Among these offerings is Sea of Thieves, Crackdown 3 and State of Decay 2, as well as upcoming Gears of War and Halo series entries. This move singlehandedly shifted my thoughts on Xbox Game Pass, now as a must-buy for many Xbox One gamers.

This accompanies Microsoft's recent venture for richer gaming services, using Xbox Game Pass and its biggest titles to drive further investment. While cutting costs for some, the service also provides a gateway for players who may have otherwise skipped the title. This is only set to expand, with talk of an upcoming cloud game streaming service, built on similar values to Xbox Game Pass. Don't be surprised if Xbox Game Pass (and similar services) play a bigger role in Xbox going forward.

The cycle of how we buy and consume games is forever changing and with the recent growth of digital services, new routes for distribution are opening. Services like Xbox Game Pass provide a new value proposition for gamers to consider, as the industry only continues to grow. Today, maybe it's harder to put a price on a game than ever before.

What do you think about the price of games in 2018? As always, make sure to drop your thoughts in the comments.

See Xbox Game Pass at Microsoft Store

Matt Brown is a senior editor at Future for Windows Central. Following six years of professional consumer technology and gaming coverage, he’s focused on the world of Xbox and Windows PCs. You can follow him on Twitter @mattjbrown.

47 Comments
  • Eh, I understand it's a business model but unfortunately I don't think this settles well for gamers who are in my opinion age 25-30. We grew up on co-op couch games, and all these DLC's are for online play. As you get older you have more responsiblties, and online gaming is not a priority.
  • So true.
  • Well said man.. I couldn't agree more.. It seems the age of single player games have come and gone.. In my opinion I wouldn't mind paying a bit more per game to have online multiplayer and loot boxes removed from my games. It's obvious loot boxes or whatever you want to call it is here to stay as its generated billions in profits and thats all companies care about.. If they make a great game then it will do the same. I have had enough of online multiplayer only games and I have never cared to play online competitively, ever!
  • Guess I really don't understand why folks seem to think they should get an ongoing stream of new material for free. You spend ~$60 for a new game, get the original game and initial multiplayer stuff. As developers produce new material and new multiplayer maps or experiences why shouldn't they get payed?
  • 1) Because it's mobile style free2play economics used in a full price $60-100 game.
    2) Because the priority is no longer make great game and hope that gamers love it but more make a game and try to tempt gamers to spend more and more money once they payed the $60-100 entry fee.
    3) Because that content is not just being sold as it is. But it is hidden behind boxes and you are made to pay n amount of cash even if you want only one item.
    4) Because gameplay or match making is most probably changed or adjusted to turn gamers into payers. You are constantly advertised and sold stuff. 
    5) Because that content could have been included in the original game like how it was years back. I could go on... But what's funny is that whenever you guys defend these you're not saying how it's a good thing for gamers and gaming. 
  • But you're wrong... In all your arguements except maybe 3&4. Since PC gaming went big all games had vanilla games then expansions. Look at diablo, red alert, elder scrolls, half life, the list goes on.. You got the vanilla game then had to pay for the expansion. Most if those old models are all peer to peer game play so there was no infrastructure to pay for. It makes total sense for game publishers to try to offset their costs by having loot boxes and such because multiplayer game servers cost a lot to maintain. You are no longer paying for the initial development of the game you are paying for the continued development of the game as well as the support cost for maintaining those servers which isn't cheap. They have to pay for licensing of their oses and software, their admins to maintain those oses and software, their network, isp, etc the list goes on... They also need to continue to turn a profit to maintain investors to continue to create games. There is alot that goes into games so its a miracle that the developers have been able to keep the game price as low as $60 for so long
  • And yet those big studio games are simple to complete and offer little challenge, are so rarely original in concept that without the flashy graphics and effects to cover up the reworked game beneath they are nothing but a rerun and somehow manage to cost more than we used to pay back in the day on the good old Speccy and Acorn computers. Which game do I play most? Chaos Reborn, a remake of a Speccy classic. Still a better game than the latest FPS duplicate, and even that's a rehash. I'll pay more when the game designs get better than the 8 bit computer era. I'll stick to sales and indies until then. Game rental was never very compelling to me, more of a console thing. Making rental online won't make it more appealing. I try to buy one of each game type unless something has a deep story that grabs me, Divinity Original Sin is a good exception but even that is a new story laid over a worn out game model at heart. Why pay every month for the same game with new graphics? May be after a couple of years a refreshed FPS or top down RPG or tower defence could be interesting, but every month? I can't see the point. Most of them use a handful of 'engines' or actual games just reskinned and usually made easier. Most games I played as a kid lasted my whole childhood and I still never reached the end. Now THAT was value. Today? A few weeks and you've hit the end. VR is even worse, with all that potential for new ideas, most of the games are so short and easy you wonder if they were designed to actually challenge anyone or just to provide enough to make a kid want to buy more... hmmm. The pictures are prettier, but the coding is so much easier. All done in high level languages and game design suites based on rehashed engine code. Time was when one or two guys designed a fresh game concept themselves and wrote the whole thing in raw mnemonics (for youngsters, that's machine code one step up from hex) with no 'libraries' of routines and with an OS so simple it did nothing but read the cassette tape into memory. Everything else was manually constructed with hardware restrictions that would make a modern coder wonder how to find enough resources to show all the studio branding animations let alone fit a game in too. That was real effort and they did not expect world wide sales and big revenue streams. They had far smaller markets, and yet with all that talent, effort and time invested they still made enough money to smile at the profit and make another. When the game industry improves on where they started, I'll pay more. Whilst they're stuck in reverse and keep churning out duplicates I'll stick to the sales. These days ET wouldn't be buried in the desert in shame. It'd be AAA and sold by EA with Elliot loot boxes.
  • Wait, are you trying to compare mobile phone like f2p microtransactions/loot box to expensions?? So here you are coming trying to make excuse for these major publishers and companies who are making record profits, all while spending less since on marketing, development and cost of goods sold (which include serversand maintainance cost) And by taking into account inflation.
    Here is the video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qq6HcKj59Q  What's really incredible is that it's the major companies doing it on full price games while there are many multiplayer games who do multiplayer with many players and don't charge a $60 entry fee. Games remain free to play. Games like Warframe or Dota 2. Or games like Minecraft that cost very little compared to the $60-100 price tag for AAA games. Plus they don't have microtransactions (at least since MS took over). The bottom line is that you want to make a mostly multiplayer game than there are going to be things you don't have to pay for. But that's how budget works. You invest a certain amount of money and make targets. Also one more thing. Aren't we suppose to paying to play online on consoles? Now we have to ALSO buy microtransactions/loot box??? Anyway, the entire argument about companies needing false flat when EA makes almost a billion bucks a year just on FIFA's Microtransactions/loot box...
    Also EA told their investors that removing microtransactions from battlefront 2 won't affect earnings. Do you think EA needs $800m to maintain their servers? Why would EA say they didn't need microtransactions to affect profits if that wasn't just for MUCH more profit for their investors? But you're right to bring up investors. Because investors are their real priority. Not gamers. We are just the cows that are getting milked.  What's amazing is that there are fellow gamers (assuming you're also a gamer) that defend MAJOR AAA publisher and their anti-gaming policies...
    Once again how is this good for gaming and gamers?
  • I won't defend EA their games are crap i was talking about games in general. I was more referring to games like halo, rainbow six seige, eso, GW4 and such where there is a lot of free content where they subsidize costs with microtransactions that are mostly cosmetic and aren't pay to win. I hate pay to win games and having a game like that is horrible. EA hasn't made a good game for awhile. I hope anthem is good bc EA has been sucking lately. Plus EA is like the sweat shop of game development they treat their devs horrible to turn a quick buck.
  • He thinks all games feature lootbox, are pay 2 win.
  • @Hirox K And you are a LIAR. Because I never said or even implied that. Stop with the lies... lol
  • > I'm talking of full price games that uses free2play economics.
    > FREE to play games should be FREE. 
    That's your word.
    full price game + free2play === f2p / pay2win economic game. Can you tell me what are the principles devs use when designing a f2p game? What are the differences between common f2p and AC-O, Middle Earth, Forza7, FH3?
  • @Annullator Well, Halo 5 Warzone and gears 4 Horde are pay 2 win. If you want to talk about MS there is also Halo Wars 2 and their Blitz mode. Talking about subsidizing costs of DLCs but Gears 4 had/has a season pass for 50 bucks! It is still freetoplay economics applied in a full price game. Gameplay is still being modified. Frustrating elements and gamers are still being tempted and sold stuff after paying for the game. And I won't talk about Rainbow Six Siege (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4TbRaAQncw) EA has been horrible. But others are not far behind. It's a real problem for us gamers.
    The video also shows finances of Activision and Ubisoft. MS have been leading the charge in 2005 for microtransactions and have been going all out this gen with both microtransactions and loot box. And it's even worse considering it's a console maker. So let's not EA take all the blame and say that everything and everyone else are perfect...
     
  • 1. I'm with Annullator. 2. "for us gamers" correction, for you typpa gamers.
  • 1) Company fans stick together while worshipping their company/brand. 2) You aren't a gamer. You're a company "fan", doing damage control...
  • Company fan... like I care about those comapny's rise and fall.
    Better than someone who thinks devs should support dead OS/platform even if they don't already own legacy code or using 3rd party engine (someone else 's legacy code). Dead OS can still prosper. Software will never deprecate. Future OEM prebuilds will pre-install dead OS. Smaller screen Win10ARM device will never be made, etc, etc.
  • Well you seem to do care enough to defend MS and whatever business practice that is against consumers and against an industry. You are doing a great job with the damage controlling, promoting, marketing whatever MS does while criticisng the competition. Dead OS/platform?? What the **** are you talking about? 
  • I'm just being realistic and logical, and I certainly care about no one. > Dead OS/platform?? What the **** are you talking about? 
    Windows older than Win10.
    You did said MS, devs and OEMs SHOULD continue supporting older Windows. MS should give new API / lib to older Windwos. Devs (own legacy code already or not, using 3rd party engine or not) will forever support older Windows. You didn't said this but from your track record, OEM and HW maker should support older Windows forever no?
  • There's one catch in your argument. You say, go buy the original game and enjoy it. Problem is, many devs deliberately axes important content from the original for it to be in a DLC later on (The Sims, most notably). Then, there's also devs who axe content from the original game after the release of DLC (Destiny 2). DLCs aren't evil per se, no. There are many games in which not buying the DLCs does not affect the enjoyment of the base game (Civilization, Fallout, etc.), and these are good. But if a developer tries to force you to buy a half-baked DLC just to get a basic thing (like cats in Sims) that both you and they know is necessary to enjoy - that is downright ridiculous, and should be killed with fire.
  • I think the most damning instance was the on-disk DLC that CapCom pulled a few years back. Where you bought the game, and then had to pay even more to "unlock" content that was on the disk.
  • It depends on how it's implemented. I had no problem paying for the "premium" version of The Division with all the expansions and as far as I can tell I've gotten value for those $80 or $90 or so I payed.  They've been through some rough patches, but atm I don't think there are too many people that dissagree with me on the value part.  If you look at what Bungie did with Destiny, however that seems to be a completely different story where they release a skeleton-game at full price. 
  • I disagree with you on the value part. I bought the game when it came out. It was a shell of a game and I was disgusted that they released it in such a state. I was disgusted enough that I have only bought one Ubisoft game since.. South park 2.  The Division may be a good game now (from what I've read) but I completed what was on offer at release and I don't play games twice (I stopped doing that when it stopped being worth it) so I don't think it was good value at all, when I bought it.
  • Oh No not the stable "$60" argument. Ok. Here is a video that considers marketing, development, cost of goods sold and record profits of EA, activision and Ubisoft all adjusted for inflation.  We can clearly see that the overall trend is that the cost has actually dropped and there has been record profits.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qq6HcKj59Q  EA told their investors that removing microtransactions from battlefront 2 won't affect earnings. So all these alternative way of making money is really just looks like greed at this point.
    They have so many of them:
    1) Microtransactions
    2) 3-4 different versions + collector edition 
    3) Loot boxes 
    4) DLCs
    5) Sponsored DLC and in game adverts.
    6) Get the game late if you don't pay money
    7) Exclusive content retailer deals in various retailers around the world.
    8) Exclusive marketing deals with console makers
    9) Timed exclusives content with console makers
    10) Sponsored Achievements like KFC achievements game by WWE 2K18
    11) recycling content 
    12) milking franchises with yearly release
    13) Hiding the remainder of a story behind DLC (DR4)
    14) Pay2win
    ... The funny part is that it's not the tiny studios that are doing it. It's the massive companies doing it. If others can make criticially amazing games (Breath of the wild, Horizon ZD, The witcher, Hellblade...)  without the need of including microtransactions/lootbox why can't these companies do it? I think game as a service is horrible. Horrible for us gamers and gaming in general. For me, any full price game that are being called a service should be boycotted no matter who is making it and no matter what game it is. As for game pass. Right now I'm not against it as it provides option for people who don't mind renting a MS game 1-2 months instead of owning it.
    Personally, I don't want this to be the future of gaming. I want to decide what I play and own the games. I don't want companies to decide what I rent and play. 
    The way I see it, quality won't be the priority. It'll just be about getting into the game pass library and try and make the most money out of microtransactions/loot box as possible.
  • ??? Loot box/crates has nothing to do with games as a service.... I highly doubt people playing games with the pass buy more crates than regular owners... And game as a service doesn't exclude regular sale chanel... Look at music and movies... You can have a Netflix or a Spotify account and still buy digital or physical copies the same... And I'd argue that at least for series the quality went way up on contrary HBO started the trend and Netflix just put nitro in the production engine globally... You big production from every continent they are in that never existed before... Sure it's not exactly the same for games... But I hardly see how it could be bad... On the contrary you'd have to be noticeable to stand out and stimulate people to actually buy the game and own it or get DLC.... Getting in the list of games won't be a viable business if you suck.... I don't care for loot box I never buy any ever... But the pass is just perfect since I really don't care about owning a game and never had... If there is one delisted I really like I'll get a digital copy, but until then I have plenty of time to play a lot of games and not get bored without forking a 10th of what my gaming budget use to be... Then again the pass is viable only for people that use to buy a lot of games especially the one like me that used to build up backlogs they never find the time to complete
  • "Loot box/crates has nothing to do with games as a service..."
    Yes it is. Games as a service is how to get constant income from a game. Keep selling crates or keep making money... But you basically seem to defend the game pass service and not "games as a service".
    Like I said as of right now I'm not against Game pass because it gives some people the chance to rent games instead of buying them. It's a nice option. But again. I don't want that to be the future of gaming. I don't want that to be the only choice.
    About focussing on amount of content.
    What this service so far has done is focus and market the "over 100 games". Meaning the amount of games. Looks at their adverts. PS+ and EA access also communicate on the amount of games.
    It's actually logic in a business model. Make a lot of cheaper rushed games with microtransactions/lootbox instead of making fewer well made games.
    Game quality would no longer be a criteria that makes an impact on game revenue.  You like renting games, I personally want to own them. I want to play a game even after it's been taken out from MS's server. We both have different needs. I don't want the old buy and own a game to die and be replace by this renting service.
    Also I don't even want to think of possible future "Xbox pass exclusive content". That would be horrible...
  • I gave up buying new games ages ago, simply to expensive-here in Australia anyway.
    $60, HA, that would be nice, try $100 plus.
    No way I'm spending north of $100 for any game-period.
    How come a block buster movie can be bought between $20-30, yet a game-with microtransactions-can be from 3-5 times more expensive?
    Add in the much lower costs of digital distribution and I'm calling BS on new game pricing.
  • A movie can sell many more times (different media \ channel, online, offline, merchants) in many more countries. Do you publish your Block Busters or people from different countries come ask to publish for you?
  • Games are also "sold" multiple times with "game of the year" edition, remasters, offline/online or on service like game pass... But whats interesting is that once you buy a movie you are not asked MORE money to open boxes to see random bonus scenes and other stuff... When you are buying a movie you don't have to pay extra "DLC" to watch the ending.
  • Movie can be sold in theaters with merchants, dvd/bd/digital copy, contract with streaming sites, dvd/bd/digital rental, bonus/director cut version, tv, etc.
    Do you do the publishing yourself? Games, you either publish yourself (logistics, etc, with costs) or some one from some country will publish for you and they take a cut. The number of countries/population watches movie > number of countries/population plays game?
  • "High production values" does not equal "better games", I think this is the point to make here.
  • Bright chap that FD fellow. Listen up folks. Were you a gamer when people used to design games in the 80s, rather than just reskinning engines? Sounds like it.
  • Game prices in Canada shot up when the last Gen systems released. $79 for a new title is now commonplace. Personally I'm older and have a family of my own now, so I just no longer have the time for 80 hour epics, or even online play. I just want smaller, easily digestible games that I can play in short bursts and complete in maybe 3-4 hours tops.
  • It's not changing the way i buy. I will pay full price at launch if i want to play the game, and even if i loved the game, i would almost always wait for the season pass to go on sale for the DLC. GaaS is a joke to me because there is no way i am buying a loot crate for real money for a 'chance' to progress. I have no issue with proper, well made DLC packs.
  • This article sounds like it's making excuses for all these bad practices we see in the industry and trying to justify the price hike. What all of these journalists forget to mention when they talk about this issue is that now companies have a way higher profit when they sell digital. In fact they have 70% of the price, whereas in retail they would get much lower figures. And digital is the majority now. In addition to that, you have all the DLCs, micro transactions, loot boxes etc. So, in my opinion, prices should actually be lower. Many games would cost less if they didn't shift directions several times during the development to accommodate the publisher's wishes and ideas. Activision made half of its profits for the last year on micro transactions, yet they still charge the full price, and even higher as they have all these map DLCs where they split their player base. So I called it - games should be prices 50 or even 40 dollars.
  • There seem to be a lot of these recently. Whether it's Polygon or popular youtube channels it's interesting how they all seem to come at around the same time.  After the bs by EA last year, it seems like the communication now will be "We are not like EA's battlefront 2". "We are not doing it to that extent, so we are the good guys". They are almost trying to make it sound like something positive for gamers. The problem is that some people are falling for it. And defend these practices...
  • My only issue with this is the idea of paying more money for "content" And open but empty world isn't content. Just because it takes me 40 minutes to cross a map on a horse but there's dick all to do doesn't mean the game with worth while. Look at Ghost Recon Wildlands. Open world with lots of nothing to do. Graphics? Keeping up with the industry standards in terms of quality should mean I pay more. Should I pay more for a car because they have industry standard level airbags? Seat belts? No. "hours of content" hours of content isn't "go fetch this. Go fetch that. Do my laundry for me. Walk down the street with a box because I as a NPC just can't for some reason" filler missions are fine but the vast majority of open world games have tons of the as side quests where the mission type is the exact same boring old **** we've had for years will very little changing. That's not content. Content is story. Content is lore. Content is not me slaying 10 wolves, walking down the street to kill 5 goats, and then deliver some ******* mail.
  • Can we really claim that games are getting better?
  • They look better, most of the time that is all. 30 hours of fetch quest makes a better game not.
  • I love the concept of game pass and really hope it's fully realized. Imagine a Netflix for gaming. If Microsoft really were to buy EA... they could strong arm gamers into this gaming model pretty easily with their new vast library of games
  • "they could strong arm gamers into this" That sounds bad for gamers/gaming.
  • I hear a lot of entitlement being expressed in the comments. I actually hate to take this side of the argument, but I can't stand it when individuals try to tell a business what they should be charging for a product. The only thing that should dictate price is the market. Here's the reality. Games are more in demand than in the past. People are willing to spend more than in the past. To expect these companies not to be making record profits is naïve at best. They have a fiduciary duty to make as much profit as they can. As much as we'd like to think it, making games isn't some altruistic endeavor.
  • And the market is made of... individuals :) Nothing of what you have said is wrong, but it is up to the company to convince their customers that the product is worth the money that they are spending. The commenters here belong to a small (but growing) group of customers that believe the price/product ratio is out of balance, and want it to be improved. In my opinion, all of this is fine. They have a right to free speech. However, I think problem arises when these customers push for governmental regulation, which I don't think they are doing just yet. The alternative for the commenters is, you know, starting your own business and publishing games, but understandably that's quite a commitment. Hopefully EA and other companies will address these concerns better in the future, but competition is always around, waiting to strike.
  • @SudoKode I think stuff that needs to be regulated will get regulated. Again it remains freedom of speech. If I think something needs to be regulated then I have the right to say it.
  • @Shairob
    Well. I don't know if you know it but we consumers are also part of this market. Weas consumers have rights to opinion and criticise business practices? 
    I don't know about you but I won't let a company just **** me in the ***. I just don't accept anything that's thrown at me. They are trying to change the face of gaming so you know what? I'm going to fight for gaming by voicing my opinions. 
    I want my fellow gamers to join me to defend gaming. I want to voice my opinion. I want to help inform fellow games about these practices.  If you want to come here to defend these practices and tell us why it's amazing for us gamers than say it. Don't come here and tell gamers/consumers to shut up because we consumers have a rights and have a freedom of speech just like how company "fans" have the right to try and damage control for the company they worship...
  • By all means voice your opinion. I'm doing the same and would never suggest that someone be shutdown for presenting rational, thoughtful discussion. And if you re-read my OP I didn't tell any one to shut up so please don't mischaracterize my statements. First let me wholeheartedly agree with you that these practices are absolutely detrimental and worse for consumers. But that doesn't mean that the companies shouldn't do them. I and many gamers have a lot of price flexibility and while milking us for more money will cause some of us to leave, most of us won't. What I am pointing out is that yes, while I would love to pay as little as possible for a game or even keep everything the same, I can recognize that my wants don't necessarily reflect the market as a whole. I didn't and don't want to turn this into a full blown economics discussion. Just want more ppl to think about more profits for the company makes them more attractive to investors which gives them more capital to develop the games that we all love. 
  • Well, you did talk about entitlement and how you couldn't stand consumers comment or criticise companies business practices. If we think companies shouldn't maximize profits with anti-gaming/anti-gaming practices you say we are naïve at best. See, I'm not against people who defend this. I actually would love to have a discussion with someone who actually favours this. Whether it's an actual investor or someone who actually buys and wants them.  The problem is I just can't seem to find anyone who really wants them in these gaming forums. I keep hearing there is a demand for this by gamers but I just don't see them here. Most people defending it or trying to justify their presence say "I never buy them" or "I don't mind them". We've recently had a study/survey that shows the just around 1% of gamers really wants them.
    "Just want more ppl to think about more profits for the company makes them more attractive to investors which gives them more capital to develop the games that we all love."
    It's an interesting point, but the problem with this is that I don't think it actually means "more capital to develop the games that we all love", because it doesn't work like this.
    Investors seeing more profits will encourage MORE of this and probably even worse practices. We've seen what happened in the mobile phone gaming market?
    They will want their investment to be going into this and not into making "quality" games we actually "all love". We've already seen it through stats. Three companies EA, Activision and Ubisoft are 
    1) making a lot less games than in 2009. 
    2) spending less than 2009 (adjusting to inflation).
    3) making record profits (also adjusting to inflation). We've already seen EA closing down Visceral Games a single player games studio. They have trashing single player games. I think we know why that is...
    MS openly criticised single player games. They implied that they are not willing to invest in certain games because of complicated economics. They are trying to redefine gaming. They successfully made DLC a norm, they are trying to make microtransactions or loot box in full price games a norm. 
    The problem is that this will encourage others to follow.  A lot of people actually don't mind cosmetic microtransactions. But the question is not whether you care or not. It's whether you want it or not. And I don't believe most gamers want it.
    This is actually hurting gaming. And it's not even something most gamers want...
  • I dont think this video game streaming will pan out because I think the developers are forgetting that it requires a incredibly fast internet connection upload and download.. I dont think most people have one or like in my case can even get one. I cant get anything faster then 25mb internet speed and I pay 60$ for just that per month which is insane. I live in a desert I guess.. I just dont think the market is what they expect. Xbox game pass and NVidia's game streaming service just isn't going to work.. I like the concept but I dont think the tech is there yet.