Friday Debate: Would you be willing to pay more for games that didn’t have Microtransactions?

1 min read
0

debate0202

Games are expensive. Not just expensive for consumers, but also for those that make them. We’re regularly told that big blockbusters games cost in excess of tens of millions of dollars to make and market, that price of the cost of making games is perpetually skyrocketing.

We’re told that this is why so many games have DLC, and are stuffed with microtransactions that help poor, poor publishers get their due. At the same time, we’re told that microtransactions are there for player choice and not for the vast amounts of money they make by preying on psychology.

Whatever your own thoughts on microtransactions, there are many who feel that games would be better without them. So here’s a simple question. If they are indeed implemented because games are so terribly expensive to make and not at all profitable, would you as a consumer be willing to pay more for games, if they didn’t have them.

Would you prefer the base price of games was raised to say, $70 or $75 instead of the $60 they’ve been at since the advent of disc-based games, if they were designed in ways that didn’t feature post-purchase spending at all?

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Critical Hit as an organisation.

Last Updated: February 2, 2018

Geoffrey Tim

Editor. I'm old, grumpy and more than just a little cynical. One day, I found myself in possession of a NES, and a copy of Super Mario Bros 3. It was that game that made me realise that games were more than just toys to idly while away time - they were capable of being masterpieces. I'm here now, looking for more of those masterpieces.

Check Also

Friday Debate: Is it ever okay to pirate games?

The big theme in gaming news this week seems to be piracy. It's a damaging practice overal…