AAA Games should cost 160$
People would stop buying slop and games made for everyone, since they would think about getting the best game for such amount of money. Maybe then people would buy games in genres they like and form their taste instead of buying the latest slop and destroying the industry.

>>713508202 (OP)
That would be $216 once you include the sales tax and tip. No way I would pay that for a game.

>>713508202 (OP)
Doesn't matter, I'm not buying them anyway.

>>713508323
You would if the game was worth it. If the game isn't worth $216 then it's trash even by today prices and standards.

>>713508464
That would be $1.2/h even for my most played game.

>>713508202 (OP)
>>713508339
Toxotranny

>>713508524
Dogs carry that.

>>713508517
>$/h
I changed my mind. They should be 1200$ each

>>713508524
I'm going to murder you, you stupid piece of shit. Do you fucking understand that? Listen to the words I say, I promise you that I will splatter your moron brains all over the god damn concrete.

>>713508524

>>713508202 (OP)
I know this is bait, but I am serious when I say this: from now on, every single time you go to buy an $80 game, buy two copies and give the second to someone else with no expectations, demands, or acceptance of reimbursement of any kind. If you can't do that, then shut the fuck up.

>>713509095
I did do this with the last two games I actually deemed to be worth my $80. Those games were Call of Duty Black Ops 6 and Tekken 8.

>>713509095
I haven't seen 80$ game that is worth even 20$ and the same goes with 70$ games. I wouldn't torture someone with such games. You miss the point of my post. Games are terrible and yet people pay 80$ for them thus making the whole industry turn to shit.
Also why would you give a copy to person with no expectations, demands or acceptance of reimbursement of any kind. People like this love to pay 80$ for dogshit games so why make it easier for them. They should pay twice as much for thier ignorance

>>713508202 (OP)
games are already priced at 200+, faggots are still sucking off fifa and cod who have been doing this since 7th gen.
90% of the sales are due to faggots on this very board.

>>713509416
>Also why would you give a copy to person with no expectations, demands or acceptance of reimbursement of any kind.
You miss the point of MY post. If you think games should be costing $160 instead of the modern $80 to reflect or somehow encourage a sort of non-shit quality release,
>(SPOILER: 0 changes, enjoy still getting microtransactions)
--then put your money where your mouth is. Put that extra cost of games in and throw it away without expecting to get it back. AAA game development is a BUSINESS, and every single decision is about making money out of you. You giving them more money does NOT mean a better product, it means they get away with charging you more for DOGSHIT.

Indie devs can make incredibly popular titles that rival big studio releases for less starting capital and charging less. Even a smash hit with a bit of a budget like Claire Obscur isn't $80, or even $60, but $50 fucking dollars. Hell, if you were frugal, you could get Game Pass and finish it within your sub duration no problem.

Don't buy into the "you pay more so they can make a better product" meme. It's the biggest lie, told by either people who'll benefit financially, or the naive who think it'll solve their slop shit AAA garbage from being garbage. Support indie development that looks cool, or buy on sale. It's that fucking easy.

>>713512134
My idea was that if AAA games would cost 160$ and not lower than they would have to make better games or die and if not then making stupid fucks pay more is still a win.
I assumed that if AAA would cost 160$ then people would stop buying their dogshit games every time new slop drops. If AAA games sell fewer copies even if for a higher price, it's still better for gamers.
I don't buy the bullshit that if you pay more, you get better product.