If video games were more expensive, would it be good for the hobby...

...

...

Why would they ever bother having games priced so highly if the only market is pirates? Stop being a dumb dumb.

Don't want a game crash? I think we're about overdue.

but they are doing it user :^)
They are just taking it slowly.

lol no. The best you'll ahve are just angry comments on the internet like with the paid mod. You just have to spell it in a different way and people are going to be okay with it. They're already selling parts of games and unfinished one at full price by calling them dlc and early access. Fuck they're selling limited/collectors edition WITHOUT the game.

Isn't that false advertising?

Not if you write it really small somewhere.
Just go see shit like battlefield 1 collector's edition.

That's still deceptive as shit. I feel like there should be some law against it, but nobody has money to sue these companies anymore.

Yes but why would devs/pubs ever charge hundreds of dollars for a game? Why would they make it exclusive to the rich gamer?

We're already sort of there, where buying the 'Complete' version of a game on launch can run you $120. That should become the standard price for all AAA games going forward, with Indie games priced at a respectable $60 so there is a clear cost/quality association in the minds of consumers.

There's precedent for it, not that it was successful.

Never post again pls

Hobbies with high barriers to entry tend to benefit from it in the long term. Compare say /k/ and Holla Forums. You have to have a job and actually leave your house to buy guns. It lends itself to a more mature community.

The thing is though, you can play the classics on a toaster and people will just pirate shit. So there is no effective way to raise said barriers. Anyone claiming otherwise is just trying to jew you.

You can build a gaming PC just as powerful or more as the PS4 or Xbone for around the same price at this point.

It'd be Australia.

Not really. Both cripple/k/ and cuc/k/ are 90%+ nogunz.

OP, have you heard about famous launch of Saturn vs. PS1? Story goes that Sega execs were aiming at a "sweet spot" of 399 for console launch. Then Sony exec gave famous short speech: "299". Rest is history.

They are just a time sink. You don't learn from them, you don't create with them, playing them isn't a useful or even a notable skill and they barely entertain a healthy mind.

You can't compare guns to video games dude. What the fuck am I reading. Where did all these retards come from?

High barriers in terms of skill, sure. In terms of money, no. That's just jewelry.

What games

Its like calling suicide a cure to cancer
You are technically right but no it has no practical application.

One of the problems is that doing the exact opposite is the most profitable move.

You're missing the forest for the trees. It's not just /k/, but other boards like /diy/. When you can't be a neet living off of autism bux and mommies hot pockets to interact with said community, it grows in a good way.

No, it wouldn't keep them in specific out, it would simply ensure next to nobody would be able to get in. If the fuckhuge pricetag consoles have now didn't stop it from being overrun by normalfags then neither would doubling or tripling the price.

What? PC is where all the industry cancer comes from

[citation needed]

Paid online, drm, sjw devs, limited activations all started on pc. Bioware, doublefine/schafer, early access, etc.

Cuckster race

On PC you pay for the internet and the game, on consoles you pay for both of those AND a special subscription fee so you can use your already existing internet connection to play online.
Fair enough
That has absolutely nothing to do with it. SJW devs are indeed cancer, but there is no way you can show that they exist for the sole reason that PC gaming exists and that consoles are somehow exempt despite having a much larger part of the clique.
That falls under DRM
Naming companies and individuals when you start running out of points is not an argument, fam
To this one I also agree

That's a feature of pretty much every game console since the NES. Either for region lock, or restriction on what the console can run.

(checked)

Also the very basic concept of separate consoles, which means that a game programmed entirely in a language like C will still be locked out of being usable on other ones even if all of them can read it.

No that's too nebulous a definition. PCs came in many different flavours around the same time, and you had to do lots of platform-specific code for handling different I/O devices or for optimization on different systems. Even now you can't really do code that runs everywhere.

Is this NeoFag flooding in?

Well getting rid of consoles would be a gigantic step in the right direction, so sure.

There would be less games and they would all be significantly safer in terms of what they did. No point in experimenting or trying niche shit since your market is already small and wont bother taking chances.

where do you think it started? You idiot.

they have the largest population and base on PC.

Stopped reading right there
Paying for internet access is not the same as paying it and another fee on the side.
Kill yourself

I think he was accusing the early subscription based PC mmorpgs, not the internet bill.

Yeah, because those stopped you from playing free online on all other games, right?

I'd find a new hobby or do nothing but emulate.

Wheres that article of that one EA exec who said they'd charge $200 for Dead Space 2 if they could?

If you bought a Pro, you might as well do just that.

...

and it started on PC with subscription based games. Retard.

pmt

Pushing the price curve upward anymore would destroy our already fragile console market, as we can see for the lack of consumer demand for the PS3 at launch. One can assume the prices that are on the market for the PS4 and others have been reached after some market research, and every console is just an AMD64 computer these days as is, so consoles directly compete with computers; if you make your shit more expensive than the average PC that barely plays games, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Triple-A development is already so fucking expensive at the moment that half-assing titles and in adding DLC as a separate purchase is what seriously is saving the "industry" at this moment, not higher price points per se, but nickeling and diming the consumer and making it seem like they have an illusion of choice ( if they want the full game they have to pay upwards to $40 more to subsidize cost of development)

Would the game scale in quality to match that price? Otherwise, no. Vidya would be dead immediately.

During the advent of vidya, arcades were insanely popular because even something shitty like Pong cost like $1000 dollarydoos in 80s money, so everyone went to the arcade instead.

No, consider suicide

Good, an industry crash is always welcomed. Though Australia is pretty much what OP is thinking about.

you aren't very good at this, are you? Try and keep up, lurk more.

Expansion packs gave way to DLC too, fucking PCcucks.

no because hipsters would still buy them for "gamer cred" and diehard fanboys would still blindly buy the new products of companies like bioware and blizzard entertainment

The games would have to be good.
Double the price point but keeping the quality the where it is now would drastically influence and later purchasing habits.

In the same way that a steam sale or a buy 2 get 1 free sale might make a person willing to try other games they usually wouldn't if it were $60, an increased price would make them give serious consideration to the question "do I really need this?"

People see Fallout 3/4 as amazing, and whatever Bethesda shits out as great. Fact is, people may question new companies, but those with established normalfag cred, like bethesda, the populace would still pay higher prices for the games.

Video games are not high luxury. They aren't high end cars. They are meant to be in the hands of as many people as the video game industry wants and that's why you see the mobile market so dominating. If you took every single game and made it cost 5x what it does now (lets assume all the free games suddenly turn to 5$ minimum) you'll see a massive decline in people playing the genre. In one crazy instance, yeah. The super niche games that do what they want well will do very well and will get cult followings, but those games will most likely be mmo's where there's so much shit to do no one person could do it all in a lifetime.

Assuming companies couldn't sell their games for less, increasing the prices by that amount would alienate everyone and most of the player bases wouldn't even play anymore. Piracy would also thrive to an extent where laws would be implemented fast as to protect corporate interests. You do not want this because companies will do everything they can to protect their shit and if suddenly piracy jumps even a 100% which, it's not all that high enough in the first place they can use that excuse to push their agenda.

So is reading and writing stories?

Any art based hobby fall under your definiton as well.

People see them as amazing because of the value proposition: $60 for a game that they will at least get one long, semi-enjoyable, expansive game. If the game was even more expensive, they might start to see the faults.

Consumers are used to paying $60 for a game. They might not like it and it may cause them to buy fewer games, but they can accept it because they typically expect a certain number of moderately fun gameplay and multiplayer to keep them going. Up the price and they'd start expect a better game, and when they get a bland sandbox with lame gameplay and wooden characters, they'll likely stop buying.