Anyone going to be buying £65 PC games?

[something daft already!!]

You would have to be some sort of console peasant to spend that much on a game. I might have spent a few extra quid getting some dlc, usually tracks for racing games.

 

[Haggisman]

Bahahah, not a hope in hell

£35 is the max I have and ever will pay for a PC game (special/limited editions with physical goodies aside) and that's only for something I really want at release. Last one was Cyberpunk, before that Fallout 4, so not very often. Usually wait till <£10 sales

 

[ne0]

LOL absolutely no way, ESPECIALLY seeing as 99% of games are clearly BETA versions when they first come out.

You get a finished game, a cheaper price and far less stress buying a game a couple of months after release. Games publishers are taking the absolute pish.

 

[MoNkeE]

I do find it hilarious the amount of posters saying “I’d never pay that much for a game”, then going on to describe their huge untouched backlog whilst I’ve never payed more than £50 for a game (and would struggle to justify it now), spending the same amount on an untouched backlog is just as foolhardy, and that’s what makes companies like Steam so much free money.

 

[C64]

I think there's an anti technology anti gaming trend coming in the future.
Partly because of lockdowns etc people will want to get out and live a little.

 

[arknor]

30-45 is about my limit these days and then you still kinda feel ripped off with how much money these big companies are making after destroying all the smaller dev companies over the decades.


Gaming is in a dire situation anyway imo...

look back at some of the old games like the Command and conquer series, the dune series etc...

then think about how they would slice them up to sell DLC like they do now days.

theres no way allied and nod campaigns etc would be part of the base game

 

[Black Dog]

I never pay any more than £15.00. Just be patient and wait for the GOTY version or deluxe version. Always done this and still have a large backlog of games still to play. Even then I still reply plenty of my old games. I wait for steam sales or other product key websites for deals.

Another advantage is a fully patched game rather than the mess you get on release date. Granted, you can't really wait for two long if you play MP games due to the servers eventually dying but I only play single player games.

 

[arknor]

I never pay any more than £15.00. Just be patient and wait for the GOTY version or deluxe version. Always done this and still have a large backlog of games still to play. Even then I still reply plenty of my old games. I wait for steam sales or other product key websites for deals.

Another advantage is a fully patched game rather than the mess you get on release date. Granted, you can't really wait for two long if you play MP games due to the servers eventually dying but I only play single player games.

going to be a long wait for cyberpunk for you I wonder if they ever get around to fixing it

 

[V F]

10 years is probably a long time to wait for steam to drop the price though

Cyberpunk 2077 was £24.99 in the Autumn sale just passed that I snagged.

No chance.
Imagine paying the best part of 100 quid and getting BF2042....

To think once when I remember as far back as 2001 - 2005 triple A games were £26.99 on PC. Nor were there uber, duper, magical super deluxe editions then.

 

[FrozenShivers]

I won't pay £50 for a game never mind £65.

 

[Relentless81]

Paid £130 for three years of Gamepass, don't think I'll ever buy a game again never mind pay £65 for one

 

[Kelt]

Well, I paid just under £65 for Forza Horizon 5 Ultimate Edition.

That's the most I've ever paid for a game, but I just retired, so it was a bit of a retirement prezzie for myself.

Not going to make a habit of it, mind, but I played a lot of Forza (forget which one) when I had an Xbox 360, so knew I'd get a few hours out of it.

 

[Alexrose1uk]

Why on earth would I or should I pay the same price for a PC game as a console game; when part of the reason for the higher price on console has always been A) Physical Copy B) Console Platform Licensing Fees/Cut.

The PC doesn't have EITHER of those on a download title; yes I get the download bandwidth will invoke some costs; but no way I'm paying £65 on PC; I'll just play it on PS5.

 

[syks]

Nope, made the mistake of paying £75 for 2042 lol thats the most ive ever spent on a game, usually dont pay more than £25 for a pc game.

 

[Holst1981]

Personally I don't mind paying £75 for the right game.

But I won't ever pre order and would only pay that for something really special.

I don't tend to buy or play loads of games but those I enjoy I put plenty of hours in.
£75 for several hundred hours entertainment isn't bad value.

 

[Teaf]

I would only pay that much for a special edition physical copy; definitely not for a normal digital game.

 

[Syore]

No, I usually wait till a sale comes along, then i will think if its worth it or not.

 

[Disco_P]

£65 is worth it for some games but I'd only know that months after asking and a vast vast vast majority aren't worth it.

Tripple AAA games are letting me down with their AAA price tags, BF2042 polished dog turd and Cyberpunk are two games thatI have bought which turned out to be over hyped and barely in alpha state. Im going to try and stick to idie games and not buy games on AAA on lauch anymore.

Bit rich calling BF2042 "polished" in any way.

I see that some people say that they get 100s of hours of gameplay from some games, yes you do get good value then but there is always a risk that you might not like the game and get bored after just few hours which is the case for me a lot of times. Also a lot of recent AAA games are not ready at release, better to wait for few months until the game gets patched and buy at some sale which get get a lot of all the time.

If someone uses playtime as the first metric for a games quality, it's immediately a red flag. I want a good time from a game, not a long time.

 

[Throrik]

If someone uses playtime as the first metric for a games quality, it's immediately a red flag. I want a good time from a game, not a long time.

Doesn't have to be one or the other though, plenty of games I've put 300+ hours in to which hasn't been just 'time' but enjoyed and immersive.

 

[.Lethal]

Doesn't have to be one or the other though, plenty of games I've put 300+ hours in to which hasn't been just 'time' but enjoyed and immersive.

I'm in the same boat, I've played some games for hundred or many thousands and any with that sort of playtime hasn't been bad - who would invest that much time on a game that made them miserable.