Should Game Prices Reflect Post-Launch Content?

[killamch89]

With the rise of live-service games and DLC, should the price of a game adjust based on the content players receive after launch? Some games offer extensive updates and expansions, while others remain relatively static. Do you think game prices should account for ongoing content or be fixed regardless of post-launch additions? Where do you draw the line between fair pricing and exploiting consumers with excessive DLC or microtransactions?

[Scorpion]

Game prices should reflect ongoing content and updates, promoting fairness. However, excessive DLC and microtransactions can exploit consumers, crossing ethical boundaries.

[killamch89]

I think game prices should stay fixed at launch, but there should be a clear distinction between core content and post-launch content. Expansions and DLC should be optional and add value without feeling like mandatory purchases for a complete experience.

[The Blackangel]

Game prices should stay in one place. If someone wants exclusive content, they have the right to pay for it. If someone else doesn’t want it, it’s not right to make them pay for something they’re not interested in. It’s flat out corporate abuse. If that’s where the world is going to, then I’m done. I will not be gaming again on ANYTHING modern.

Edited January 13 by The Blackangel

[Knight Barida]

9 hours ago, killamch89 said:

I think game prices should stay fixed at launch, but there should be a clear distinction between core content and post-launch content. Expansions and DLC should be optional and add value without feeling like mandatory purchases for a complete experience.

 

Making expansions optional is very important because as long as it is not done, a lot of players will feel that they are being limited to playing the particular game.