EKGaming’s ‘Conversation Series’ is all about giving you, the gaming community, a voice. There are plenty of things to debate and talk about in the gaming world, but all too often the voice of gamers is forgotten in the shuffle. In ‘Conversation Series’ we give gamers a platform to voice their opinions on and encourage open and friendly debate in comments and on social media. Interested in writing a “Conversation” piece? Pitch us your idea here. 

Everyone is tripping over themselves complaining about loot boxes and microtransactions, but seemingly no one is coming up with an alternative.   

Microtransactions are awful and what EA has done with Battlefront II is a travesty, but there’s a reality that many gamers are failing to see. Game prices have stagnated at $50-60 for about three decades now. Just 20 years ago, a gallon of gas was $1.20, a movie ticket was $4.59 and the median household income was  $37,005. All of those things have risen significantly, but game prices haven’t. 

The truth is, it’s cheaper to be a gamer now than ever before. If you factor in inflation, consoles and games are significantly less expensive these days. Plus, there’s a plethora of free and cheap indie games out there, as well as free AAA games every month if you’re a Gold or Plus subscriber. 

Granted, it’s also cheaper and easier to create games nowadays. Technology has sprinted forward in leaps and bounds over the last 20 to 30 years, but as a result, games are of a much higher quality as well. 

Full price games that employ a pay-to-win mechanic are awful, plain and simple. You shouldn’t be able to gain a real advantage just because you’re able to pay more, that’s too much like real life. But microtransactions and loot boxes that give you cool cosmetic upgrades, that’s just a form of evolution. If you don’t like it, what’s your alternative?

Games aren’t going to be $60 out the door forever. There’s to much cost in making and marketing a game for that to be a sustainable business plan. The real question is, are you willing to pay more for a game if it’s complete and fully polished? How much more?

$60 in 1987 has the buying power of $133.09 in today’s economy. Are you willing to pay $130 for a new game? Factoring in inflation, $60 in 1997 is equivalent to $93.02 today. Is $90 a fair price to pay for a new game? Or would you rather pay $60 and keep microtransactions?

And how does DLC factor in? It wasn’t even a thing 30 years ago. And what about season passes for that matter?

In my opinion, it’s fair for a companies to ask for slightly more if they’re willing to produce fully polished games with reliable servers and minimal launch problems. I would, begrudgingly, buy next year’s top games for $80-90 if it meant no microtransactions and no season passes.

As for DLC, as long as it doesn’t feel as if it was just a chunk of the game that was held back for extra money, I’d be willing to pay for it. However, the price as it stands now is more than enough. 

What are your thoughts on how microtransactions and loot boxes should be handled moving forward? Let us know in the comments or on social media!