The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Should we pay more for modern games?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2018 Category: Games
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 180 times Debate No: 106519
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




No we shouldn't. The funny thing is, that most older videogames are way better then the newer ones. The newer ones have loads of microtransactions, dlc that should already be main content, flashy hard to run graphics, overall just bad. The older videogames of a simpler time were better (then most modern games) and were cheaper. So how can you tell me that when quality drops price rises? It's a total scam, and then they have THE ODDASITY to make us pay for microtransactions otherwise we have to grind for 1000 hours. Unbelievable, and unacceptable.


It's quite funny you mention that when quality drops price rises. Do you define quality as how good the graphics are or how "fun" the games are to play? I am assuming that you are referring to both, so I will address each definition. First, it is impossible to prove that games were more fun in the past than they are now. Second, the games produced now of are very high quality, possessing a higher amount of detail and requiring higher computer graphics. This means more people with more training are required to produce these professional-grade games. Not surprisingly, producing a game like Call of Duty WWII would be more difficult and expensive to produce than, say, your favorite old online flash game.

Companies nowadays have the capital to produce such games because consumers are willing to pay for enhanced graphics. Consumers are also willing to pay for items such as in-app purchases. It is not a matter of right or wrong; it is capitalism at work. It is also not a" total scam", otherwise companies would not have made the transition. You are entitled to your own opinion, but so are other people. The great thing about capitalism is that it allows consumers' demands to be met, and hate it as you may, most consumers are willing to pay to for in-app purchases.
Debate Round No. 1


In app purchases ruin the game. It's basically pay to win, pay to get ahead of your friends not because your good at the game. Because you spent your money on the game. This ruins the experience, microtransactions should be merely cosmetic. Also i specifically said i mean quality of gameplay. In my opinion gameplay and experience should be what influences a price. Also back to my first thing do you really think it's fine for a game to be centered around who shovels the most money into the aaa game developers arse the fastest? Older games are cheaper and less scammy and shady. Plus most of the time when you buy stuff via microtransactions you get randomized loot boxes. Meaning YOU CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR SPECIFIC FRICKING THINGS ARE YOU KIDDING ME. That is LITERALLY gambling. You can't argue against my points against microtransactions you just can't. Microtransactions are fine if they are cosmetic but if they give you an advantage then that's just unfair and scummy and ruins the fun. The fun is playing the game and getting good not shoving money into the game so that you can unlock all the weapons at the beggining of the game. I know there are those who are fine with these cheeky practices, but that's the problem. If we all worked together to boycott microtransactions that give you an advantage in online videogames one game at a time then the developers would be bowing to our knees. As they should be already, we shouldn't allow this stuff to happen and it's people like you who support who are the reason why this problem still exists past the first day of the games release.


Wow very passionate. I can see you really don't like these micro transactions, but yes I can argue against your points about micro transactions. You are entitled to your own opinion that paying to get ahead in a game degrades the quality of the game, but other people may enjoy the fact that they can pay x amount of dollars to get ahead in the game or save time. Is it fine for a game to be centered around who pays the most money for it? Is it fine to gain an advantage through money? Well, if people really cared that much, they wouldn't play the game. People can choose for themselves what is fun and what is not fun, and it is a producer's decision to introduce micro transactions to a game. The argument I am trying to make is that people and producers should be free to make their own decisions, and if people are willing to pay for micro transactions and companies are willing to include it in their games, who are we to tell them that they are not allowed to? If micro transactions "ruin" a game, it doesn't matter if people still want to play it. And if micro transactions were really that bad, people would have already switched to other games that don't involve them a long time ago.
Debate Round No. 2


The reason why people play these games even though that paying to get ahead ruins the fun is because it is mostly the new generation. The people that haven't had any other experiences with games that don't have that sort of system. People that don't know any better, people willing to gamble their money on in game lootboxes to get ahead. If i asked my dad if i could have some money for that he'd probably think i'm an idiot or something for paying for such a obviously stupid thing. Either that, or hardcore fans that force themselves to like those games just because they're apart of a franchise they once loved. I know that it's only my opinion that paying to get ahead ruins the fun but cmon. I mean, making that arguement is like saying "oh i mean it's only your opinion that gambling is bad. It's only your opinion that spending loads of money is bad". See what i'm trying to say here? Honestly i just don't put up with stupid stuff like this and for as long as I live I never will. I'd even stop playing my favorite game of all time if it adopted a microtransactions system that allowed you to pay to get ahead. The fun of a game should be who gets good at it first, who gets the magic sword first, so on so on. Not who shoves the most money the fastest into a company's greedy little mouth.


You are completely entitled to your opinion that micro transactions are bad, and you are completely free to not play those games. However, if people are willing to pay for them, we have no right to get in their way, to take away their freedom of choice. People who don't want to pay have a plethora of other games to choose from.

Should we pay more for modern games? In a nutshell, if someone is willing to pay, then we should let them pay. We cannot take away the right of people to pay because a few of us think it ruins the fun. If it really does ruin the fun, then economics will eventually catch up. Good games are expensive to make, and micro transactions help support the development of these games. As far as I can see, micro transactions have only been increasing, and for a reason too. Perhaps micro transactions make the game less fun, perhaps they are the legs supporting the development of the really "fun" games. We should let consumers decide and leave it at that.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DRRayne111 1 day ago
its spelled Audacity....
Posted by Masterful 1 week ago
Posted by Masterful 1 week ago
Micro transaction, specifically loot boxes are a physiological ploy designed to drain the consumers of their money. These loot boxes use gambling strategies to trick and addict consumers into buying them. This is by definition anti-consumer and this is exactly why games are no longer of high quality.

No innovation is needed if the vast amount of revenue games make comes from loot boxes and other micro transactions. Therefore, we are left with 'sameish' games like the CoD franchise, which pumps out a similar game every year.

We have an emphasis on marketing, where game companies spend most of their budget on advertising their loot-box based games.
Much of their budget is spent on paying graphic designers at the expense of game play.

Cut content re-sold as 'DLC' pay to win.
This all equates to an anti-consumer product. Little innovation and a far larger price tag for consumers. The gaming industry is going down hill.
Posted by Leaning 1 week ago
Since video games are luxuries, does how high the price is really matter? Except for the people selling it, if they have it too high they won't make profit.
No votes have been placed for this debate.