Full price games $85-$90

#1 Posted by Pedro (21558 posts) -

It just dawn on me that game publishers have technically raised the price of their games via DLC. If you are to purchase a full game it would be $60 base price and $25-$30 for the season pass. The worse part of it all is that with DLC you have to wait for the rest of the game to be released so they are not only raising the price but trickling the content as its being developed.

#3 Posted by Jacanuk (6030 posts) -

@Pedro said:

It just dawn on me that game publishers have technically raised the price of their games via DLC. If you are to purchase a full game it would be $60 base price and $25-$30 for the season pass. The worse part of it all is that with DLC you have to wait for the rest of the game to be released so they are not only raising the price but trickling the content as its being developed.

I dont agree

If you are a wise consumer you would also know how to get even new titles for less then full price.

#4 Posted by udUbdaWgz1 (633 posts) -

i can't wait for pc gaming.

and, xbox controllers.

#5 Posted by Pedro (21558 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

I dont agree

If you are a wise consumer you would also know how to get even new titles for less then full price.

So you don't agree that the price of games are $60 and the season pass is $25-$30? I didn't know that such info was an opinion.

#6 Posted by Jacanuk (6030 posts) -

@Pedro said:

@Jacanuk said:

I dont agree

If you are a wise consumer you would also know how to get even new titles for less than full price.

So you don't agree that the price of games are $60 and the season pass is $25-$30? I didn't know that such info was an opinion.

Right because that was what i disagreed with.

#7 Edited by Zen_Light (1764 posts) -

True. The Digital Guardian Edition of Destiny I paid for was $90. Although I don't normally pay that much for games I buy day one.

#8 Posted by Archangel3371 (16661 posts) -

I don't think that's a fair assumption. It costs money to make dlc also and it is extra content which one isn't obligated to buy so to say they raised the price of their games isn't really all that accurate.

#9 Posted by Jacanuk (6030 posts) -

@Archangel3371 said:

I don't think that's a fair assumption. It costs money to make dlc also and it is extra content which one isn't obligated to buy so to say they raised the price of their games isn't really all that accurate.

Exactly also as i said with the discounts that are almost always there even before release a game rarely cost 60$. So no they didn´t raise the price.

#10 Posted by BranKetra (50383 posts) -

@Archangel3371 said:

I don't think that's a fair assumption. It costs money to make dlc also and it is extra content which one isn't obligated to buy so to say they raised the price of their games isn't really all that accurate.

What many say is the issue is that video games in the past were generally as long as the sixty dollar versions of modern games plus the downloadable content.

#12 Posted by Archangel3371 (16661 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@Archangel3371 said:

I don't think that's a fair assumption. It costs money to make dlc also and it is extra content which one isn't obligated to buy so to say they raised the price of their games isn't really all that accurate.

What many say is the issue is that video games in the past were generally as long as the sixty dollar versions of modern games plus the downloadable content.

That seems like a broad generalisation to me as well. While I wouldn't say that it's entirely untrue I question the legitimacy on placing value on merely the number of hours it takes to play a game. One could simply put in bactracking and filler content or purposely slow down progression in a game and claim it has value because it takes X number of hours to play.

#13 Edited by jer_1 (7451 posts) -

Pretty ridiculous that I currently only own 2 PS4 games and no more. These greedy fucks just aren't making any progress with me at all. More people need to stop buying their overpriced and over-rated shitware and they'll literally have no choice but to drop prices.

PC is doing it right, I can find almost any game I'm interested in on PC at a fair price. Consoles offer me no tangible benefits and it costs more...fuck that noise.

#14 Posted by Mesomorphin (879 posts) -

In Australia thats how much it is for the base of a brand new game, not even the special edition or anything! Consider yourselves lucky.

#15 Posted by BranKetra (50383 posts) -

@Archangel3371 said:

@BranKetra said:

@Archangel3371 said:

I don't think that's a fair assumption. It costs money to make dlc also and it is extra content which one isn't obligated to buy so to say they raised the price of their games isn't really all that accurate.

What many say is the issue is that video games in the past were generally as long as the sixty dollar versions of modern games plus the downloadable content.

That seems like a broad generalisation to me as well. While I wouldn't say that it's entirely untrue I question the legitimacy on placing value on merely the number of hours it takes to play a game. One could simply put in bactracking and filler content or purposely slow down progression in a game and claim it has value because it takes X number of hours to play.

You are correct about backtracking and filler content. That said, reviews would have reflected that in which case the greatest deciding factor for or against this point by those who have said that would most likely be the total number of games and the average of their ranks divided by console generation.

#16 Posted by BranKetra (50383 posts) -

@Archangel3371 said:

@BranKetra said:

@Archangel3371 said:

I don't think that's a fair assumption. It costs money to make dlc also and it is extra content which one isn't obligated to buy so to say they raised the price of their games isn't really all that accurate.

What many say is the issue is that video games in the past were generally as long as the sixty dollar versions of modern games plus the downloadable content.

That seems like a broad generalisation to me as well. While I wouldn't say that it's entirely untrue I question the legitimacy on placing value on merely the number of hours it takes to play a game. One could simply put in bactracking and filler content or purposely slow down progression in a game and claim it has value because it takes X number of hours to play.

You are correct about backtracking and filler content. That said, reviews would have reflected that in which case the greatest deciding factor for or against this point by those who have said that would most likely be the total number of games and the average of their ranks divided by console generation.

#17 Posted by wiouds (5622 posts) -

The DLC are extra options. You still get the complete game for $60. That you can pick and choose what you want. DLC is the best way for game deveoplers to make games with the raising cost of making games and gamers refusing to pay more.

#18 Posted by ShepardCommandr (3394 posts) -

or you good just wait for the steam sales and goty editions

#19 Posted by Notorious1234NA (1563 posts) -

Yeah what you mean full price oO

DLC or add-ons or expansions

#20 Posted by The_Last_Ride (75402 posts) -

@Pedro said:

It just dawn on me that game publishers have technically raised the price of their games via DLC. If you are to purchase a full game it would be $60 base price and $25-$30 for the season pass. The worse part of it all is that with DLC you have to wait for the rest of the game to be released so they are not only raising the price but trickling the content as its being developed.

it's 120 bucks here without the DLC...