As Nintendo takes the first step toward selling full-priced, AAA games at $80 and Xbox starts to follow suit but backs off, EA has now also made its position clear: no $80 games...for now.
I don’t understand looking at Sims 4 as an example. The game has had progressive additions for a long time; it’s basically a live service game, and now comes free.
It’s rare for anyone to feel they want all the DLC - usually it would just be a few things they want and have fun with.
I actually do want all the DLC in a game like that. The fact it’s prohibitively expensive just means I’ve never actually bought any and stick to the Sims 3, a game where I do have all the expansions.
True, but iirc sims 4 also released in a more cut-down state than sims 3 - in fact it was one of the pioneers of “paradoxification” of games and victim of other bullshit that EA was trying to pull, just like with simcity.
Anyway, my point was that with EA the up-front price they charge is not awfully relevant, because you have lootboxes, p2w, mtx, gambling, dlc of varying dollar value etc. so you might end up paying a crapload, live service or not.
The base price increase would still raise the total with DLC. Not including the DLC is still worth talking about, since there are plenty of ways to enjoy a game without it.
well DLC has always cost money on top of the base game so i’m not sure what your point is.
edit:
you’re ignoring that if you buy all DLCs you get much more content compared to old $60 games. If you want to look at this fairly you need to come up with some way of quantifying the content involved which is not easy to do.
I do agree that some DLCs are clearly designed as money grabs (like most premium/gold launch editions). But i disagree with lumping all DLC into that category, especially bigger expansions that release a year or more later.
The ones by big publishers? No, they’re feature complete at best for the sake of the game loop but sell the rest in overpriced DLCs. The base game is the hook, that’s why Epic keeps giving some away for free or are sold at a heavy discount on Steam. You only need to scroll down to notice.
agree to disagree i guess. i don’t find base games to be any less feature complete than they ever were. they fact that DLCs are sold on top of the base game does not change that.
They’re already charging way more than that when you count all the DLC.
Yeah, wasn’t sims 4 with all dlc like 1 grand just a couple yeara ago?
Some of those were not even worth buying. All the Stuff packs seem like a scam.
I don’t understand looking at Sims 4 as an example. The game has had progressive additions for a long time; it’s basically a live service game, and now comes free.
It’s rare for anyone to feel they want all the DLC - usually it would just be a few things they want and have fun with.
I actually do want all the DLC in a game like that. The fact it’s prohibitively expensive just means I’ve never actually bought any and stick to the Sims 3, a game where I do have all the expansions.
True, but iirc sims 4 also released in a more cut-down state than sims 3 - in fact it was one of the pioneers of “paradoxification” of games and victim of other bullshit that EA was trying to pull, just like with simcity.
Anyway, my point was that with EA the up-front price they charge is not awfully relevant, because you have lootboxes, p2w, mtx, gambling, dlc of varying dollar value etc. so you might end up paying a crapload, live service or not.
The base price increase would still raise the total with DLC. Not including the DLC is still worth talking about, since there are plenty of ways to enjoy a game without it.
Ya like being a patient gamer haha.
I have such a backlog of stuff I wanna play that I just wishlist it and when the price feels right down the line I’ll buy it for the backlog.
Or be risky and go indie. I got Valheim long ago, prices always go up.
well DLC has always cost money on top of the base game so i’m not sure what your point is.
edit:
you’re ignoring that if you buy all DLCs you get much more content compared to old $60 games. If you want to look at this fairly you need to come up with some way of quantifying the content involved which is not easy to do.
I do agree that some DLCs are clearly designed as money grabs (like most premium/gold launch editions). But i disagree with lumping all DLC into that category, especially bigger expansions that release a year or more later.
That the game is broken up into parts to charge more instead of, you know, making the game feature-rich in the first place.
do you not agree most games ARE feature rich in the first place? I mean compared to old $60 games.
The ones by big publishers? No, they’re feature complete at best for the sake of the game loop but sell the rest in overpriced DLCs. The base game is the hook, that’s why Epic keeps giving some away for free or are sold at a heavy discount on Steam. You only need to scroll down to notice.
agree to disagree i guess. i don’t find base games to be any less feature complete than they ever were. they fact that DLCs are sold on top of the base game does not change that.
The point is that AAA games already cost well above $80.
which is a disingenuous way of framing the issue. if you’re including DLC you’re also getting much more content than old $60 games.