All of these arguments have merit, and like a lot of old-time gamers, I am not terribly fond personally of the way things are heading (though I’ve learned to adapt to reality well enough I think, largely by being vastly more selective in my game buying). I have a hard time getting worked up about most of these discussions about monetization and pricing though. While some aspects are truly disturbing–exploiting people with addictive tendencies, exploitation of children, outright deception, for instance–I find it hard to really get angry about video game business practices when there are so many other things wrong with our political economy, things that are literally life and death matters.
And they are all related, through the mechanism of market economics and neo-liberal beliefs about corporations, property, and profit. In such a landscape, bitching about the price of games, while totally understandable (and after all, we’re gamers, and this is a gaming forum), isn’t getting at the core of the problem. Game monetization is not an isolated thing. It is a symptom of a deeper problem IMO.
Sure. As I’ve said, I’m not a fan of $70 pricing and I definitely don’t like battle passes or loot-boxes that work on FOMO and gambling instincts.
At a certain point though, I have to shift over to blaming the consumer for not taking responsibility for their impulses. Jedi Survivor isn’t even a multiplayer game, so you’re not missing out on anything substantial by waiting. Other players aren’t going to pass you up in ranking or anything like that. Just be patient and wait for the launch day impressions from folks you trust.
Thankfully, I am capable of being angry about multiple things at once! :)
I agree though. It isn’t the root cause, and it isn’t the biggest issue. It’s another point where consumers are taking it in the shorts for the benefit of profits uber alles corporations. Everything you like is being made worse and the planet is being sucked dry of its resources so the C-suites can get a bigger bonus.
That’s pretty much where I’m at. There are certain monetization schemes that I think are scummy (gacha) but I mostly just avoid those and play something else rather than get too worked up about it. Same with Battle Passes. I think that form of monetization makes some sense for a live service game, but I do have issues in that I really only have time to devote to one at a time. That just means other games don’t get played by me or at least don’t get my battle pass money.
I can totally understand why certain monetization models don’t work for individuals, but I can’t empathize too much with getting angry over it aside from the case where it’s a much-beloved franchise that fans feel was changed/ruined by it or that sort of thing. Generally, there are so many games out there there are options that suit my preferences so I just go with that. From my perspective, life’s too short to be angry or outraged over a DLC being $15 when it “should” have been $10 or the price of a hat in a MTX shop.
I’ll leave this little chestnut here. The video is back from 2016, and the lizard person in the human suit here to my great disappointment still breathes.
This is the kind of mechanics you have to deal with these days. It’s bad enough when you know what to look for.
Can’t you return stuff on Steam as long as you haven’t played two hours within 14 days? That seems pretty reasonable. You ought to know by then if it’s a dud or not if you really want to be a day one guinea pig.
As for $70 games… it’s not like this is the first time games have cost that much. Final Fantasy III (VI) was $79.99US on launch day on SNES.
Starfox was a $59.99 release. There are some pix of the Electronics Boutique ad. Many games were $49.99 around that time so even that was a $10 premium.
Other than Neo Geo, which were in the hundreds, most 16-bit era games stayed below that $80 threshold and few were that high. Notable outliers were Virtua Racing and Phantasy Star IV on Genesis which went for $89.99 and $99.99 respectively iirc.
About that, here’s an example of extremely scummy business practices with regards to game pricing and “deluxe editions”:
Square Enix recently released Theatrhythm Final Fantasy: Final Bar Line, the newest iteration of their Final Fantasy rhythm game spinoff. It’s really cool, and the base game is only $50!
Except there’s a “digital deluxe” edition for $80 that includes a big pile of exclusive songs, plus the first few DLC packs. This wouldn’t be so bad either, except there’s no upgrade path to get those exclusive songs if you only bought the base game or if you bought a physical copy. If you want those songs - which are a big deal, both because 27 songs in a rhythm game is a significant amount of content and because a lot of very popular Final Fantasy songs are included in the list - you have to spend at least $80 on the game, and you have to do so up front, since you can’t upgrade to that version later if you bought the base game.
Yuck. It would be much more palatable (sucky, still, but much better) if they simply sold the damn thing at $79.99. But they seem determined to get as much money from people as possible, hoping for people to pay for the base game and then for the other edition both.
Oh man, those layoffs, they just come out of nowhere and impact you. Tough, right? Just like when the tree branch fell on my car during the storm last week!
It’s better mechanically, has a bigger multiplayer scene, has more great DLC, has a ton of free community-made content, and plays smoother on lower-end systems. It’s a tough act to beat for sure.
Ah, it looks like the issue here is slightly different - for some reason, it doesn’t seem to be available through Nintendo’s Web interface for the Switch e-Shop, which I had been checking periodically since release.
Not sure what’s up with that, because I can access full DLC lists on there for other games, including for other SE-published games with large amounts of DLC, but that game has only ever showed me a few song packs, and the digital deluxe upgrade isn’t in there. It’s there on console, though, and on the PlayStation Store’s Web interface, so no idea what the deal is here.
Regardless, my initial complaint for that game since before release still stands: they locked exclusive game content, and a meaningful amount of it at that, to an expensive premium edition that costs more than a regular AAA game in 2023! At least most deluxe editions just give you silly physical goods or cosmetic in-game items, not this nonsense.
