Industry [Rant] Gaming is too expensive.

[Raine]

There's no real point to this, I don't think anyone actually disagrees, just... today has been kind of one of those days for me. Y'know?

Microsoft has been increasing the price on their stuff in select markets (read: not the US, yet) despite being in a distant third place. Today, folks discovered that the "promotional" conversion available to turn Xbox Live Gold into Game Pass Ultimate has now been changed from a 1:1 to 3:2 ratio. Which is still good, don't misunderstand. But this also coincides with them increasing the price of Game Pass (+ Ultimate). So... good job, I guess? Gonna make it real hard to convince casual friends to keep that subscription going.

Atlus has also released a survey kind of spoiling the fact that Persona 3 Reload, which is based on vanilla P3 and won't have The Journey (from P3 FES) nor the female protagonist (from P3 Portable), is going to be $69.99. I fuckin' love MegaTen, P3 is my favorite Persona game by a wide margin, and I was Day -1... right until I read that price tag. Now I don't give a fuck. I decided back when the price increases started happening that I wasn't partaking; litmus test passed. I mean, I'm an adult, I can absolutely afford it. I'm just... not going to. Fuck that.

How about the rest of y'all? Where's your "yeah I'll buy it at that price" amount gravitating around of late? Mine's about a tree fiddy $15 at this point, barring an exceptionally small list I want to actively support (unless they're priced $69.99?!).

 

[Boots]

I can afford it, but I'm being stubborn and not buying Diablo IV until it goes on sale. Just on principal. I have plenty of other games to play until it does, and I don't have the time to dedicate to playing it intensely right now.

I get spoiled by Steam pricing. I rarely spend $60-100 on a game. I didn't even spend $70 on TotK. I waited a week and got it for $60. I don't like spending more than $40 on a game.

 

[The Eye in the Sky!]

Compared to inflation over the past 30 years I feel like gaming has been pretty stagnant. I'm ok paying $70 for a game I want. I never buy special editions, but if you do then expect to pay a ton.

Development costs a lot of money, gotta make sure people are being paid for their work.

 

[Mark]

I draw the line at scalpers charging $1,500+ for a PS5. I just got a PS4 pro two years ago, I don’t play enough to rationalize paying Day 1 prices for systems and games, and like @Boots, I have plenty to keep me busy until the prices come down. It’s nothing personal to the developers, and I’m not trying to seem cheap… but gaming just isn’t something I’m going to drop that kinda money on unless it’s a particular title I’ve waited a while for… like GTAVI, I’ll definitely get that right away.

My beef with companies that charge that much for a game is that it almost seems like the more time goes on… the more we see incomplete projects released. I’m all for expansions… but it’s not an expansion if the main story is less than 20-25 hours… like Dead Island 2. I loved that game, but compared to the others, it was far too short of a game. I’m gonna be real pissed if they come out with a DLC 6-12mos post release and try charging usual DLC prices for it.

 

[Spiner202]

I think there are two separate issues here, and I'll start with the less controversial one (and the one I don't think this topic is about, but is relevant):

1. Games are too expensive to make. I appreciate the increase in scale in the size, scale, and graphics of games these days, but frankly, these aren't the things that make games great most of the time. Sony and Nintendo have figured out how to manage these monolithic development times and costs in a way that ensures that they have a reasonably steady stream of games each year, but the PS5 still feels pretty dry (possibly because the large install base of the PS4 made Sony hesitant to abandon it, so we got fewer next-gen games than we should have), and the Switch had this problem at the beginning.

I think back to an era where GTA III and Vice City came out in consecutive years, and San Andreas just two years later. A more modern example is Bioshock, where 3 games were released every 3 years - even that feels too fast for today. This largely comes down to cost and scale. If companies could bring this down, I think it would also reflect in the retail price of games.

2. As for the cost of the game itself, I'm not too bothered for non-Nintendo and non-sports games. There are more games than anyone can play these days, and while it is admittedly fun to join the hype train on Reddit (and now, Gamewinners and Threads!) when you buy a new release, I have no problem waiting 1-3 years for games to come down in price. If you wait long enough, you can get just about anything for $20 (which is a steal, now that games retail at $90 Canadian, which is over $100 after tax).

Sports games are a separate issue because they're essentially just roster updates, so if you don't buy it while the season is ongoing, it's not much fun. I think my days of Madden are over for now though.

Nintendo games are the most frustrating because the sales are limited and take a while to even materialize. Personally, if I want a Nintendo game, I just buy it on release. I'm more selective about what I buy, and play fewer games on my Switch than on my PS5 as a result. I'm ok with the tradeoff because Nintendo tends to make polished games that are higher quality than the average game. I wouldn't say I'm happy with the price I pay, and I'm nervous about where the costs could go in the future, but I probably buy 1-3 new games a year at this price, so it's manageable.

I haven't factored in subscription costs, but I'll just say that I think they're too high, and I'm worried about being locked into so many of them.

 

[Crystal]

Gaming is a victim of its' own success, honestly. Everyone wants the next AAA title, but that title costs more and more and more to produce, so of course gaming as a whole gets more expensive. Shame, but that's the way it goes. I can't afford it, I earn pennies a week and by time I fill the tank and feed my mother I'm broke. So I scrape around for dirt cheap deals, freebies or just muddle through my backlog. If I was still making my old salary I'd probably be nonchalant about the costs, because I could afford it, but I just plain can't anymore. Haven't bought a game in a long time, haven't gone to a pawn shop or thrift store looking for deals in a long time, either. Just beyond me.

 

[turkey]

Everything is too expensive!!

Currently I have an Xbox and PS subscription for a gaming bill but I don’t buy actual new games often. At most I’ll buy a random port on the switch lite.

However, I’m probably going to crack and get the new FF and then FF7 Rebirth if I know I’ll have time to play them. I can justify a $70 expense if I know I’ll get my money’s worth. I only take chances on my subscribed games.

 

[Raine]

Development costs a lot of money, gotta make sure people are being paid for their work.

I would stomach this a bit easier, at least, if this were actually the case. Unfortunately having spent 20 years in the immediate orbit of the gaming industry, that's sadly not the case. Microsoft, as an example and because I'm already busting their balls, mandates that a set percentage - a large percentage, like 20% or more - of their employees are contractors. This way they onboard contractors for full-scale development, shit the game out, and then lay off/decline to renew all of those people. So as to minimize costs to themselves; not having to pay for benefits and whatnot.

The gaming industry is fucking cancer, man. Plus, games have been more than $60 for at least a decade now anyway, under the guise of "development costs have increased." Ignoring that the move from $50 to $60 was already done for that reason. That's why we have DLC, premium cosmetics, lootboxes, season passes, battle passes, etc, etc. All of which, I must add, have remained on top of the push to increase to $70.

There's the function of AA gaming having completely died off/been killed off in the switch to HD, too. So like, we don't have mid-tier games that cost $40 or something. Nintendo doesn't do their Player's Choice/Greatest Hits line anymore that I'm aware of, so instead of being able to buy Mario Kart 8 or Breath of the Wild or Mario Odyssey for $20 those are still full MSRP $60 minus timed sales. Digital distribution has overtaken physical in most regions, but those additional margins just get siphoned by the executive class - we don't see digital games releasing at $42-$49 or whatever.

...I'm ranting. But this is a rant thread. I marked it as such!

My beef with companies that charge that much for a game is that it almost seems like the more time goes on… the more we see incomplete projects released. I’m all for expansions… but it’s not an expansion if the main story is less than 20-25 hours… like Dead Island 2. I loved that game, but compared to the others, it was far too short of a game. I’m gonna be real pissed if they come out with a DLC 6-12mos post release and try charging usual DLC prices for it.

I don't necessarily draw the line at a certain time estimate or anything, but... yes. Absolutely yes. It is undeniable that many games release intentionally incomplete to sell you the remainder later. Persona 3 in my opening post is doing just that. There is zero chance Atlus won't re-release P3Reload with the missing content as a separate $70 purchase, or at minimum release that content as super expensive DLC, despite all of that stuff having released almost 15 years ago!

Or, Final Fantasy XV. They completely removed the opening of the game and sold it to people as a movie. And they removed other parts of the story and put it into an anime (that was free, but still), and yet more parts that you had to purchase DLC to see. Characters literally just fuck off for periods of time and come back changed in some way with no explanation unless you purchase and go through said DLC.

It's fuckin' horrible.

I think back to an era where GTA III and Vice City came out in consecutive years, and San Andreas just two years later. A more modern example is Bioshock, where 3 games were released every 3 years - even that feels too fast for today. This largely comes down to cost and scale. If companies could bring this down, I think it would also reflect in the retail price of games.

On the flip side: There's a new Yakuza game dropping basically every year, and those games aren't exactly tiny. They just aren't massively bloated open-worlds that require 1,000+ people from multiple development studios to pump out.

I feel like the push for bleeding edge is just excess for the sake of excess. Games pushed for 4k way too soon, they make open and empty worlds when they don't need to, they try and aim for photorealism when even later PS360 games would be more than adequate. We're 3 years into this generation and only now have proper exclusives started to arrive, and those aren't that much of a jump over what came before.

And then you have shit like Redfall.

This isn't sustainable. For anyone.

Shame, but that's the way it goes. I can't afford it, I earn pennies a week and by time I fill the tank and feed my mother I'm broke. So I scrape around for dirt cheap deals, freebies or just muddle through my backlog. If I was still making my old salary I'd probably be nonchalant about the costs, because I could afford it, but I just plain can't anymore. Haven't bought a game in a long time, haven't gone to a pawn shop or thrift store looking for deals in a long time, either. Just beyond me.

Aye, I apologize for the crass wording.

 

[The Flame]

I'm more the type to ignore most games and then impulse buy things at whatever price when I feel like playing them, but seeing $70 price tags is definitely gross. If that becomes the new norm it'll piss me off, but as someone who plays almost exclusively Switch and PC these days, there's no avoiding it for some things. If you want a Switch game you're probably paying full price for that shit no matter how old it is. But I can't say I remember the last time I bought something on Steam that wasn't on sale, so I suppose it balances out a bit. I'm probably going to start using those Nintendo voucher things on everything going forward since I rarely buy new games.

My beef with companies that charge that much for a game is that it almost seems like the more time goes on… the more we see incomplete projects released. I’m all for expansions… but it’s not an expansion if the main story is less than 20-25 hours… like Dead Island 2. I loved that game, but compared to the others, it was far too short of a game. I’m gonna be real pissed if they come out with a DLC 6-12mos post release and try charging usual DLC prices for it.

This is my main gripe these days. I've always been a big Nintendo guy but it seems like more and more quality is being sacrificed in favor of timely releases. I bought Animal Crossing New Horizons at full price on release and, instead of just giving us things that have been in the series for years, they dripfed us little updates over the next year or so and still ended up with a disappointing end product. The game is over 3 years old but I'd be willing to bet it still costs 60 bucks too. The Mario sports games have become very barebones and boring in recent iterations and the most DLC we ever get for those is a couple new characters. Not Nintendo, but Sonic Frontiers was fun and had a lot of potential, but in the later stages of the game it became VERY clear that it was rushed out before they could finish whatever the initial vision was for the game. And yet they still had an entire roadmap of multiple DLC drops planned for it. I wish these big companies still prioritized making a fun final product and delayed things more often instead of barfing out whatever they have on release and saying "Fuck it, we'll finish it next year. We have a deadline to make".

 

[The Eye in the Sky!]

I would stomach this a bit easier, at least, if this were actually the case. Unfortunately having spent 20 years in the immediate orbit of the gaming industry, that's sadly not the case. Microsoft, as an example and because I'm already busting their balls, mandates that a set percentage - a large percentage, like 20% or more - of their employees are contractors. This way they onboard contractors for full-scale development, shit the game out, and then lay off/decline to renew all of those people. So as to minimize costs to themselves; not having to pay for benefits and whatnot.

The gaming industry is fucking cancer, man. Plus, games have been more than $60 for at least a decade now anyway, under the guise of "development costs have increased." Ignoring that the move from $50 to $60 was already done for that reason. That's why we have DLC, premium cosmetics, lootboxes, season passes, battle passes, etc, etc. All of which, I must add, have remained on top of the push to increase to $70.

I'm not in disagreement here, there are some garbage companies and the way they exploit their developers and artists is awful - its the reason I quickly switched from game dev in college - but my mindset as a consumer is that I'm okay paying $70 or $80 for a game that will give me hours of enjoyment. Going out to dinner without my kids costs me $100 for a 2 hour experience, so $70 for 10-60 hours is fully worth it to me.

I do tend to avoid certain publishers when I can to not feed into the treatment of the gaming workers, but overall I have no problem with the cost.

I do draw a line with - Free to play can have purchasable content - $60-$70 games should not. I will not stray from that opinion.

 

[Kat]

I think the outrage over game prices "increasing" is a bit funny, personally. Yes, they have gone up in absolute terms, but so has everything. $60 ten years ago was worth more than $70 today. These are game prices over the years adjusted for inflation:


The periodic bumps in prices are just adjusting for inflation. They don't actually cost more, despite games having a lot more content nowadays.

It's difficult to get a better bang for your buck than a game you can play for 200 hours. The current price is an absolute steal, and I'll happily pay it every time.

 

[Raine]

It's difficult to get a better bang for your buck than a game you can play for 200 hours. The current price is an absolute steal, and I'll happily pay it every time.

This is a tricky argument. Consider how much relative value one gets out of old arcade games, or from Gen 3/4/5 games. Those were designed, ostensibly, to be played repeatedly. Branching paths, alternate endings, strong emphasis on just a fun gameplay loop as opposed to a one-and-done, never changing, narrative-driven campaign. You might reach the end of the game in ~2 hours, but getting to the end wasn't necessarily the point.

Look at the general reception post-launch to things like Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, Origins or Valhalla. I would rather shoot myself in the face with a stapler, repeatedly, than ever touch AC Unity (the first RPG-lite AC) again - and those three are apparently worse! I will find out firsthand sometime this year/next year, because I'm a masochist. They're long, sure, but uh, AC ain't never justified its runtime from the word go. Padding and fetch quests do not good content make. The Complete Edition of Valhalla goes for $140, which is just "absolutely fuck no are you drunk Ubisoft lololol" territory.

See also: The Scourge of Scale


Fun aside - Persona 3, which was the primary catalyst for this rant, is still Top 3 in my "how long did one playthrough take." Clocking in at 120 or so hours.

Also - pending incoming rant thread about some of this in a different wrapper. Need @Rachel to post her thread first, maybe.

 

[Mark]

This is a tricky argument. Consider how much relative value one gets out of old arcade games, or from Gen 3/4/5 games. Those were designed, ostensibly, to be played repeatedly. Branching paths, alternate endings, strong emphasis on just a fun gameplay loop as opposed to a one-and-done, never changing, narrative-driven campaign. You might reach the end of the game in ~2 hours, but getting to the end wasn't necessarily the point.

Look at the general reception post-launch to things like Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, Origins or Valhalla. I would rather shoot myself in the face with a stapler, repeatedly, than ever touch AC Unity (the first RPG-lite AC) again - and those three are apparently worse! I will find out firsthand sometime this year/next year, because I'm a masochist. They're long, sure, but uh, AC ain't never justified its runtime from the word go. Padding and fetch quests do not good content make. The Complete Edition of Valhalla goes for $140, which is just "absolutely fuck no are you drunk Ubisoft lololol" territory.

See also: The Scourge of Scale


Fun aside - Persona 3, which was the primary catalyst for this rant, is still Top 3 in my "how long did one playthrough take." Clocking in at 120 or so hours.

Also - pending incoming rant thread about some of this in a different wrapper. Need @Rachel to post her thread first, maybe.

My addition to this is I played about 20 hours of Valhalla because the base game was available on PS+. At that point, it became locked and unavailable… and now there are multiple bundle versions out on the regular market. I was honestly not impressed with it enough to drop even $40 on the base game now that it’s back on the regular store.

 

[Kat]

This is a tricky argument. Consider how much relative value one gets out of old arcade games, or from Gen 3/4/5 games. Those were designed, ostensibly, to be played repeatedly. Branching paths, alternate endings, strong emphasis on just a fun gameplay loop as opposed to a one-and-done, never changing, narrative-driven campaign. You might reach the end of the game in ~2 hours, but getting to the end wasn't necessarily the point.

Look at the general reception post-launch to things like Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, Origins or Valhalla. I would rather shoot myself in the face with a stapler, repeatedly, than ever touch AC Unity (the first RPG-lite AC) again - and those three are apparently worse! I will find out firsthand sometime this year/next year, because I'm a masochist. They're long, sure, but uh, AC ain't never justified its runtime from the word go. Padding and fetch quests do not good content make. The Complete Edition of Valhalla goes for $140, which is just "absolutely fuck no are you drunk Ubisoft lololol" territory.

See also: The Scourge of Scale


Fun aside - Persona 3, which was the primary catalyst for this rant, is still Top 3 in my "how long did one playthrough take." Clocking in at 120 or so hours.

Also - pending incoming rant thread about some of this in a different wrapper. Need @Rachel to post her thread first, maybe.

Arcade games can soak you for a lot more than $70. I easily spend $20+ on a single afternoon in an arcade. And sure, some games are too long for the sake of being long, I'll grant you that. But some have hundreds of hours of engaging content, and even a 40 hour game done well at that price point is still a deal.

Yes, maybe some games are an even better deal, but compare it instead to other forms of entertainment: movies, going out to eat, shows, amusement parks, and sports games. The only thing I can think of that could compete is books, and even those can cost as much as an indie game if you're buying them both new. (Obviously there's lots of cheap and free entertainment you can make yourself, but that's apples and oranges.)

 

[Quagmire]

Atlus has also released a survey kind of spoiling the fact that Persona 3 Reload, which is based on vanilla P3 and won't have The Journey (from P3 FES) nor the female protagonist (from P3 Portable), is going to be $69.99. I fuckin' love MegaTen, P3 is my favorite Persona game by a wide margin, and I was Day -1... right until I read that price tag. Now I don't give a fuck. I decided back when the price increases started happening that I wasn't partaking; litmus test passed. I mean, I'm an adult, I can absolutely afford it. I'm just... not going to. Fuck that.

How about the rest of y'all? Where's your "yeah I'll buy it at that price" amount gravitating around of late? Mine's about a tree fiddy $15 at this point, barring an exceptionally small list I want to actively support (unless they're priced $69.99?!).

Im a big patient gamer, waiting for sales and rarely buy a game at release

Honestly the Journey sucked IMO and dont mind that being cut, I can also live without female protag but I get why some would want her.

Different games have different price points, just bought the Messenger for $5, most indie games I look for sub 10. I bought Like a Dragon Ishin for $40 because Im a huge fan of the series. If I ever get Horizon Zero Dawn 2 (or what ever it is called), I'll wait until it's 20 or less. That is what I did with Ghost of Tsushima, and what I'll do with Great Ace Attorney Chronicles when ever I decide Im ready for 70hr game

 

[Quagmire]

I think the outrage over game prices "increasing" is a bit funny, personally. Yes, they have gone up in absolute terms, but so has everything. $60 ten years ago was worth more than $70 today. These are game prices over the years adjusted for inflation:

View attachment 881
The periodic bumps in prices are just adjusting for inflation. They don't actually cost more, despite games having a lot more content nowadays.

It's difficult to get a better bang for your buck than a game you can play for 200 hours. The current price is an absolute steal, and I'll happily pay it every time.

Yep, I totally remember paying $50 for my genesis games. Im surprised PS1 is that high, they were cheaper than 64 games almost always. Like $40 for new games I feel like at the time (though I didnt get my ps1 until around 98 so maybe they started higher)

 

[Raine]

My addition to this is I played about 20 hours of Valhalla because the base game was available on PS+. At that point, it became locked and unavailable… and now there are multiple bundle versions out on the regular market. I was honestly not impressed with it enough to drop even $40 on the base game now that it’s back on the regular store.

I used AC as the example specifically because it's (rightfully) the industry punching bag and had the biggest net available to snag opinions. Worked like a charm!

I would be curious to know what specifically either turned you off of the game, or gave you enough in that 20 hours to feel satisfied that you'd seen everything worth seeing? This is, again, something I want to (and will!) rant about in a dedicated thread, but I do feel like after Brotherhood* all of the AC games were just big for the sake of being big. So much so that it bogged down the narrative and made finding the fun stuff a chore all its own.

* AC2 and Brotherhood are for all intents and purposes two halves of a single game. Together, in one package, I sort of wonder if anyone - myself included - would remember it as fondly. They're about 20 hours long individually IIRC.

Arcade games can soak you for a lot more than $70. I easily spend $20+ on a single afternoon in an arcade. And sure, some games are too long for the sake of being long, I'll grant you that. But some have hundreds of hours of engaging content, and even a 40 hour game done well at that price point is still a deal.

Definitely. Arcades are/were an Experience™ too, so gotta factor in drinks and food as well. Though I did mean more in the style of arcade games (or I guess home console ports of arcade games) rather than actually going to the arcade.

It's basically why a contingent of gaming enthusiasts aren't too happy with Sony. Sony only wants big blockbuster games that are, unfortunately, narrative-heavy and don't really offer much or anything in terms of replay value. Completely one-and-done affairs. There's the (lack of) "whimsy" argument that plays a part too, but I think that's more a supplementary argument than one that stands entirely on its own merits.

Yes, maybe some games are an even better deal, but compare it instead to other forms of entertainment: movies, going out to eat, shows, amusement parks, and sports games. The only thing I can think of that could compete is books, and even those can cost as much as an indie game if you're buying them both new. (Obviously there's lots of cheap and free entertainment you can make yourself, but that's apples and oranges.)

Hah, yeah, I feel you on that. But that's also a big component of why gaming is my hobby (poor life decision) of choice. As a kid I couldn't afford to buy games, but I damn sure had a different new game every week thanks to rentals being a thing to bolster the handful of great ones I did own that were constantly in rotation.

I've had GamePass Ultimate for, I don't know, 4 years now? But I've never actually launched a single game through it. Something might drop Day 1 on GamePass, but if I want to play it (see: Persona 3 Portable) I just buy it and play it. It's weird. I just don't feel like anything I see is in that category of "Eh, I'll drop 2~10 hours on this thing I otherwise wouldn't purchase."

I'm sure the fact that I've played over a thousand different games and have spent more time in one (maybe two) game(s) than the average person will spend playing games in their entire lifetime has nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing at all.

Honestly the Journey sucked IMO and dont mind that being cut, I can also live without female protag but I get why some would want her.

Quagmire!

I think I've been pretty consistent about shitting on The Answer since 2008! It's horrible. It's fucking awful. It's everything that ever has been, and ever will be, wrong with MegaTen. Cheap and frustrating for the sheer point of being cheap and frustrating. And, for good measure, the narrative and characterizations of the cast left a ton to be desired.

Still, there is no "Definitive" edition of P3 in existence. If Atlus wants $70, they need to hit that extraordinarily low bar. They failed.

Different games have different price points

Like that you'll purchase at? 'Cause I definitely agree on that. Got Armored Core 6 preordered and will have a grand time playing that for $60; had absolutely no qualms paying $40 for Katamari Damacy Reroll.

But a big problem is that pricing tiers don't exist in the AAA sphere, and there isn't really much of anything in between Indie and AAA. The only discrepancy in the AAA sphere, no matter genre or scale (WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU PAY $70 FOR A FUCKING FIGHTING GAME THAT'S GOING TO HAVE DLC CHARACTERS ON TOP OF THAT JESUS FUCKING CHRIST WARNER BROS*), is simply whether the publisher has hit the "Yes, another $10 please" button or not. More and more are pushing my that button.


* Mortal Kombat and Soul Calibur are historically the only fighting game series I play. They can both die in a fire at $60, even.

 

[Mark]

I used AC as the example specifically because it's (rightfully) the industry punching bag and had the biggest net available to snag opinions. Worked like a charm!

I would be curious to know what specifically either turned you off of the game, or gave you enough in that 20 hours to feel satisfied that you'd seen everything worth seeing? This is, again, something I want to (and will!) rant about in a dedicated thread, but I do feel like after Brotherhood* all of the AC games were just big for the sake of being big. So much so that it bogged down the narrative and made finding the fun stuff a chore all its own.

* AC2 and Brotherhood are for all intents and purposes two halves of a single game. Together, in one package, I sort of wonder if anyone - myself included - would remember it as fondly. They're about 20 hours long individually IIRC.

Well, believe it or not… I’ve never played another AC game before and at the time I was fresh off of playing the God of War remake and figured… fuck it, let’s keep with the theme. It’s free. What better time to check it out, right?

Admittedly, I’m going in blind with 60% of my game choices these days. I’ve been so out of touch with new releases and gaming news itself for that fact. Hell, I just replaced my PS3 with a PS4 2 years ago to give you an idea of how behind in the times I am. I just simply don’t get to play enough these days. The other 40% of my recommendations come from @Xellos since I’m logged into his PSN account and “borrow” from his library to play on mine.

With that said… having minimal outside influence, as I didn’t even really get much of an opinion from him about it that I can recall (which doesn’t say much, we talk a lot of shit), and having no prior knowledge of the franchise I was able to go into playing it very open-minded. I liked the graphics of it, it was a good looking game. Controls felt pretty intuitive, with the usual hang ups here and there you’d expect with a game of that scale. The main thing that frustrated me was the entire flow of the game… from the start it irritated me that they would drag out cut scenes and dialogues, it felt like filler content… and cut scenes and dialogue shouldn’t seem that way, they’re supposed to be the most crucial element of telling the story. Then, you have the fetch quests. How the fuck am I supposed to go from combat sequence after combat sequence to collecting materials on intentionally dragged out fetch quests that make the world feel larger and not get frustrated? I’m by no means a developer or a professional reviewer… but I’ve played enough video games in my day to know an unnecessarily inflated game when I see one, and that was definitely one of the worst examples I’ve seen of it.

I refused to go further because when I discovered ALL of the DLC content, it became apparent that either they shipped an incomplete game and expected the player to shell out a lot of money for what should have been a standalone game to begin with… or they reneged on what they promised, got called out on it and released cut/additional content… or they consciously realized they shipped a dude and tried to redeem themselves. I know who makes AC series… and I know the latter is definitely the obligatory joke option.

 

[Quagmire]

Still, there is no "Definitive" edition of P3 in existence. If Atlus wants $70, they need to hit that extraordinarily low bar. They failed.

Yeah this is what is nuts, it sounds like they will add social stuff added from FES into remake, but I cant imagine them not adding some sort of social link for the male characters. Maybe it will be a different than what was in portable for female MC

I also think you said it was your favorite and it is mine too. I will watch with a close eye to see what does eventually get added into it.

 

[Tirith]

$70 for a partial game that is already years old at this point? No.

I can afford the price tags. If I want a game, I buy it. Got TotK for 60 (amazon pre-order price guarantee, pre ordered before the price was announced at 70). Paid 100 for physical FF16 deluxe.

PS1 games, new release, was 39.99 in 1999. With inflation, that's roughly 73.02 now. The price was due to raise sooner or later.

Scalpers on the other hand, and then Nvidia being greedy, is a whole different problem. Getting a RTX 30- series at MSRP was next to impossible, and then Nvidia decided, hey, they're selling at more, let's jack the prices up! (I understand the tariff shit and all, but the MSRP of the 40 series was even more ridiculous.)

Got all 3 of the 3090s in my house for MSRP, took a few nights camping outside of micro center though.

 

[Raine]

With that said… having minimal outside influence, as I didn’t even really get much of an opinion from him about it that I can recall (which doesn’t say much, we talk a lot of shit), and having no prior knowledge of the franchise I was able to go into playing it very open-minded.

And you basically walked away with the same complaints lobbed at the series by fans for over a decade. No wonder Ubisoft hit the panic button. They're allegedly soft-rebooting things with AC Mirage this year, but... yeah we'll see about that.

I guess I should be sort of charitable to Valhalla and at least mention that it's technically the third and final entry in the newest narrative trilogy (with Origins and Odyssey being the other two), but... fuck it! I assume it'll have been pretty apparent what was and wasn't relevant to Valhalla itself. Plus it's all in there getting in the way and slowing things down anyway.

I refused to go further because when I discovered ALL of the DLC content, it became apparent that either they shipped an incomplete game and expected the player to shell out a lot of money for what should have been a standalone game to begin with… or they reneged on what they promised, got called out on it and released cut/additional content… or they consciously realized they shipped a dude and tried to redeem themselves. I know who makes AC series… and I know the latter is definitely the obligatory joke option.

I couldn't speak to the newest games just yet, of course. But I think this is may be the one thing AC itself hasn't succumbed to. One of the "boons," I guess we could say, of throwing multiple studios and well over 1,000 people at each game is that they can churn out a lot of fodder content. From AC1 through ACU (so... 8 games?), if DLC was present it wasn't obvious cut story content and the baseline game felt complete. If, in the case of Revelations (fourth game), mean-spirited and entirely pointless.

The DLC almost universally sucks and is overpriced (see: $140 price tag), though. The George Washington stuff for AC3 and Freedom Cry for AC4 would be the best available from what I've experienced to date; the former is a what-if fever dream, the latter briefly explores the fate of the main character's second-in-command.

 

[Tirith]

I'll be dead honest. Just about every AC game is in my PS library. I pay for the top tier of PS+. I didn't put them there, my 14 year old did, and he played ALL of them to 100%. Know the last AC game I played? Assassin's Creed. The original. Was a nifty idea, but was repetitive in all the worst ways, imo.

 

[Raine]

I'll be dead honest. Just about every AC game is in my PS library. I pay for the top tier of PS+. I didn't put them there, my 14 year old did, and he played ALL of them to 100%. Know the last AC game I played? Assassin's Creed. The original. Was a nifty idea, but was repetitive in all the worst ways, imo.

AC1 holds a bit of a soft spot for me just because its design philosophy is different. In that you were an actual assassin, and each target is inside an intricately thought out puzzle with multiple solutions. It's sort of like a Hitman game in that regard, minus the part where just busting through the front door and slaughtering everything in sight doesn't (usually) end in mission failure. AC2 retained a small portion of that, but it was effectively entirely gone after that.

But yeah - the eavesdropping quests, the slow escort missions, the even slower "trail this random mook" quests. That all existed from the word go and needed refining/rethinking, not doubling down on.

@Mark AC2 is like 20 hours long. If you're bored, fire it up. Ezio is still the defacto face of the series for a reason! (I mean also because he has 3 games basically to himself, but still.)

 

[Crystal]

Gaming is a victim of its' own success, honestly. Everyone wants the next AAA title, but that title costs more and more and more to produce, so of course gaming as a whole gets more expensive. Shame, but that's the way it goes. I can't afford it, I earn pennies a week and by time I fill the tank and feed my mother I'm broke. So I scrape around for dirt cheap deals, freebies or just muddle through my backlog. If I was still making my old salary I'd probably be nonchalant about the costs, because I could afford it, but I just plain can't anymore. Haven't bought a game in a long time, haven't gone to a pawn shop or thrift store looking for deals in a long time, either. Just beyond me.

...and now I feel shame. Spent $7 I didn't have on a game on Steam because it was on sale. Moron.

 

[Tirith]

...and now I feel shame. Spent $7 I didn't have on a game on Steam because it was on sale. Moron.

And I paid 380 preordering ff7 rebirth earlier today. Future Xellos' problem though

 

[Crystal]

And I paid 380 preordering ff7 rebirth earlier today. Future Xellos' problem though

Damn, that's a hefty price tag.

 

[Raine]

...and now I feel shame. Spent $7 I didn't have on a game on Steam because it was on sale. Moron.

Moron, or sufficiently frugal?! Some deals can't be ignored!

And I paid 380 preordering ff7 rebirth earlier today. Future Xellos' problem though

Jesus fuck what. How?! Square what in the absolute...

 

[Crystal]

Moron, or sufficiently frugal?! Some deals can't be ignored!

Moron. Definitely Moron.

Jesus fuck what. How?! Square what in the absolute...

I was trying to say that exact thing in a nice way

 

[Tirith]

Moron, or sufficiently frugal?! Some deals can't be ignored!


Jesus fuck what. How?! Square what in the absolute...

Collector's edition. Got the First Class edition of Remake, couldn't skimp on this one

 

[Crystal]

Collector's edition. Got the First Class edition of Remake, couldn't skimp on this one

I don't blame you, I always loved picking up the top end collector's editions when I could. I'd do the same for FF7, no question.

 

[Tirith]

I really couldn't pass this up

 

[Crystal]

I really couldn't pass this up

That is a gorgeous looking CE.

 

[Tirith]

Gonna go well with that Cloud

 

[Crystal]

Love the cabinet!

 

[Raine]

I really couldn't pass this up

We've been burned so, so many times with XIV's various statues... My fingers are crossed for you!

That being said if I ever decide to whore myself out, the first thing I'm getting is a second-hand:



$14,000 is a lot of whoring though... my word...

 

[Tirith]

Love the cabinet!

Was my late grandmother's china cabinet

 

[Crystal]

Was my late grandmother's china cabinet

Top quality, definitely a great place to store the valuables!

 

[Tirith]

We've been burned so, so many times with XIV's various statues... My fingers are crossed for you!

That being said if I ever decide to whore myself out, the first thing I'm getting is a second-hand:



$14,000 is a lot of whoring though... my word...

No complaints from the first set's figure. Hoping this one is as nice

 

[Raine]

I've owned the PS5 since launch (almost 3 years now) and have only bought 4 games. 2 on release and 2 as bargain bins.

The rest of the games I play all come from PS Plus.

In Canada a new game comes to $100+

I feel you. We splurged on a Series X about a year and a half ago, but I think... maybe two games were purchased at full price for it, so far?

Been aiming for sales of $30 or less for stuff ~2 years old, and absolutely will not pay $70 for anything, else it's $15 or less or we won't pick it up unless it's something super unlikely to drop much further below that.

Having largely skipped last gen has helped since lots of good stuff is dirt cheap, though our primary interests being niche games is eventually going to bite us in the ass.

 

[Crystal]

I've owned a Series X for about the same length of time (...a gift, I could never indulge in something like that) and have yet to purchase a game for it. GamePass and my One games are keeping me afloat

 

[Tirith]

I've owned a Series X for about the same length of time (...a gift, I could never indulge in something like that) and have yet to purchase a game for it. GamePass and my One games are keeping me afloat

Have had a PS5 since.... November 21? And only reason was ff7 intermission. I think I've bought crisis core, 16, and sackboy for it. And that's it.

Did start starfield the other night on my PC, but only because game pass is active until November. Ditching it then

 

[Raine]

I've owned a Series X for about the same length of time (...a gift, I could never indulge in something like that) and have yet to purchase a game for it. GamePass and my One games are keeping me afloat

There aren't a whole hell of a lot of Series-exclusive games, and the ones there are have generally been Microsoft joints... so sounds about right!

GamePass is honestly pretty nuts, even with the recent changes. Amusingly the game I started bitching about with this thread, Persona 3 Reload, will be my first GamePass game.

 

[Crystal]

Have had a PS5 since.... November 21? And only reason was ff7 intermission. I think I've bought crisis core, 16, and sackboy for it. And that's it.

Did start starfield the other night on my PC, but only because game pass is active until November. Ditching it then

I forget Starfield is on Game Pass, need to give that a go.

There aren't a whole hell of a lot of Series-exclusive games, and the ones there are have generally been Microsoft joints... so sounds about right!

GamePass is honestly pretty nuts, even with the recent changes. Amusingly the game I started bitching about with this thread, Persona 3 Reload, will be my first GamePass game.

Game Pass is decent value, so long as they keep this up. If it does what GWG did and starts dipping in quality, I'm out, can't afford a sub for the sake of a sub.

 

[Tirith]

I forget Starfield is on Game Pass, need to give that a go.

Game Pass is decent value, so long as they keep this up. If it does what GWG did and starts dipping in quality, I'm out, can't afford a sub for the sake of a sub.

Eh, only things I've used it for recently is Starfield, Forza Horizon 5, and MS Flight sim. Not worth paying for it if I'm not really utilizing it

 

[Raine]

Game Pass is decent value, so long as they keep this up. If it does what GWG did and starts dipping in quality, I'm out, can't afford a sub for the sake of a sub.

Oh yeah, for sure. There's a lot of good stuff still on there that isn't first-party - Sea of Stars which just came out, the Yakuza series, Ni no Kuni, the Persona games (and Soul Hackers), Shredder's Revenge - but there's a tooon that isn't available anymore. Will be curious to see what initiatives they take in the coming months, with both adding new stuff and bringing back old stuff.

Very weird, for example, for the Final Fantasy series to not be up when they just made a big deal about securing a XIV port and getting "additional support" (read: FF7R & XVI) moving forward.

 

[Tommy Boy]

I forget Starfield is on Game Pass, need to give that a go.

Yes. Yes you do.

 

[Crystal]

Eh, only things I've used it for recently is Starfield, Forza Horizon 5, and MS Flight sim. Not worth paying for it if I'm not really utilizing it

That's a fair point, it can be a waste if you don't touch it, for sure.

Oh yeah, for sure. There's a lot of good stuff still on there that isn't first-party - Sea of Stars which just came out, the Yakuza series, Ni no Kuni, the Persona games (and Soul Hackers), Shredder's Revenge - but there's a tooon that isn't available anymore. Will be curious to see what initiatives they take in the coming months, with both adding new stuff and bringing back old stuff.

Very weird, for example, for the Final Fantasy series to not be up when they just made a big deal about securing a XIV port and getting "additional support" (read: FF7R & XVI) moving forward.

Yeah, it's a tad annoying they take so much away or don't add certain games to the mix. You'd think they would keep it consistent, but ah well.

 

[Crystal]

Yes. Yes you do.

lol, definitely does seem to have favourable views...and a few obsessed players

 

[Raine]

Absolutely fucking ridiculous. Not unexpected in the least, just... ridiculous.

Article:

Persona 3 Reload day one DLC announced
Persona 5 Royal Phantom Thieves Costume Set
Persona 5 Royal Shujin Academy Costume Set
Persona 4 Golden Yasogami High School Costume Set
Persona 5 Royal Persona Set 1
Persona 5 Royal Persona Set 2
Persona 4 Golden Persona Set
Persona 5 Royal Background Music Set

Source: https://www.gematsu.com/2024/01/persona-3-reload-day-one-dlc-announced

~$30 of Day 1 DLC, for stuff Sega/Atlus owns, in a $70 game that can't be bothered to be definitive. Despite the $70 price tag (in general) supposedly being to recoup increased development costs so companies don't have to do shitty DLC practices.

Boy does that get under my skin. Figured I'd drop it in here since this was my stealth "bitch about Persona 3 Reload" thread anyway.

 

[TD]

Yeah..

Gaming is stupid expensive. I only own one console and rarely buy games, yet I still find it pricey.

Over $100 for a new game on release after tax, yeah.

It's why I have become a patient gamer as in waiting until titles come to the catalog or get real cheap.