Industry [Rant] Gaming is too expensive.

[Smacktard]

I don't understand people that buy cosmetics for single-player game. The company probably makes hundreds of thousands of dollars off of a few visual trinkets that take a week to put together.

 

[Benzine]

I don't understand people that buy cosmetics for single-player game. The company probably makes hundreds of thousands of dollars off of a few visual trinkets that take a week to put together.

or any games from my pov

i've always enjoyed being no skin and just destroying people and also not being a smurf

 

[TD]

Honestly the whole microtransaction thing is one of the worst things to happen to gaming.

 

[TD]

And I just saw THIS:

Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth is making the utterly bizarre decision to lock New Game+ behind a $15 upgrade

Sega is gating a very normal and staple RPG feature behind its premium editions.

www.pcgamer.com

 

[Smacktard]

or any games from my pov

i've always enjoyed being no skin and just destroying people and also not being a smurf

Yeah same, I've never bought a cosmetic in my life

 

[The Eye in the Sky!]

And I just saw THIS:

Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth is making the utterly bizarre decision to lock New Game+ behind a $15 upgrade

Sega is gating a very normal and staple RPG feature behind its premium editions.

www.pcgamer.com

That's garbage, and I was considering playing this game even though I've never touched a game in the series because it looks so damn cool in Hawaii.

 

[Raine]

And I just saw THIS:

Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth is making the utterly bizarre decision to lock New Game+ behind a $15 upgrade

Sega is gating a very normal and staple RPG feature behind its premium editions.

www.pcgamer.com

Unholy Baphomet, Batman.

This is now just a "goddamn does Sega suck" thread.

I don't understand people that buy cosmetics for single-player game. The company probably makes hundreds of thousands of dollars off of a few visual trinkets that take a week to put together.

Japan in particular is super, super awful about selling you literally the same thing multiple times. Namco with the Tales series and Nippon Ichi with the Disgaea series immediately spring to mind. "Yes you bought Laharl for this game, but you need to buy him for the next game too!"

I still vividly remember a time where you would earn cameo outfits by playing the game, instead of those - and any content they were attached to (see: "obligatory" spa visit in Tales games) - being ripped out and sold for exorbitant prices. I'm not giving Square Enix a pass on this either because a ton of Final Fantasy XIV's cosmetics cost $10~$15, in a game that charges you for expansions and additional storage space and has a monthly subscription fee - and 1) the game is anemic as fuck and 2) most content lacks adequate rewards these premium cosmetics could help with.

Never even really bothered using alternative costumes unless the default one was super obnoxious, so I sure as fuck wouldn't pay a penny to buy them.

 

[TD]

That's garbage, and I was considering playing this game even though I've never touched a game in the series because it looks so damn cool in Hawaii.

Unholy Baphomet, Batman.

This is now just a "goddamn does Sega suck" thread.

Yeah - locking such a key feature of games like NG+ behind a pay wall? That feels like a new low.

 

[Raine]

Persona 3 Reload officially dropped last night and it took basically no time at all to confirm what everyone within the Persona/Atlus fanbase knew was coming: There is more DLC for this $70 game with Day 1 premium, Atlus-owned cosmetics coming down the pipeline.

It's more cosmetic/music stuff, but also... it's FES's epilogue chapter, The Answer. Do not look up anything about The Answer if you haven't finished the good ending. P3R is going to retitle it as Episode Aigis, apparently:



No word on FeMC yet. As with The Journey/Episode Aigis, everyone knows they're going to do it. We just don't know if it's going to be in the form of DLC or an additional, full priced game release a la FES/Portable/Golden/Royal.

This just seems like the most appropriate place to bitch about it. I intend to play the game through Game Pass starting Soon™, and will probably make a thread for it if nobody else beats me to it, but probably wouldn't want to talk about things like this in there.

 

[Jon]

I'm waiting on P3R to coming in from GameFly, probably Monday. It shipped Wednesday and it takes typically 4-5 business days for me to get a game. I'm finishing up Avatar in the mean time. I'm excited for it, but I'd rather them not work on DLC for this game and focus on P6... This should just be P5R type game with no intended DLC. Either way, I'll probably join you in that topic lol.

 

[Smacktard]

This is why I'm fine not buying games Day 1. This sort of thing is too common nowadahs. I expect there will be a "Complete" edition released later on, and even if there isn't, I'm in no rush to play it right away.

 

[Avenger]

ATTENTION THE GREAT AVENGER HAS SOMETHING TO SAY

Avenger only buys guys games on deep discount. 10 bucks or less and his backlog is massive. The last game Avenger bought day 1 is GTA 4.
THE GREAT AVENGER HAS SPOKEN

 

[The Eye in the Sky!]

Heh, I bought both of these games at launch. I am part of the problem apparently.

I don't buy DLC, though.

 

[VashTheStampede]

I don't understand people that buy cosmetics for single-player game. The company probably makes hundreds of thousands of dollars off of a few visual trinkets that take a week to put together.

Look man, sometimes I want my high school characters to wear school uniforms from a completely different school.

I'm cool with dropping $3 on that.

 

[Smacktard]

Look man, sometimes I want my high school characters to wear school uniforms from a completely different school.

I'm cool with dropping $3 on that.

 

[VashTheStampede]

Wouldn't he look pretty nifty with a green hat and shorts and a yellow shirt?

 

[GwJumpman]

Haven't read the thread but IMO the price of new games are fine but re-releases/remakes/remasters are overpriced. Persona 3 shouldn't be like 70 dollars even if it is a complete remake.

 

[Smacktard]

Wouldn't he look pretty nifty with a green hat and shorts and a yellow shirt?

Not neat enough to get out my credit card for something that ought to be included for free

 

[VashTheStampede]

I dunno, with how much more expensive games are to make now (both monetarily, AND with how much time it costs) plus the general desire to see developers treated better while making these games, I wonder if its naive to act like these games shouldn't be costing more than they're charging us already.

With that sort of thing in mind, I don't mind tossing an extra 3-6 bucks at a developer when I'm already playing their game for a monthly subscription charge rather than the full $70.

 

[Smacktard]

I dunno, with how much more expensive games are to make now (both monetarily, AND with how much time it costs) plus the general desire to see developers treated better while making these games, I wonder if its naive to act like these games shouldn't be costing more than they're charging us already.

With that sort of thing in mind, I don't mind tossing an extra 3-6 bucks at a developer when I'm already playing their game for a monthly subscription charge rather than the full $70.

You may be making some good points, but I fear that rewarding business practices like Day 1 DLC and cosmetic DLC just incentivizes further low-effort, low-risk add-ons that should already be part of the product. DLC can be done right -- look at the Xenoblade games and the absolute wealth of content they usually give. It might be $20 and mostly recycled content (monsters, items, movesets, etc.), but you still get a ton of new stuff along with it -- new story, new characters, new areas. I think game devs should be rewarded for getting it right, not for milking customers.

 

[TD]

I'm pretty anti-DLC myself. Especially when I hear about games launching with DLC or with plans of DLC. To me it comes across as pushing out an unfinished game and then asking for more money.

I'll look at it a bit different for the developers that wait to see the success of a game before planning DLC or what some of my favourite smaller developers have been doing... it's a wild concept but - free DLC.

That damn horse armour and it's long lasting implications.

 

[The Eye in the Sky!]

I have no problem with $70 games, I have a problem with add on packs to them on release date or shortly thereafter, because it was consciously made that way to add on some cash instead of including an already finished item into the game.

Months down the road - it's the consumer's discretion as to whether they want it or not. Company is gonna try to make money, we can say no.

If you're putting out expansions to campaign and content much later then cool, if people want them, go for it. Heart of Stone and Blood and Wine are perfect examples of how to do it that way. I was happy to pay $20 and $30 for those.

 

[Crystal]

...remember when GotY editions included all dlc for $20? I 'member...

 

[Avenger]

...remember when GotY editions included all dlc for $20? I 'member...

ATTENTION THE GREAT AVENGER HAS SOMETHING TO SAY

Avenger recently bought the entire arkham asylum series from xbox with all dlc for like 10 bucks.
THE GREAT AVENGER HAS SPOKEN

 

[Raine]

Haven't read the thread but IMO the price of new games are fine but re-releases/remakes/remasters are overpriced. Persona 3 shouldn't be like 70 dollars even if it is a complete remake.

Atlus in general has always been awful about the "Atlus Tax." Now I (used to) love me some Atlus, but like... they're not AAA games. They don't have insane budgets. Persona 5 is/was a glorified PS3 game; Persona 3 Reload looks and runs worse than that. I'm okay with the concept of supporting games with additional purchases or whatever, but for Sega to slap $70 onto these things? Hell naw.

See also: Something like New Pokemon Snap. Never, ever should've been $60. Maybe $40, and let us buy additional - and well designed - courses and stuff if we choose later on.

I dunno, with how much more expensive games are to make now (both monetarily, AND with how much time it costs) plus the general desire to see developers treated better while making these games, I wonder if its naive to act like these games shouldn't be costing more than they're charging us already.

It really depends on the game. Like if it's an indie thing? Sure, absolutely, I'll do some moneyhatting - I've spent entirely too much on the likes of Penny Blood and Armed Fantasia. I wanted to support the TMNT games, so I did.

Sega/Atlus, though? Their developers are just cogs in the machine. Japan isn't as bad about jettisoning people the moment a project goes Gold (although they abuse and exploit their employees all the same), but none of the extra sales/revenue goes to anyone making the thing. They were (under)paid for their labor through development, they may or may not keep their job independent of game performance, and everyone above them pockets the rest.

Even something like FF14 that, for a time, captured the zeitgeist and attracted the WoW crowd, received nothing back into itself development-wise. All that extra subscription money, all the extra expansion sales, all of the cosmetics and merch - the developers and the game itself didn't see a penny of it.

And for good measure at least some of that money was invested into NFT and AI bullshit.

 

[Crystal]

ATTENTION THE GREAT AVENGER HAS SOMETHING TO SAY

Avenger recently bought the entire arkham asylum series from xbox with all dlc for like 10 bucks.
THE GREAT AVENGER HAS SPOKEN

Well you got an amazing deal there!

 

[Spiner202]

See also: Something like New Pokemon Snap. Never, ever should've been $60. Maybe $40, and let us buy additional - and well designed - courses and stuff if we choose later on.

I agree with your overall point, but this game had an insane amount of content. I think I got close to 60 hours out of it, and I didn't 100% it.

 

[Raine]

I agree with your overall point, but this game had an insane amount of content. I think I got close to 60 hours out of it, and I didn't 100% it.

Oh, for sure - not arguing on the amount of content or the length or anything. Just from a development standpoint, a New Pokemon Snap isn't on the same level as a Super Mario Odyssey so having the same price tag is kind of messed up out of the gate. Not sure if that one in particular struggled commercially or not (I mean it has Pokemon in the title so I'm sure it sold well), but if it did price has gotta be the primary reason.

 

[MC74]

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.

Never got my XBox Series X until almost 2 years after release. Can't justify day one prices and before I even upgrade to the next gen, I always make sure to wait a while for them to iron out the kinks first. There always seems to be issues that needs to be worked out when systems first come out.

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.

That's one of my main gripes with modern gaming right now. Far too often, we're seeing games being released in an unfinished state. Lots of games being rushed out, just to end up being so underwhelming that you uninstall them not long after giving them a go. No replay value whatsoever.

 

[Dead2009]

Consoles are still hella expensive but standard games today are either cheaper or roughly around the same price they were in the 90s. N64 games were 50-60 bucks and sometimes even higher.

 

[MC74]

Consoles are still hella expensive but standard games today are either cheaper or roughly around the same price they were in the 90s. N64 games were 50-60 bucks and sometimes even higher.

The original Mortal Kombat game was around $60-$70 IIRC. I remember the average SNES games being in the same range as you mentioned for N64. Inflation adjusted, the prices aren't that much different to be fair.

 

[Raine]

Ah, while this is bumped! No context necessary I feel like?

 

[MC74]

Ah, while this is bumped! No context necessary I feel like?

View attachment 12689

Price paid on my end: Zero dollars and zero cents if we exclude the Game Pass subscription fee. =P

 

[Kat]

Consoles are still hella expensive but standard games today are either cheaper or roughly around the same price they were in the 90s. N64 games were 50-60 bucks and sometimes even higher.

Yeah, I posted a graph earlier showing they've actually dropped in price over time.

I wonder how many copies of a game sell nowadays compared to early generations? Gaming is a lot more popular now, but there's also more competition.

 

[Raine]

Price paid on my end: Zero dollars and zero cents if we exclude the Game Pass subscription fee. =P

Same, but still - fuck Sega.

The "expansion pass" alone is bullshit pricing, being $35 for a bunch of music they own the license to, a couple of costumes and The Journey/Episode Aigis. But $105 for a remake (using P5's engine and assets) of a PS2 game? Outta their goddamn minds.

 

[MC74]

Same, but still - fuck Sega.

The "expansion pass" alone is bullshit pricing, being $35 for a bunch of music they own the license to, a couple of costumes and The Journey/Episode Aigis. But $105 for a remake (using P5's engine and assets) of a PS2 game? Outta their goddamn minds.

Oh yeah, the pricing for music & cosmetics is ridiculous.

 

[Kat]

Try looking at overpriced cosmetic DLCs like this: you know the whole economics demand curve, right? More people will buy something when it's cheaper because some people are willing to spend less on something than others. One solution to that is to find which price point maximizes your profit; another is to set the price higher for customers willing to pay more and lower for customers with smaller budgets. That's why there are things like senior discounts, kid discounts, matinees, cheaper prices in lesser developed countries, price drops for best selling games, etc.

Pointless and expensive DLC is the same thing. People who don't want to spend more on a game will buy the base game and save their money. Those with money to burn will spend it on the DLC. If you think games are too expensive already, then you should be all for it, because the alternative is likely higher base game prices.

I'm surprised more games don't go for $100 on release day when they're expected to sell well. Same for consoles, honestly.

 

[MC74]

Try looking at overpriced cosmetic DLCs like this: you know the whole economics demand curve, right? More people will buy something when it's cheaper because some people are willing to spend less on something than others. One solution to that is to find which price point maximizes your profit; another is to set the price higher for customers willing to pay more and lower for customers with smaller budgets. That's why there are things like senior discounts, kid discounts, matinees, cheaper prices in lesser developed countries, price drops for best selling games, etc.

Pointless and expensive DLC is the same thing. People who don't want to spend more on a game will buy the base game and save their money. Those with money to burn will spend it on the DLC. If you think games are too expensive already, then you should be all for it, because the alternative is likely higher base game prices.

I'm surprised more games don't go for $100 on release day when they're expected to sell well. Same for consoles, honestly.

That is a fair point to bring up. Without those deals in place, it is very likely that the base game would be more expensive.

 

[VashTheStampede]

Pointless and expensive DLC is the same thing. People who don't want to spend more on a game will buy the base game and save their money. Those with money to burn will spend it on the DLC. If you think games are too expensive already, then you should be all for it, because the alternative is likely higher base game prices.

omg thisssssss

Watching how the industry has been trending just the last few months makes it clear that we are in for a reckoning coming soon. The DLCs are literally how they are keeping base prices down. The current price structure Vs necessary resources ratio is untenable.

 

[Andy]

Incredibly rare that I buy games at launch unless they’re these cultural phenomenons that everybody is talking about or playing (basically rockstar games now tbh). It helps that I’m slow to play games. Still working my way through some game pass games but each will take me months so there’s always a backlog. The current prices are very limiting.

 

[Smacktard]

Incredibly rare that I buy games at launch unless they’re these cultural phenomenons that everybody is talking about or playing (basically rockstar games now tbh). It helps that I’m slow to play games. Still working my way through some game pass games but each will take me months so there’s always a backlog. The current prices are very limiting.

That's funny, those are the games I MOST refuse to buy at launch cause they're usually glitchy as hell and will definitely have updates and DLC released eventually.

 

[Raine]

For our new friends: Hiii! I'm Raine. The resident Wordy McWordstorm! Thousand words or more is barely a warm-up, you'll get used to it.

I'm surprised more games don't go for $100 on release day when they're expected to sell well. Same for consoles, honestly.

They just wouldn't sell, honestly. Games at $70 are already struggling to hit sales expectations; PS3 at $600 and wanting to work two jobs to afford one is still a running joke.

The problem with a lot of these games is simply that... people aren't actually asking for what they're (attempting to) offering? Like, no, most games do not need massive, empty open worlds. Final Fantasy XV absolutely suffered from it, as an example, and it sounds like XVI and Remake/Rebirth did too. Asset reuse is king for cost savings, but even there - Sega/Atlus want $70+ for the effort.

The majority of players were already not finishing games in the PS2 era, long before the open world craze. Far fewer are now. Like take Marvel's Spider-Man 2 - according to Trophy statistics, 56.8% of people finished the main story. For the PS4 version of God of War: Ragnarok, it's 54.3%. Those are big games, but... then you look at the obvious punching bag in Assassin's Creed: Valhalla? That's just 20.1%.

Just 1 in 5 players has finished the main story in Valhalla, and yet... go look at how much DLC exists for that game. Who asked for that? AC Mirage is even a $50 game that was originally supposed to be more DLC for Valhalla, but then just sold by itself instead?! It's lunacy.

Pointless and expensive DLC is the same thing. People who don't want to spend more on a game will buy the base game and save their money. Those with money to burn will spend it on the DLC. If you think games are too expensive already, then you should be all for it, because the alternative is likely higher base game prices.

It's... a little more complicated than that, based on which (kinds of) game we're playing or looking forward to.

Like a lot of DLC, especially coming out of Japan in the last 15 years, has been aggressive. Two of my go-to examples are Namco's Tales series and Nippon Ichi's Disgaea series.

With Tales you used to be able to earn alternative outfits/costumes in-game for all of the characters, and many of those were tied to side quests or little story arcs. However, once Namco realized they could sell those outfits? Well, what you could earn in-game took a larger and larger hit per release. Price tags are ridiculous, and unjustified because - shockingly - a lot of the costumes are actually just homages to past Tales games/characters. And the icing on the cake: A lot of those side quests and story arcs? Well, they disappeared alongside their rewards. I remember one game, I don't recall which off-hand, ended up removing and selling the (obligatory and cringe-worthy) swimsuits - and the Namco Bandai Isle themepark/casino/beach portion of the game came with it.

With Disgaea, originally, a lot of the post-game was comprised of funny cameo fights. Like in Disgaea 2, you would find and battle the main trio from Disgaea 1 - as well as characters from loosely-related NIS games like Prier from La Pucelle or Marjoly from Marl Kingdom - and it was just nonsensical fun and tongue-in-cheek stuff. But, again, DLC means you can sell parts of the game for more profit. So Disgaea 3 launched with... let's say a lot of DLC. All immensely overpriced. All using the same upressed sprites that already existed, all being past characters and their silly little interactions, so on and so forth. That continued, minimally, for D2: A Brighter Darkness. I haven't looked at the DLC practices since, but hey let's go do that now:

Disgaea 7: Vows of the Virtueless for Nintendo Switch - Nintendo Official Site

Learn more about Disgaea 7: Vows of the Virtueless for Nintendo Switch

www.nintendo.com

Oh yeah, they're still fucking doing it. Literally reselling you the same characters and sprites each and every game for $8 or more. AND IT DOESN'T SELL! A subset of a subset of a niche crowd even looks at it, much less purchases it. The company has teetered on bankruptcy for years.

DLC, in general, doesn't sell by the way - it's not just NIS. Multiple companies have gone on record saying that their story/expansion/whatever DLC either struggles to break even or only manages modest profit. You can peruse sites like TrueAchievements or PSNProfiles and see how horrible adoption rate is for DLC that "arguably matters," to say nothing of all the DLC that exists (cosmetics and the like) that don't add anything of substance to the game.

We don't really need to (and I might have already I don't remember what I've ranted about in the thread at this point ), but I'll also remind everyone:

- On-disc DLC! Remember those 512kb unlock licenses so you could access things already pressed onto the disc you bought?
- Pre-order bonuses! Everybody loves those; things you sometimes literally can't even attain later because they don't add them to the store.
- Online Pass! Dead now, but they could always go back to it: You had to buy a "new" copy of the game, otherwise parts of the game you just legitimately purchased were locked away or otherwise rendered unusable.
- RPG/Gacha mechanics! We could play games with coherent world and design structure, but then we wouldn't deliver Recurrent User Spending™ by buying the game, buying the ability to play the game, constantly churn on the gear/progression conveyor belt... also, annual premium releases!

I mean, whether it's actually true or not:

- If DLC exists, publishers want you to purchase it. This, by virtue of just existing, means the game's loop or mechanics are compromised in some way. Whether things have been made just a little more grindy and repetitive so you'll purchase boosts/skips, whether drop rates have been negatively tinkered with so you either have to insanely grind or fork over money, whether the core genre has been affected - Ubisoft adding RPG-lite mechanics to Assassin's Creed and making it literally impossible to assassinate someone arbitrarily higher level than you (IT'S IN THE FUCKING TITLE UBISOFT). Somewhere, something has been meddled with. Will continue to be meddled with.

- Continuing from that, Sega: $70 for base Persona 3 Reload, $35 for The Journey that has existed in FES since 2006. There is not, at present to my knowledge, any indication that you can purchase just The Journey when that releases in June. $30~$40 "expansions" are becoming the new norm; Kingdom Hearts III did it, Elden Ring is doing it, there's a whole lot more. But back to Sega: Removing New Game Plus from Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth and selling it back to you for $15??

Games just increased by $10 mostly across the board, and the year has seen nothing but massive layoffs. Profits are up, layoffs. We just sold the studio and made massive, unreasonable amounts of wealth for ourselves - MORE. FUCKING. LAYOFFS.

...Wait at some point I realized this wasn't about DLC anymore and I'm just ranting and raving about capitalism as usual. Apologies!

So in summation, Fuck Capitalism.

 

[Kat]

They just wouldn't sell, honestly. Games at $70 are already struggling to hit sales expectations; PS3 at $600 and wanting to work two jobs to afford one is still a running joke.

Most games wouldn't sell. That's why I said bestsellers. But yeah there likely would be backlash, which I'm sure makes them hesitant to try it.

Consoles sell out for months, if not years, and get scalped for several times the sale price. Not everybody will pay $2000 for a PS5, but apparently lots of people will. Price it at that then drop the price whenever it stops selling out.

Not that I really want Sony to make more money, but they add more to the world than scalpers at least.

With Tales you used to be able to earn alternative outfits/costumes in-game for all of the characters, and many of those were tied to side quests or little story arcs. However, once Namco realized they could sell those outfits? Well, what you could earn in-game took a larger and larger hit per release. Price tags are ridiculous, and unjustified because - shockingly - a lot of the costumes are actually just homages to past Tales games/characters. And the icing on the cake: A lot of those side quests and story arcs? Well, they disappeared alongside their rewards.

You were complaining in the section before that games are too big and nobody can play all the content. If that's the case, why do you care if they take out some content and sell it as DLC instead?

If DLC exists, publishers want you to purchase it. This, by virtue of just existing, means the game's loop or mechanics are compromised in some way. Whether things have been made just a little more grindy and repetitive so you'll purchase boosts/skips, whether drop rates have been negatively tinkered with so you either have to insanely grind or fork over money, whether the core genre has been affected

I don't think this is necessarily true, but I will concede it's a perverse incentive and does often cause problems.

The whole discriminatory pricing thing to maximize profit isn't necessarily great either. Taken to its logical conclusion, everybody would be charged the maximum they're willing to pay. Granted, that does benefit people at the bottom who would otherwise be priced out entirely, but it sucks for most everybody else. Which leads me to agree with your final point...

So in summation, Fuck Capitalism.

Yeah, basically.

For the record, I do agree a lot of DLC is done poorly and it makes the base game worse. It's much easier to psychologically manipulate people into spending more money than it is to actually deliver real value. It can be done well though, and I think it's fine in some cases.

It'd be much less of a problem if our society valued long term success over short term gains, but... like you said... capitalism.

 

[Raine]

Most games wouldn't sell. That's why I said bestsellers. But yeah there likely would be backlash, which I'm sure makes them hesitant to try it.

Consoles sell out for months, if not years, and get scalped for several times the sale price. Not everybody will pay $2000 for a PS5, but apparently lots of people will. Price it at that then drop the price whenever it stops selling out.

Not that I really want Sony to make more money, but they add more to the world than scalpers at least.

That's fair about the bestsellers, yeah. Although specifically on the subject of scalpers, they'll unfortunately be present regardless of price. I think that's a scenario where, honestly, better planning and/or lead time is necessary. This console generation of course was hit by the microchip shortages, but like... I feel artificial scarcity is a large part of the point? I know it 100% is with Nintendo. Like if you launch a console, and it doesn't sell out and drive up fake FOMO, no matter how many units you actually sell - the market will interpret that as a failure. You know?

It's worth considering, as well, that third-parties are not beholden to the newest consoles. We're in Year 4 of the current generation, which may be "ending" in 2026, and most games are still cross-generation. This is a two-fold problem wherein adoption rate on PS5 and XSX is lagging, in some countries and territories more than others granted, and because it's lagging it's less viable to make a game that isn't cross-generation. I mean I'll just stick with Final Fantasy there: XVI and Rebirth have, arguably, massively under-performed. Relative what they would have done with PS4 versions, yes, but even moreso relative what they would have done with PC (and Xbox, and soon Switch 2) versions.

From a profits or brand growth perspective, there is no way Sony paid Square Enix enough money to justify having those games be one-year exclusive. And so... confusion. They're far from the only ones too, of course, but I like to kick them.

You were complaining in the section before that games are too big and nobody can play all the content. If that's the case, why do you care if they take out some content and sell it as DLC instead?

In a word? Perception.

If a new RPG series came out of Namco, for example. Even if that game was made by the Namco Tales Studio? It wouldn't necessarily have the direct comparison of (not objectively true, just an example; I think Arise was $60): "Tales of the Abyss cost $50 on PS2 and had more content and costumes than Tales of Arise that costs $70 on PS5." Like you can tell people to adjust for inflation, and that might hold some water and sway in a macro sense... but ultimately only the number paid at the time, within a vacuum, really matters to the end consumer.

You don't necessarily have to sell the extra stuff as DLC to get the resentment, either. Sticking with Final Fantasy: FF13 didn't have side quests, didn't have towns, didn't have the ability to backtrack/explore, didn't have customizable party setups. It got utterly raked over the coals regardless of none of that being added/fixed with patches or DLC. And a popular (if, I would contest, wrong) refrain is that "FF13 is a bad Final Fantasy game, but a good RPG." Same principle.

I don't think this is necessarily true, but I will concede it's a perverse incentive and does often cause problems.

This, too, is also a matter of perception to be fair. Like Capcom is notoriously bad about this - Dragon's Dogma 2 and Devil May Cry 5 both have Time Saver DLC, which by most/all accounts... really is just there to please the shareholders? To literally fill the checkbox of "we did this because others do it" and the balance of the games don't seem to have been affected at all.

However, because companies that aren't Capcom also love Time Saver DLC and those ones do affect balance, Capcom's games get boycott and review bombed for having them upon discovery. And, of course, there is no actual telling if or when Capcom's "innocent" Time Saver DLC will become malicious. You cannot, in fact, know that until after the game in question has already released - because Capcom doesn't include that with review code, and reviewers are oft not actually proficient in any given series to be able to really tell while speeding through to complete said review and move on to the next game.

 

[Andy]

Controversial opinion here. Consoles are a fair price. I would rather they were cheaper, sure. But I get 10 years or whatever out of one and spend a lot of time playing games without any real issues with the hardware.

 

[Quagmire]

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.

I agree with all this sucking, but the Answer is garbage and not worth anyone's time

Controversial opinion here. Consoles are a fair price. I would rather they were cheaper, sure. But I get 10 years or whatever out of one and spend a lot of time playing games without any real issues with the hardware.

Yeah compared to what prices for games at least were in the 90s its been decent compared to inflation

What sucks is the price of everything else going up