Why does Just Cause 3 cost $85.00?

[sweenish]

SNES and N64 carts REGULARLY cost $65 - $70.

Even early PSX games were $60+ until Sony started an initiative to cap all their game prices at $50. That forced everyone else to match.

Even then, some N64 carts were more expensive because cartridges cost way more, especially those with larger ROMs.

 

[ImpulsE69]

FFIII was over $70. I remember that shock. This is why everyone rented back in the day, however, as has been stated, most of the cost was attributed to cartridges. Digital games SHOULD be cheap. It's not our fault they can't use their money wisely these days. You get what the market supports, not the other way around.

 

[RockinZ28]

Wonder what the development costs were, and then profits of these $60+ SNES/N64 era games were? Seems a smart 12 year old kid by himself these days could make games way more complex. Course we have watches more powerful than old pc's now as well.

Today you have games with budgets larger than Hollywood movies, still selling for $60.

 

[moonbogg]

Just 'cause

:awe:

lol nice. Also true.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Today you have games with budgets larger than Hollywood movies, still selling for $60.

Sure but that is split across three platforms because almost every game gets ported to both consoles and the PC.

 

[moonbogg]

I found out today the game doesn't even support multi GPU. How idiotic is that? I remember the last game supporting it really well. Damn. The way things are going I might have to just trade up for a single big Pascal and stay a single GPU guy.
So maybe by the time the game is $30 it will have multi GPU support as well. That would be a good deal.

 

[RockinZ28]

Sure but that is split across three platforms because almost every game gets ported to both consoles and the PC.

True.

Also looked on wiki. The manufacture costs for cartridge games was insane. 309 million in 1990 dollars for Super Mario World :O.

I found out today the game doesn't even support multi GPU. How idiotic is that? I remember the last game supporting it really well. Damn. The way things are going I might have to just trade up for a single big Pascal and stay a single GPU guy.
So maybe by the time the game is $30 it will have multi GPU support as well. That would be a good deal.

Another reason not to preorder games. Wait a few months until it's been fully patched and optimized, then get the game cheap.

 

[cmdrdredd]

This argument again...I hate these.

Look the game is $60 and extra content which is 100% optional is going to cost an additional amount. The base game is always the base game at launch. The game is done and they go to work on additional content to keep the profits rolling in and you have to buy it if you want it, it really is that simple. The expansion pass is a small discount on the extra DLC if you want to have it. Otherwise if you buy it all separately it costs a bit more.

Many games are bigger than they were in the past too. Your $60 gets you a lot more than many games in past years. I think too that some people are assuming (incorrectly IMO) that if developers could create DLC in past games and sell it that they wouldn't do it. If in say 1997 it was possible to create a DLC expansion pass for a new game they for sure would try.

 

[escrow4]

This argument again...I hate these.

Look the game is $60 and extra content which is 100% optional is going to cost an additional amount. The base game is always the base game at launch. The game is done and they go to work on additional content to keep the profits rolling in and you have to buy it if you want it, it really is that simple. The expansion pass is a small discount on the extra DLC if you want to have it. Otherwise if you buy it all separately it costs a bit more.

Many games are bigger than they were in the past too. Your $60 gets you a lot more than many games in past years. I think too that some people are assuming (incorrectly IMO) that if developers could create DLC in past games and sell it that they wouldn't do it. If in say 1997 it was possible to create a DLC expansion pass for a new game they for sure would try.

The addiitonal content is a lie. Should have been in the game in the first place. DLC is just extra loot for greedy devs. You won't be pirating it anytime soon either OP, thanks to the new version of Denuvo which is currently uncrackable. Mad Max hasn't been cracked, new Tomb Raider hasn't been cracked. Yes there are shonky P2P cracks out but they barely work.

 

[tential]

My problem isn't the game being $80-90. It's them saying it's not, and then adding a bunch of DLC afterwards. And it's not that the full game cost $90. IT's that you pay $90, and don't even know when you'll get the full game.

They can finish it whenever they like.

Then, it's also a hassle to buy the DLC, and the DLC can be $30-40 if you didn't buy the Pass, so now you have to wait for the ?DLC to be reasonable price to finish the game.

I bought Borderlands The Presequel, I'm happy with the game, not with the DLC/how it's handled (for every game though).

It makes me not want to buy games. I don't want to have to wait however long they deem necessary to finish a game so if I buy a game it's at the bargain bin price so I can get the full game.

 

[futurefields]

This argument again...I hate these.

Look the game is $60 and extra content which is 100% optional is going to cost an additional amount. The base game is always the base game at launch. The game is done and they go to work on additional content to keep the profits rolling in and you have to buy it if you want it, it really is that simple.

Toot toot that corporate horn I knew cmdrdredd would be in here in short order defending the EA's and Activision's of the world.

And there is your answer OP ^ Because people are willing to pay $100 for a video game and they think they are getting a good deal too.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The addiitonal content is a lie. Should have been in the game in the first place. DLC is just extra loot for greedy devs. You won't be pirating it anytime soon either OP, thanks to the new version of Denuvo which is currently uncrackable. Mad Max hasn't been cracked, new Tomb Raider hasn't been cracked. Yes there are shonky P2P cracks out but they barely work.

No. The additional content is created after the base game is completed in 99% of all cases.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Toot toot that corporate horn I knew cmdrdredd would be in here in short order defending the EA's and Activision's of the world.

And there is your answer OP ^ Because people are willing to pay $100 for a video game and they think they are getting a good deal too.

Nobody is paying $100. I pay $60 for the games I buy at launch, sometimes less through places like CDkeys etc

 

[cmdrdredd]

My problem isn't the game being $80-90. It's them saying it's not, and then adding a bunch of DLC afterwards. And it's not that the full game cost $90. IT's that you pay $90, and don't even know when you'll get the full game.

They can finish it whenever they like.

Then, it's also a hassle to buy the DLC, and the DLC can be $30-40 if you didn't buy the Pass, so now you have to wait for the ?DLC to be reasonable price to finish the game.

I bought Borderlands The Presequel, I'm happy with the game, not with the DLC/how it's handled (for every game though).

It makes me not want to buy games. I don't want to have to wait however long they deem necessary to finish a game so if I buy a game it's at the bargain bin price so I can get the full game.

When the game launches at $60 it is done. Anything released later is ADDITIONAL CONTENT. DLC is optional and created after the base game is finished.

I don't know why you guys cannot understand that at all.

 

[futurefields]

Who do you work for, Activision or EA?

 

[futurefields]

When the game launches at $60 it is done.

Hahaha that's rich. When's the last time a game was done at launch...

 

[TidusZ]

I agree with OP. Personally if a game is more than 59.99 I pirate it or simply don't buy/play it.

Advocating piracy is not allowed here
Markfw900


Xcom 2 cost $80 CDN without the DLC and it's riddled with bugs and poor programming, and hardly any content there once you get rid of all the constant pauses and delays (ty modders). IMO it should be priced at $40.

I want to play tomb raider but its $70 (on sale briefly for $63) which is still above 59.99, so I'll wait for a significant sale.

The funny thing is, the games that are actually worth >$60 are usually free or cheap, like Dota, Cs:Go, TF2, Path of Exile, etc. It's the games that are fun for 20 hours that are going from $60 to $80 in less than a year, while the quality declines and yesterday's base game becomes today's paid DLC. Most of the big games lately have been using old engines and feel more like expansions than new games, yet they are charging more than ever. And then there's the whole catering to console thing.

At the end of the day I spent ~$30 on endless legend and have 220 hours played, spent ~$15 on rocket league and have 120 hours, ~$8 for cs go and have 800 hours played, ~$5 for TOME and 140 hours, $0 for dota 2 and 275 hours...

 

[sweenish]

Instead of people discussing pricing, they are now justifying piracy to themselves. This is wonderful.

 

[Sulaco]

When the game launches at $60 it is done. Anything released later is ADDITIONAL CONTENT. DLC is optional and created after the base game is finished.

I don't know why you guys cannot understand that at all.

Yeeeeah, no. That's kind of silly to say.

We have plenty of instances of Day 1 DLC, or ON-DISK DLC.

Clearly content that was ready to go at or about the same time the game was launched, now being charged extra for.

I get the business acumen behind it: There are plenty of suckers who will buy it up. So I don't blame them at all for making more of a profit.
But let's not for a second pretend that that makes it right, or perform some sycophantic mental gymnastics to convince ourselves that we're getting all the content right off the bat.

 

[BSim500]

When the game launches at $60 it is done. Anything released later is ADDITIONAL CONTENT. DLC is optional and created after the base game is finished.

I don't know why you guys cannot understand that at all.

Probably because it's not 100% correct as several devs have admitted in the past. Most DLC may be released after base game launch, but of course it's planned out long in advance. In many cases they need to know how and where to "link" it into the main game, and work does start on it before main game is released (let alone bug-fixed). Sometimes the voice acting will be recorded at same time as main game if it involves the same voice actors, whilst the general plot / storyboard is threshed out, animators / artists / level designers / script-writers who've finished work on the main game will start work on that before release and yes, there have indeed been meetings in the past throughout main game development along the lines of "So where do we insert this sidequest again, Chapter 3 or 4?", "Nah, let's split that off for the DLC...". Not being cynical at all, it's simply how it works. DLC development doesn't exist in a "isolated bubble".

 

[TidusZ]

Instead of people discussing pricing, they are now justifying piracy to themselves. This is wonderful.

I justify pirating Xcom 2 the same as I justify spending $500 on path of exile. I pay what a game is worth to me and Xcom is worth nowhere close to $80. I did buy the first game and its expansion and imo that's about the right cost for both games together


Advocating piracy is illegal and we do not tolerate that here.
Markfw900

 

[cmdrdredd]

Probably because it's not 100% correct as several devs have admitted in the past. Most DLC may be released after base game launch, but of course it's planned out long in advance. In many cases they need to know how and where to "link" it into the main game, and work does start on it before main game is released (let alone bug-fixed). Sometimes the voice acting will be recorded at same time as main game if it involves the same voice actors, whilst the general plot / storyboard is threshed out, animators / artists / level designers / script-writers who've finished work on the main game will start work on that before release and yes, there have indeed been meetings in the past throughout main game development along the lines of "So where do we insert this sidequest again, Chapter 3 or 4?", "Nah, let's split that off for the DLC...". Not being cynical at all, it's simply how it works. DLC development doesn't exist in a "isolated bubble".

Planned in advance doesn't necessarily mean it's created in advance. That's why it takes months to release some DLC. The whole point is that development costs are pretty high and they want to maximize the revenue from a game, especially popular ones. Look at Forza on the Xbox. They keep releasing car packs which are optional after the game launched. These cars aren't in the game but they may have planned to create them. It takes the team many hours to create the cars in the detail they want to do it in. They need to pay the content creators so they charge for the packs, or you can buy the pass in advance.

Some of you guys act like they had a 80 hour game and cut 40 hours out a week before launch. They didn't do that. Most of the time I don't even miss whatever DLC is offered. It's all optional which is the point. A game should be able to stand on its own at launch and be worth the asking price, if it isn't to you then don't buy it. Developers won't stop creating DLC and some of this talk about "I'll just pirate it because I hate DLC" is pretty ridiculous.(I know you didn't say that)

Yeeeeah, no. That's kind of silly to say.

We have plenty of instances of Day 1 DLC, or ON-DISK DLC.

Clearly content that was ready to go at or about the same time the game was launched, now being charged extra for.

I get the business acumen behind it: There are plenty of suckers who will buy it up. So I don't blame them at all for making more of a profit.
But let's not for a second pretend that that makes it right, or perform some sycophantic mental gymnastics to convince ourselves that we're getting all the content right off the bat.

Like I said, a game should be able to stand on its own at the asking price at launch. Whatever the game offers is it. It is a complete game. Just because there is DLC missions or costume packs, map packs etc doesn't mean the game is incomplete.

An example of an incomplete game at launch is Street Fighter 5. It released early for people practicing for the tournaments and a lot of the modes are purposely left out. That game isn't worth $60 to me without the stuff they will be adding via a download for free later on. A game such as The Witcher 3 had story based DLC to be added later and we knew about it. It was still worth the $60 asking price to me so I bought it. I even went ahead and bought Hearts of Stone because it added enough meaningful content for the price in my opinion.

That's how this works. You evaluate the content you get for the asking price and you decide whether to buy the game. Trying to go on some crusade against DLC by either pirating a game or never buying games at launch doesn't do anything to change the way development works today.

I found out today the game doesn't even support multi GPU. How idiotic is that? I remember the last game supporting it really well. Damn. The way things are going I might have to just trade up for a single big Pascal and stay a single GPU guy.
So maybe by the time the game is $30 it will have multi GPU support as well. That would be a good deal.

This is a separate issue and for someone using SLI like myself it would persuade me to not purchase the game. I don't believe it is that difficult to create a game that handles multi GPU configurations.

 

[sweenish]

I justify pirating Xcom 2 the same as I justify spending $500 on path of exile. I pay what a game is worth to me and Xcom is worth nowhere close to $80. I did buy the first game and its expansion and imo that's about the right cost for both games together

Spending money on one game does not ever justify pirating another. That's such a broken argument. If you don't think it's worth the money, don't play it. Or don't try to justify it. There is never a justification for the use of a commercial good or service where you were never going to pay. Just say you stole it and be done with it. And yes, even digital, it's theft.

It's not as if I don't pirate things, I just don't have this dis-illusion about what I'm doing.

 

[TidusZ]

Spending money on one game does not ever justify pirating another. That's such a broken argument. If you don't think it's worth the money, don't play it. Or don't try to justify it. There is never a justification for the use of a commercial good or service where you were never going to pay. Just say you stole it and be done with it. And yes, even digital, it's theft.

It's not as if I don't pirate things, I just don't have this dis-illusion about what I'm doing.

When the world is fair then I'll feel bad about stealing digital games, until then I don't give two shits. I think that the ridiculous amount of injustice in how businesses operate does justify stealing in some cases. I wish we lived in a world that was close to fair because then I could aspire to ideals I truly do believe in, but that's just not the case. You think its about justifying a crime, I just see it as seeing the forest for the trees. There are lots of other crimes I'd commit and feel justified in and believe it or not if nobody thought this way the world would be even more fucked than it is.


Cussing and advocating piracy are not allowed here
Markfw900

 

[BSim500]

Planned in advance doesn't necessarily mean it's created in advance.

Quite often it does though. Games devs have all sorts of employees that finish the main game at different stages. Many of them work under contracts that will include DLC, and some do indeed start their own DLC work whilst other employees are still working on the main game. Eg, the story / script writer's will often finish first, and sometimes write both the main story & DLC together (a finished script is obviously necessary for voice recording, etc, to even start, and voice actors may be paid to record both at the same time in one session especially if they play a large role in the base game but small one in the DLC and have only a handful of lines). Likewise, the musician doesn't have to wait for the main game's release to create the DLC's musical score he's already been contracted to do. Forza for XBox is simply one of those games where adding extra skins is something done continuously due to the genre. There are other games though where "stuff" that's in the DLC has a certain "feel" that it was intended for the main game but split off purely to pad out weak DLC. And then there's the obvious "Day One on-disc DLC" which speaks for itself in being 100% created in advance...

Some of you guys act like they had a 80 hour game and cut 40 hours out a week before launch.

No that's just a wild exaggeration for the sake of attempted ridicule. There are very few games (if any) where "half" is claimed to be missing (and nothing so drastic gets cut a week before launch). It is however, a false belief that "99% of devs never work on DLC until after the game has shipped". It's like building a row of houses : Once the builders have laid the foundations & walls of the first do they sit around waiting for the plasterers and decorators before starting on the second? No. This is nothing new in the game industry. As for "nothing in any DLC could possibly have been originally intended for the base game", the bottom line is, people don't create parody stuff like this and this and this and this and this for no reason.

Most of the time I don't even miss whatever DLC is offered. It's all optional which is the point.

It depends entirely on the game. There are games where the DLC does feel more like an old fashioned "expansion pack" which adds a huge amount of content and yet not buying won't be missed at all. OTOH, there are games where the DLC is pure cheese for the sake of "we have DLC too!" bandwagon jumping or contains critical bug fixes not released in a patch for the base-only game. Or the DLC "entry points" are aggressively pushed in your face shattering immersion if you choose to not buy them when base game NPC's "break the fourth wall" by begging you to spend real money in-game. Or the DLC involves "unlocking" as an alternative to inflated "grinding" BUT the extent of the grinding is only there in the first place because of the anti-grind DLC, whereas had the devs chosen to not sell any DLC, the base game's "grindiness" would not have been artificially inflated to the same extent. Or is even needed to see the actual end of a game. At which point it isn't quite as "optional" or "base game unaffecting" as is often naively claimed...

A game should be able to stand on its own at launch and be worth the asking price, if it isn't to you then don't buy it.

I agree, and I regularly don't (it wasn't me talking about piracy). But repeating that won't stop people commenting on "another one of those $100 games" all the time DLC is aggressively pushed with stuff that feels like obvious padding that many believe would have been placed in the main game had the devs decided to not sell any DLC, or is simply an "anti grind-inflation toll" based on bringing the trashier side of F2P mobile gaming to big budget PC games but packaged in a way to appear only slightly more palatable and less obvious.