The closest for me is about 5% off at Costco for a Nintendo new release that I was looking forward to. Nintendo games don’t drop much, so that was probably the best deal on new I’d probably get until the next console release.
I don’t remember the time before that, since it has probably been a decade or more.
Imagine telling younger you with the Xbox 360 with Halo 2, Halo 3 and all the Gears games that Microsoft would one day be putting these flagship titles on the Playstation.
ridiculous. games don’t have to be padded to 4000 hours full of busywork and bullshit to be worth $60. OW1 was more worth $60 than any bethesda game since FO:Vegas, which was incidentally not made by bethesda.
I agree with your general point, but I think the problem is OW1 didn’t stick the landing.
Not gonna lie if I didn’t buy it on sale and didn’t get the DLC I would have been disappointed. Emerald Vale and Monarch had really great self contained stories but once you get to Byzantium it starts to lose steam. The 2 DLC are also the strongest stories in the game.
fair. i just found it well written, funny and witty throughout, with memorable NPCs and a solid pace that I’d prefer to a Bethesda style game, which I was very tired of at that point.
i think most of the backlash against it came from the expectation that it would be literally fallout 3 style open world when it was much more guided and concise.
that being said i don’t think any game should be fucking 70 bucks let alone 80. so I’ll wait for reviews first and a discount second, and only buy it both are positive.
Honestly I mostly agree with you if you include the DLC. IMO Outer Worlds is a game about moments. Each contained story arc in Emerald, Monarch, and the 2 dlc locations are so good. There’s a lot of different ways to approach them and different turns you can take. There’s also so many small moments like the woman in Byzantium who
Tap for spoilerWants you to investigate the early retirement process because she feels like she’s missing out on luxury. Only for you to find out it’s just a funnel to lead people to a testing bed. You can then lie to her and say “yeah it’s totally great. You’re missing out and should do it too “ I laughed so hard at that.
But the over arching story isn’t there. It builds up to some cool points and then just sort of stops. If I didn’t play it with the DLC I could see how people would be disappointed.
Also like you said if you go into it expecting FO NV in space you’ll be sorely disappointed as there’s not much gear reward for exploring. There’s unique weapons but if you invest in the bare minimum into engineering you can craft much better weapons. It’s more about building something YOU want to run. Which is cool and fun , but if you’re expecting a loot game you’re gonna be disappointed. I think this part is less a knock on the game though and more of a lack of engaging with what the game wants you to do if that makes sense.
I agree with you that time isn’t the measure of value. That’s not what the person above said though. Honestly, I think it was a pretty bad game. The writting didn’t trust the player, instead they beat them over the head that it’s a goofy critique of capitalism. The characters were boring. The game in general just wasn’t very fun.
Honestly, it did fall into what you’re saying where it felt bloated. There was potentially a good game in there, but it was buried under everything that wasn’t interesting but they thought they needed.
I said pretty much this when they announced the price. I could see some games maybe being able to make the $70 or $80 argument, maybe. But definitely not this game.
If you’re going to push the limit of game pricing you have to pick a very good game to start with, then all of the mediocre ones can be brought up slowly over time. You can’t just increase the price of every game wholesale and expect people to be okay with it.
If anybody was going to be okay with paying $80 for a game it would be GTA VI, I suspect that most of the studios were caught out, as they assumed it would cost $80 and would be released this year. When the announcement came that it wasn’t going to be released until next year their projected pricing suddenly didn’t make sense, but they went ahead with it anyway, and got rightfully yelled at.
GTA 6 won’t be worth 80 bucks. no game is. it’s complete horseshit, the inflation argument is bad, the cost of making games argument is worse. don’t buy corpo bullshit.
I wasn’t making an inflation argument. But if any game was worth $80 that would be that. I can’t think of another candidate that’s due out soon, possibly another Sims game but the zero chance of EA are going to do anything with that franchise for a while.
CDPR has a very ambitious project coming up, but I’m not touching that with an electrified cattle prod until after the reviews come out.
Maybe a CoD game depending on who is actually developing it and assuming it had a campaign.
i didn’t mean to imply you were arguing for it. i get what you’re saying i just wanted to point out that the industry justifications for it are bullshit.
2 months ago I would have been curious why. But since finishing E33, I then binged all of NieR and I wholeheartedly agree now. I’d probably pay any price for another Sandfall game now too. As well as for any Trails/Kiseki game, but that’s literally it.
As much as I adore games like Witcher 3, CDPR needs to prove themselves all over again with Witcher 4 after the misfire launch of CP2077.
And I also loved FF7 Rebirth, it was almost a perfect game for me, but SquEnix really needs to make the impossible perfect game for the trilogy itself to make this journey feel worth it, so I’m so damn cautiously optimistic about the final game.
You’d have a game on the ps5, that requires PS+ to play online, but also needs a Nintendo Online account, AND a Microsoft account (since MS owns Rare).
The future is indeed dumb. The 2022 GoldenEye has it’s own baggage.
I don’t think Nintendo was willing to let Microsoft sell it as a physical product (collectors would view it as superior to Nintendo’s NSO requirement).
Remember when Sony fans were laughing at PC players for refusing to make a PSN account to play games on Steam, even going as far as saying “it’s just a sign in, what does it matter?”. Will the table has turned.
Christ, I can’t believe I’m going to have to begin a comment with these words so early in my life…
…but back in my day, the vast majority of the back of a game case was reserved to screenshots, and to describe the features and plot of a game. Not the intricacies of the T&Cs you need to agree to prior to playing!
I’m young and even this has me gagging. Our Switch games definitely don’t look like that, although I do feel box art and blurbs on the back used to entice me more, but maybe that’s just because I’m not a kid anymore. But yeah this is fucking horrendous to look at 🤢
Forza Horizon is a great arcade racer. This is the first I’ve heard about the requirement, so maybe after it spreads online, there will be more vocal pushback.
Helldivers 2 is different. The game already released, and then Sony tried adding PS Account requirement after many people had already bought the game.
Forza Horizon 5 has not released on PlayStation yet, and anyone that currently plays the game does so on platforms that they do have a Microsoft Account. For example, playing the game on Steam still requires you to link a Microsoft Account.
The Helldivers 2 things wasn’t that the game needed an account, it was because it was added on later. Its also different from games like Horizon Forbidden West or God of War Ragnarok because both of those are singleplayer games and should not require any kind of account to play the game as they do not have online gameplay.
Microsoft is really bad at first impressions. Like that initial Halo Infinite preview and the early Avowed preview with the skeletons and weird/lacking shadows. Or being shocked that the public didn’t like Redfall and that it was comically buggy. Obsidian is perennially solid, but Microsoft is at least a brand anchor with how they can’t seem to ever have foresight for any PR issues with their decision making
If you’re basing your value judgement on the price of similar games on the market right now then no, it’s very very unlikely to be worth 70. There are critically acclaimed open world games that will likely beat this on content and potential enjoyment / play time for $5-10 right now.
Realistically, we’re paying for the novelty though, if you’re desperate for something new it might work. I told myself my price point was $60, but there will probably be some sort of discount on the way to or shortly after launch day for the PC version.
I still have the first on the backlog so I’m good. I really only buy games that are special to me at full price. And at 70 or even 80, they would have to be extra special.
I was just thinking aloud. If they set a price and now slashed it before launch, it clearly wasn’t worth as much - with the corpos arguing they have to up the price due to cost… this is pretty much them showing it plain and simple it’s bullshit
It was worth $80 to a few pre-orderers, but not enough for the market analysts to project a profitable launch.
In monopoly capitalism, the prices are all made up numbers, especially for digital goods, with very little to do with what they cost. If they don’t get enough preorders at $70, they’ll either drop it to $60 or cancel it altogether to maintain “$70 market conditions.”
xcancel.com
Ważne