$60.00 has been the standard for new games, give or take taxes, in the United States for a long time now. I was fine with it for a long time, but not anymore. It's gotten to the point where buying a full priced game is ridiculous in most cases. I'm not complaining that $60 is too much money for a new game. I'm saying, a lot of new games just aren't worth the money.
Patches have done a lot for video games, they've allowed game breaking glitches to be fixed right away. They've also allowed developers to get lazy and release broken games. We've all gotten the day one patch for games before. Remember when some people playing Skyrim on PS3 couldn't save and the autosave feature wouldn't work? I remember. It happened to me so I put the game down for well over a year. Did I enjoy Skyrim, yeah. I just played last week. But, that doesn't change the fact that they shipped a broken game. They aren't the only developers to do so either.
Like patches, DLC is a great thing. It can add hours of gameplay to some games. There's a problem when DLC becomes essential. Let's look at the defunct THQ. They would advertise a roster of 80 characters, but only if you payed an additional $20 for the DLC characters. Now, THQ went out of business because of moves like that. You'd think that this would change with 2K being in charge now. Nope, they do the same thing. Developers change, money grabbing tactics stay the same. You don't have to buy that DLC but, until the most recent WWE game, if you didn't have that DLC you couldn't play online with people who did. So if you bought the DLC and they didn't, you can't play with your friends until they buy the DLC or you uninstall it.
What's even worse than DLC that's required? When the DLC is already on the disc. Nothing annoys me more than having to pay for DLC when it's already on the disc. It's ridiculous that you have to pay a signing bonus in addition to the $60 that you just payed, so you can get everything on the disc. That's essentially just putting features behind a paywall.
I don't always like to play online. I like an expansive story I can put hours into. A lot of games are featuring really short, and really bad single player stories to focus on multiplayer. I was really excited for the Starhwak game. Then I learned the story is about 2 hours and everything else is online. You can't just half way do a key part of the game. On top of that, most games have a yearly update at this point.
When THQ was trying to stay alive they started broke up one Saints Row game into 2 games a year apart and 3 DLCs because it was one of the only profitable series they had. But it's not just dead THQ. What about games that are released in episodes, where you pay for each episode independently. It may look cheaper on the outside but sometimes it adds up to way more than $60.
I'm not saying all games aren't worth the money. I'd pay $60 again for Grand Theft Auto V. I'd never pay $60 for a sports game or yearly first person shooter. I'd never pay full price for episodic content. I wouldn't pay $60 for games that require you to buy DLC to get all the advertised features. I won't pay to be a beta tester and I won't pay for half a game. There needs to be a sliding scale on the price of video games because $60 is just too much for a lot of the games being released now. I refuse to pay full price to be a Beta Tester. I'll wait for the price drop when it's not selling well.
You can hear Darrell on the CP Time and Powerbomb Jutsu podcasts. He also plays classic arcade games on The Cabinet
Follow @OriginalKingD
Patches have done a lot for video games, they've allowed game breaking glitches to be fixed right away. They've also allowed developers to get lazy and release broken games. We've all gotten the day one patch for games before. Remember when some people playing Skyrim on PS3 couldn't save and the autosave feature wouldn't work? I remember. It happened to me so I put the game down for well over a year. Did I enjoy Skyrim, yeah. I just played last week. But, that doesn't change the fact that they shipped a broken game. They aren't the only developers to do so either. Like patches, DLC is a great thing. It can add hours of gameplay to some games. There's a problem when DLC becomes essential. Let's look at the defunct THQ. They would advertise a roster of 80 characters, but only if you payed an additional $20 for the DLC characters. Now, THQ went out of business because of moves like that. You'd think that this would change with 2K being in charge now. Nope, they do the same thing. Developers change, money grabbing tactics stay the same. You don't have to buy that DLC but, until the most recent WWE game, if you didn't have that DLC you couldn't play online with people who did. So if you bought the DLC and they didn't, you can't play with your friends until they buy the DLC or you uninstall it.
What's even worse than DLC that's required? When the DLC is already on the disc. Nothing annoys me more than having to pay for DLC when it's already on the disc. It's ridiculous that you have to pay a signing bonus in addition to the $60 that you just payed, so you can get everything on the disc. That's essentially just putting features behind a paywall.
I don't always like to play online. I like an expansive story I can put hours into. A lot of games are featuring really short, and really bad single player stories to focus on multiplayer. I was really excited for the Starhwak game. Then I learned the story is about 2 hours and everything else is online. You can't just half way do a key part of the game. On top of that, most games have a yearly update at this point.When THQ was trying to stay alive they started broke up one Saints Row game into 2 games a year apart and 3 DLCs because it was one of the only profitable series they had. But it's not just dead THQ. What about games that are released in episodes, where you pay for each episode independently. It may look cheaper on the outside but sometimes it adds up to way more than $60.
I'm not saying all games aren't worth the money. I'd pay $60 again for Grand Theft Auto V. I'd never pay $60 for a sports game or yearly first person shooter. I'd never pay full price for episodic content. I wouldn't pay $60 for games that require you to buy DLC to get all the advertised features. I won't pay to be a beta tester and I won't pay for half a game. There needs to be a sliding scale on the price of video games because $60 is just too much for a lot of the games being released now. I refuse to pay full price to be a Beta Tester. I'll wait for the price drop when it's not selling well.
You can hear Darrell on the CP Time and Powerbomb Jutsu podcasts. He also plays classic arcade games on The Cabinet
Follow @OriginalKingD
