OdinHades said:
Imo it's the exact opposite. There's a shit ton of games that isn't worth 60 $, yet the publishers ALWAYS ask for that price, just because gamers are stupid enough to pay it. I don't think there is any game that is worth more than 60 bucks. Especially not Zelda that will sell huge quantities anyway, they will get their money back just because of the amount of copies being sold. For the same reason GTA 5 is also not worth more than 60 $. The content in this game is friggin' insane, yet when selling more than 70 million units, you don't need a high price tag to get your money back and loads and loads of cash on top. Plus, in that game, DLC is free. While I am very certain Zelda is worth 60 $, I won't pay any more than that for the complete package. I once spent 130 € on a single game, which was Battlefield 4 with the Premium shit. It wasn't worth its money. I had a shitload of fun with it, but it still wasn't worth 130 €. I'm never gonna make that mistake again. I could have waited and get the complete package for 20 € just a year later. ´That's what I'm doing these days with every game that comes with DLC. Zelda is no exception. |
Are you aware of how expensive games are to make and how some very high quality video game companies went under because they couldn't afford to continue to make games under their current operations due to how expensive their AAA content was? There are plenty of games that are worth more than $60 due to their quality and cost to make. Things that cost more to make don't all fit the same price range. Otherwise all houses, cars, and furniture should be price the same. It's simply a mentality that exists in the gaming industry, and for good reasons for the consumer as well. I do agree that there are some games that shouldn't cost $60. For example No Man's Sky should have been $40. There's some games that I'd gladly pay $80-$100 for. Stuff like Mass Effect and Metal Gear Solid definitely fit that for me in terms of quality and content.
What games do you feel are not worth $60 and more importantly why do you feel that to be the case. For example do you believe that developers/employees should suffer if the game costs are too high? Should they reduce their content and quality over all to make up for these alternatives? Should lay offs be applicable. More importantly should be people be paid for the job they do? Many games have insane crunch time with employee's working over time with no pay and let go after the game is done because there isn't enough money to keep them on. If this ever happened in education or other industries there would be strikes like crazy. Now should developers becoming unionized? I'd prefer not but there are very real issues in the game developer community. DLC is a way to compensate for this and some developers actually prepare day one DLC as a way to ensure that the pre-production team does not have to be let go. They can continue to work, get paid, and work on great games. This kind of content does not go into production until AFTER the production teams take over and the Pre-Production and concept guys are DONE with the game. Which I would roughly estimate is about 20-30% in the development process in many cases.
That being said I agree that many games do not justify it's DLC. For myself I often only buy it when I want to get it. So I get what I want, very rarely I do I get ahead of time. With Resident EVII I did because I'm a huge fan of that series and the Deluxe edition is a steal. I believe it only cost me an extra $10 if I recall correctly. It was well worth it. Definitely wait until developers outline everything you get in the season pass before you buy it. I feel that Ubisoft's season passes are very bad and most of the stuff is skippable. If you get all the essential stuff it's almost half the price of the Seasons pass in many cases. At least as far as Assassin's Creed goes that seems to be the case so I end up paying significantly less for the single player DLC as I don't care for the cosmetic items and bonus weapons.
