By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - God of War: Ragnarok launching November 9th!

Dante9 said:

Now if I could only get my hands on a PS5 to play this on. I put an order in months ago.

Get it on Ps4, then upgrade to PS5 when you get one? I mean, there's a reason so many games have this option.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II, Rock Band 4

Around the Network
Runa216 said:
DragonRouge said:

Day one... If it didn't cost 70 USD. I refuse to pay 70 dollars for games. I'll wait patiently.

Man, your head is gonna explode when someone teaches you about inflation. 

I bet there was a time when people said 'Bread? For more than a quarter? This country's gone to shit!" 

And with inflation taken into equation even if we ignore that the cost to make games have gone several orders of magnitude higher the price for the games is lower than they were 20 years or 30 years ago.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Runa216 said:

Man, your head is gonna explode when someone teaches you about inflation. 

I bet there was a time when people said 'Bread? For more than a quarter? This country's gone to shit!" 

And with inflation taken into equation even if we ignore that the cost to make games have gone several orders of magnitude higher the price for the games is lower than they were 20 years or 30 years ago.

It would probably be an easier pill to swallow for more gamers if it was $70 across the board for games, but Nintendo and Xbox are still charging at max $60 for their first party games for the foreseeable future, if not the remainder of the generation alongside other major studios like Capcom and Sega. Causing more doubt in gamers if $70 is actually necessary. 

Not to mention the scummy companies like EA and 2K charging $70 for their sports games when they're still riddled with microtransactions. It just causes even more questions as to whether $70 is justified.  



Runa216 said:
DragonRouge said:

Day one... If it didn't cost 70 USD. I refuse to pay 70 dollars for games. I'll wait patiently.

Man, your head is gonna explode when someone teaches you about inflation. 

I bet there was a time when people said 'Bread? For more than a quarter? This country's gone to shit!" 

When it comes to electronics inflation doesn't always go up.  The medium costs less today than it did on the SNES/Genesis/N64.  A blank carts could cost up to $30 back than, while cd's, dvd's, blu ray's cost pennies and buying it digitally  cost's even less in distribution costs.  My first computer in the early 2000's costs double what my current macbook costs and it had less memory than my watch these days.  Tv's, blu ray players have all come down quite a bit over the years.  Yes the cost to make bigger and bigger games costs more, but that is for developers to figure out how to be as efficient as possible when making games, because there is a huge amount of gamers that are not willing to pay $70.  Developers also put in microtransactions and now nft's to try and squeeze more money out of gamers.  Hell you can buy 3 years of game pass for cheaper than 2 PS5 games if you search out a deal and get 3 years for $90-$100.



gtotheunit91 said:
DonFerrari said:

And with inflation taken into equation even if we ignore that the cost to make games have gone several orders of magnitude higher the price for the games is lower than they were 20 years or 30 years ago.

It would probably be an easier pill to swallow for more gamers if it was $70 across the board for games, but Nintendo and Xbox are still charging at max $60 for their first party games for the foreseeable future, if not the remainder of the generation alongside other major studios like Capcom and Sega. Causing more doubt in gamers if $70 is actually necessary. 

Not to mention the scummy companies like EA and 2K charging $70 for their sports games when they're still riddled with microtransactions. It just causes even more questions as to whether $70 is justified.  

Ow sure, different companies with different prices making it easier to see complains I do agree, and sure I don't think most games deserve a 70 pricetag, much less those deluxe editions that is just reversed base game with the others with content removed that can go even double than that on launch easily and some DLCs and mtx that are much higher price than they should.

And also sure companies are making more money so they DON't really need to increase the price because the cost increased, they can absorve the extra cost because they are still healthly in profit.

I would certainly appreciate more variation in price for games though though we get that in used and some smaller titles.

rapsuperstar31 said:
Runa216 said:

Man, your head is gonna explode when someone teaches you about inflation. 

I bet there was a time when people said 'Bread? For more than a quarter? This country's gone to shit!" 

When it comes to electronics inflation doesn't always go up.  The medium costs less today than it did on the SNES/Genesis/N64.  A blank carts could cost up to $30 back than, while cd's, dvd's, blu ray's cost pennies and buying it digitally  cost's even less in distribution costs.  My first computer in the early 2000's costs double what my current macbook costs and it had less memory than my watch these days.  Tv's, blu ray players have all come down quite a bit over the years.  Yes the cost to make bigger and bigger games costs more, but that is for developers to figure out how to be as efficient as possible when making games, because there is a huge amount of gamers that are not willing to pay $70.  Developers also put in microtransactions and now nft's to try and squeeze more money out of gamers.  Hell you can buy 3 years of game pass for cheaper than 2 PS5 games if you search out a deal and get 3 years for $90-$100.

The inflation always go up.

What you perceive as continuous reduction of pricetag for similar product while it matures isn't the same thing as deflation.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
gtotheunit91 said:
DonFerrari said:

And with inflation taken into equation even if we ignore that the cost to make games have gone several orders of magnitude higher the price for the games is lower than they were 20 years or 30 years ago.

It would probably be an easier pill to swallow for more gamers if it was $70 across the board for games, but Nintendo and Xbox are still charging at max $60 for their first party games for the foreseeable future, if not the remainder of the generation alongside other major studios like Capcom and Sega. Causing more doubt in gamers if $70 is actually necessary. 

Not to mention the scummy companies like EA and 2K charging $70 for their sports games when they're still riddled with microtransactions. It just causes even more questions as to whether $70 is justified.  

Sony games (With only a handful of exceptions) Are not riddled with Microtransactions. When you buy something like God of War or Horizon or Ratchet & Clank or Demon's Souls or Returnal, you get a full game. Fullstop. Yeah, charging exorbitant prices on games that also have microtransactions and all that crap is bad, but for the most part Sony (And Nintendo) don't do that. And, since Inflation is a thing and game budgets are ballooning in order to keep up with demand, hiking the price up is perfectly reasonable. 

Remember, video games are a luxury, not essential. Either pay the price or don't, but whining about it just makes you look petty and ignorant of actual economic factors involved. 

This 'games shouldn't be 70 bucks' narrative is just baffling to me and always has been. Gamers as a whole are one of the most entitled groups of people I've ever met. a shame since videogames are my favourite medium by far. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II, Rock Band 4

Runa216 said:

Sony games (With only a handful of exceptions) Are not riddled with Microtransactions. When you buy something like God of War or Horizon or Ratchet & Clank or Demon's Souls or Returnal, you get a full game. Fullstop. Yeah, charging exorbitant prices on games that also have microtransactions and all that crap is bad, but for the most part Sony (And Nintendo) don't do that. And, since Inflation is a thing and game budgets are ballooning in order to keep up with demand, hiking the price up is perfectly reasonable. 

Remember, video games are a luxury, not essential. Either pay the price or don't, but whining about it just makes you look petty and ignorant of actual economic factors involved. 

This 'games shouldn't be 70 bucks' narrative is just baffling to me and always has been. Gamers as a whole are one of the most entitled groups of people I've ever met. a shame since videogames are my favourite medium by far. 

I always wait for price drops anyways. Haven't paid more than 50 USD for a game in years.

Last edited by DragonRouge - on 20 July 2022

twintail said:
Hiku said:

I beat the main story, but not all Valkyries. I had the fire one (and then the 'queen') left.
I liked the combat against bosses, but not regular enemies. Haven't played the original games, but from the looks of it, I may have preferred that combat system as well since it looks more like DMC.

The originals are more like 2D beat em ups but in 3D. More so than DMC which expects more finesse from the user.

But I personally find GoW >>> DMC.

As for GoW2018. Love the gameplay too, very satisfying combining Kratos with Atreus as a second attack.

And Valkyrie queen? *Chefs kiss*, what an awesome fight. Eventually beat her without taking damage. Battle just eventually clicked.and felt like I completely overpowered her.

But yeah, I can see the combat in GoW not being for everyone.

Initially I enjoyed the combat (against regular enemies), and having Atreus opening up enemies or following up on Kratos attacks.
Though for reasons I can't put my finger on, later on it was not un-enjoyable, but just whatever to me. An obstacle to get to the next storytime between Kratos, Atreus and Mimir. Which were great all the way through the game.

I enjoyed every Valkyrie battle. But after a couple of attempts against the Fire one, I was debating on whether I should try to kill the last two, or start a new game. And I went with starting a new game.



Hiku said:
twintail said:

The originals are more like 2D beat em ups but in 3D. More so than DMC which expects more finesse from the user.

But I personally find GoW >>> DMC.

As for GoW2018. Love the gameplay too, very satisfying combining Kratos with Atreus as a second attack.

And Valkyrie queen? *Chefs kiss*, what an awesome fight. Eventually beat her without taking damage. Battle just eventually clicked.and felt like I completely overpowered her.

But yeah, I can see the combat in GoW not being for everyone.

Initially I enjoyed the combat (against regular enemies), and having Atreus opening up enemies or following up on Kratos attacks.
Though for reasons I can't put my finger on, later on it was not un-enjoyable, but just whatever to me. An obstacle to get to the next storytime between Kratos, Atreus and Mimir. Which were great all the way through the game.

I enjoyed every Valkyrie battle. But after a couple of attempts against the Fire one, I was debating on whether I should try to kill the last two, or start a new game. And I went with starting a new game.

let me guess you choose give me gow difficulty so couldn't reduce to finish the last valk?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Hiku said:

Initially I enjoyed the combat (against regular enemies), and having Atreus opening up enemies or following up on Kratos attacks.
Though for reasons I can't put my finger on, later on it was not un-enjoyable, but just whatever to me. An obstacle to get to the next storytime between Kratos, Atreus and Mimir. Which were great all the way through the game.

I enjoyed every Valkyrie battle. But after a couple of attempts against the Fire one, I was debating on whether I should try to kill the last two, or start a new game. And I went with starting a new game.

let me guess you choose give me gow difficulty so couldn't reduce to finish the last valk?

No, I started on "Give Me a Balanced Experience" and then tried "Give Me a Challenge" on the second Valkyrie I fought.
But I don't think I tried the hardest difficulty at any point.