Smash Fighter Pass 1 - Announced November 1, 2018 - $25

Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Main Game - Released December 7, 2018 - $60

Xenoblade Chronicles 3 Expansion Pass - Announced June 22, 2022 - $30

Xenoblade Chronicles 3 Main Game - Released July 29, 2022. - $60

By your logic, Both Smash Ultimate and Xenoblade Chronicles 3 released incomplete. Smash would cost $85 and Xenoblade would cost $90.

Now the real question is: Where were these kinds of discussions then?Â

Yes, where were they?

Those did not reach $100 like the joke price for GTA VI, but this is ridiculous.

I only made the thread because nobody else was going to make it, when it's bad stuff about Sony, Microsoft and other companies the threads pop up, as they should.

This is the second time since the Switch 2 released that this is the case, and it's specially worse because most people in the forums like Nintendo, most threads are about Nintendo, so there is a lot of interest on it... but apparently not when there is the need to say something bad.

Having to compare this to EA should tell you how bad the situation is.

Funny that is exactly where my mind was during the direct: EA and PS3 era Capcom.

I will add I never claimed that was the first time it ever happened, as some are thinking is the case, but that the joke price for GTA VI was actually beaten by Pokémon, just as it's in the title and OP.

I wonder how can someone think the DLC should not count when it should clearly be part of the $60/70 game, they are not working on extra content for the game after it was released.

The first day DLC content is mostly cosmetic (literally costumes for Pokémon), like most first day DLC. It's not like story content is being held behind a paywall. The story content is not complete and doesn't come out until as late as February, depending on when it is finished. Although I guess they could have easily just charged $5 for the cosmetic content and then $25 for the story DLC when it comes out and it wouldn't look as bad. That's what most companies do. 

Again, we are talking about a franchise where Nintendo used to sell two copies of what were essentially the same game and a third copy that also was very similar for two decades (Red, Green/Blue, Yellow; Gold, Silver, Crystal; Ruby, Sapphire, Emarald; Diamond, Pearl, Platinum; etc.) This is relatively cheaper compared to that, for the completionists. 

As others have already posted, the DLC isn't available day one and is a future update.  The only DLC available at launch is optional cosmetics like costumes, that Resident Evil does, all Tales of games do, Persona games do etc.

Let me pull up by Playstation store and look at a couple of up coming games. Let's see Border Lands 4 has a $70 standard version, a 100 deluxe version, and a $130 super deluxe version....huh. Recent Madden has a 70 standard, 100 deluxe, and 100 kickoff bundle, and 150 mvp bundle...huh. Call of duty...multiple versions. Metal Gear Solid Snake Eater regular 70 version, and $80 digital deluxe that comes with some outfits, sunglasses, and a couple of masks. Ghost Of Yotei regular $70 version and $80 deluxe with armor, a horse, a sword kit. I'm sure it will get some more dlc announced later as well like the first Ghost. Man, even Sonic Racing has a $90 digital deluxe edition.  That is just on the first couple of games I looked at on the home page of the PlayStation 5 screen.

I'm sure GTA VI + their online stuff will cost way more than $100

If you want, we can just start talking exclusively about Sony, Sega, Capcom, Microsoft, etc. I can’t even think of a gaming company that doesn’t pump out DLC for their games, unless we’re talking indie studios.

(also, I think you’re targeting your fire at likely the worst target in the industry: Nintendo is infamous for never releasing DLC for their games. Nothing for Mario Wonder, Pikmin 4, TotK, Echoes of Wisdom, etc. But if you really want to target Nintendo, then go wild. I’m fine with people holding businesses accountable for anti-consumer practices.)

Not going to defend Nintendo here because the pricing of most of their games/accessories sucks ass this generation but I'm pretty sure the whole "GTA 6 is going to cost $100" is about the price of the base game alone.

If we are counting DLC, the $100 barrier was broken a long time ago by a lot of companies, even by Rockstar themselves.

So, lets say instead, Nintendo didn't announce the DLC, then waited like three months, and announced/released it then. That seems to mean the original was complete by your definition, but the end result to the gamer is absolutely the same. What you're actually objecting too is the timing of the DLC announcement/release.

It is not like development works by having the team just putting in as much time as they can and then putting whatever they have on release date in the game. There are budgets, and it is quite possible that they used more resources than they otherwise would have had they not planned for DLC.

Personally, my opinion is that if the game has enough content to be worth it at launch, I really don't care if/when DLC is launched.