all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

K. I still ain’t buying shit from EA. I don’t really care that the cancer has stopped spreading momentarily.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I stopped for years so imagine my surprise when I was seeing their games for free/extremely discounted (like $2-4) on Steam.

    Still didn't buy them.

    Also Ubisoft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    yup. I refuse to buy games 95% off in the $5 bin. I instantly assume the game is made by some garbage trash company that doesn't care. I'd rather pay $30 knowing the developer isn't shit

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I wonder what this means for the $100 GTA6 rumors. Nintendo seems to be getting away with the $80 price but MS and EA both backing down is a good sign.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    It means if GTA6 launches with a $100 price tag and still sells boat loads, everyone else saying they aren't even going to $80 will suddenly suffer amnesia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I waited 5 years for cyberpunk to go on sale for a low enough price before I bought it, I would probably do the same with gta6. If it's priced too high. I will just wait a few years until it isn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 31 comments in c/games@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 77 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    They're already charging way more than that when you count all the DLC.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Yeah, wasn't sims 4 with all dlc like 1 grand just a couple yeara ago?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don’t understand looking at Sims 4 as an example. The game has had progressive additions for a long time; it’s basically a live service game, and now comes free.

    It’s rare for anyone to feel they want all the DLC - usually it would just be a few things they want and have fun with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    True, but iirc sims 4 also released in a more cut-down state than sims 3 - in fact it was one of the pioneers of "paradoxification" of games and victim of other bullshit that EA was trying to pull, just like with simcity.

    Anyway, my point was that with EA the up-front price they charge is not awfully relevant, because you have lootboxes, p2w, mtx, gambling, dlc of varying dollar value etc. so you might end up paying a crapload, live service or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The base price increase would still raise the total with DLC. Not including the DLC is still worth talking about, since there are plenty of ways to enjoy a game without it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    well DLC has always cost money on top of the base game so i’m not sure what your point is.

    edit:

    you're ignoring that if you buy all DLCs you get much more content compared to old $60 games. If you want to look at this fairly you need to come up with some way of quantifying the content involved which is not easy to do.

    I do agree that some DLCs are clearly designed as money grabs (like most premium/gold launch editions). But i disagree with lumping all DLC into that category, especially bigger expansions that release a year or more later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That the game is broken up into parts to charge more instead of, you know, making the game feature-rich in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    do you not agree most games ARE feature rich in the first place? I mean compared to old $60 games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The ones by big publishers? No, they're feature complete at best for the sake of the game loop but sell the rest in overpriced DLCs. The base game is the hook, that's why Epic keeps giving some away for free or are sold at a heavy discount on Steam. You only need to scroll down to notice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Did we stop making AAAA games?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No $80, theyre going to stick with $70.

    Fools stupid people into thinking theyre being generous. Same tactic gas companies keep doing in California to raise gas prices. Price goes up almost $2 per gallon, and then back down only $1.

    At least with video games we don't have to buy them to live.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago

    Love how fast they all dial back after seeing the reaction on nintendo's 80$ approach. But seriously EA I don't care for those extra 10 bucks upfronf if your games are still the mtx and gambling infested shit they currently are.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Fuck EA. If they dont offer appropriate support, I will never buy any games from them again.

    Multimillion Dollar company but 0,0% real, human support. If you can't log into your account, you're fucked. Your account is gone.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not enough sales data from Nintendo's little experiment yet. Don't hold your breath, 'this stage' won't last.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    A broken asshole is still right twice a day.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    No! $80 for now!

  • source