DaivRules Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 A good point. AAA games have hovered around the £50 RRP for ages. I remember buying Perfect Dark on the N64 waaay back in the day, and I'm sure it was around £45-£50 then because I had to plead with my dad to get it for me and convince him how cool a game it was supposed to be and that it was going to be worth the £50. Now, back then £50 was worth quite a bit more than it is today. £50 in 2000 (when PD released) would be the equivalent of £77.50 or so in 2015 money. If my memory is correct, and the price of games isn't going up in line with inflation (although bear in mind the fact that inflation rates vary worldwide) while AAA development costs continue to soar, then maybe we shouldn't be surprised that publishers are trying so desperately to keep taking our money? I paid $50 for new SNES games including Secret of Evermore, Final Fantasy III and a couple others around 1994-1996. Prices of video games have definitely not kept up and are more complex to develop than ever. Granted video gaming is more main stream than it has ever been, so more potential copies can be sold, but AAA games should absolutely be more expensive. A typical new release AAA PS4 game should be retailing around $80 these days, possibly a little more. I wish we would just get to that point already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satoshi Ookami Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 A typical new release AAA PS4 game should be retailing around $80 these days, possibly a little more. I wish we would just get to that point already. So we could eradicate AAA titles and let Japan take over the gaming industry?! Yesplz! Right now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrickenBiged Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I paid $50 for new SNES games including Secret of Evermore, Final Fantasy III and a couple others around 1994-1996. Prices of video games have definitely not kept up and are more complex to develop than ever. Granted video gaming is more main stream than it has ever been, so more potential copies can be sold, but AAA games should absolutely be more expensive. A typical new release AAA PS4 game should be retailing around $80 these days, possibly a little more. I wish we would just get to that point already. I'd respect publishers a lot more if they just came out and said that. "Here's our game. We think it's worth £80. Buy it." sounds better to me than "Here's our £55 game, and the £40 Season Pass, but you're going to want to get the Ultimate Bundle because then you can have a golden gun and everyone will know what a badass you are!" because the latter just sounds so much more manipulative to me. I'm sure they've market-tested the butthole off of different price points though. While I may feel that the £55/$60 RRP needs to piss off already (not least because every other "AAA" seems to think that's the appropriate entry point, even when it's a piece of poorly made garbage like Tony Hawk Pro Skater 5), there may be valid concerns from publishers that if they did this it's only the £ number on the shelves that people will pay any attention to. The average consumer may not know the difference between 2 games when one is on the shelves at £50 and the other is on at £80. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidson2004 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I think people are forgetting that this price is for the ones who want the full battlefront experience now rather than later. I'm sure after christmas the GOTY version will come out at $60. This is what I'm waiting for. I would much rather wait to buy the game down the line at a cheaper price, than to get it day 1. Not only that, waiting for all the patches to be released for it, and updates. I say the wait is worth it. That's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiopile Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Not sure you can fairly factor that in. I mean, if you are a PS4 owner who doesn't have PS+ then sure, you're going to have to sub in order to access the MP game modes. But you could go for the 1 month option, and you will be getting the other PS+ benefits from your sub which aren't tied to Battlefront, so the situation gets too cloudy too quickly for a fair comparison. You are right, most of us with a PS4 have +. I'm just thinking of all the kids at Christmas and what their parents will have to pay so their little ones can actually enjoy "the full experience" of Battlefront. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedrOTN- Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Is there any evidence that the content included in the Season Pass is being cut from the base game? That is a claim that is thrown around quite often but I've never seen any actual evidence that it is a common occurrence. Before the invention of a season pass developers were still working on DLC content before a game released, it just wasn't announced. I don't think anything has changed other than the fact that people now know for certain that there will (or won't) be DLC for a game before they purchase it. Parker I must disagree with you sir, there's no evidence and there will never be for the simple fact that EA and several other companies make their games today with the mentality of "there must be a season pass" so they end up gathering a lot of ideas for that game around that season pass (even subconsciously) that otherwise would be on the main game. Im not against DLC or any form of content that increases the game's value, if they were really all about giving consumers the best game they can, why charge for a season pass 50$ (costs almost the same as the main game)? Make it free then or maybe charge a more reasonable price. Again i know that people don't have to buy the season pass to enjoy the game but if you really like the game you will end up buying it so, in your honest opinion, do you think 110$ or 120$ for a game is a reasonable price? Edited October 13, 2015 by PedrOYX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormRacer872 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Have I skipped to many math classes on high school or something? Full game 60$ + Season Pass 50$ = Total 110$ Deluxe Edition 120$? What does the Deluxe Edition has that grants it extra 10$ worth of value? The Ultimate Edition includes the Deluxe Edition and Season Pass. The full game is $60, but the deluxe is $70. So, the deluxe combined with the season pass is $120. As far as I know, the deluxe just comes with some extra in game stuff (weapons, emotes, etc.), but don't quote me on that. Edited October 13, 2015 by StormRacer872 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuinlanLJ Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 So much money for a game that will be unplayable when the servers shut off ... Meh. I will wait for a HUGE price cut or I'm just gonna buy a used game in a couple of months. Hopefully it wont take too long to wait for a proper Star Wars game with a story. I'm really craving for a game with a SW story. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSNP is crap i left Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) I'll just get Star Wars Battlefront: The Force Edition that includes every single piece of DLC when it comes out in 1 year. Edited October 13, 2015 by Oblivion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starcrunch061 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) The fuck? No thanks, I'll pass. Punny! This was KNOWEN. ALL Battle* games have had one since 3. If you didn't expect this, you don't pay attention... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also OP's thread title is misleading. The 120$ version includes the Season Pass. / and + are two different things. That is true - I was a bit confused about that myself. I think people are forgetting that this price is for the ones who want the full battlefront experience now rather than later. I'm sure after christmas the GOTY version will come out at $60. And by March, it will be half that. A good point. AAA games have hovered around the £50 RRP for ages. I remember buying Perfect Dark on the N64 waaay back in the day, and I'm sure it was around £45-£50 then because I had to plead with my dad to get it for me and convince him how cool a game it was supposed to be and that it was going to be worth the £50. Now, back then £50 was worth quite a bit more than it is today. £50 in 2000 (when PD released) would be the equivalent of £77.50 or so in 2015 money. If my memory is correct, and the price of games isn't going up in line with inflation (although bear in mind the fact that inflation rates vary worldwide) while AAA development costs continue to soar, then maybe we shouldn't be surprised that publishers are trying so desperately to keep taking our money? You can go even further back than that. I bought Super Metroid on the SNES for $69.99 in the early 90s. The price of gaming, however, has been kept down by advances in technology (cartridges were pretty expensive pieces of equipment) as much as anything. As for me, I have no real problem with this, because there's no way in the world I would pay for it. Let EA bilk whomever it can - I'll reap the benefits when the GOTY edition is indeed as cheap as we know it will be. Edited October 13, 2015 by starcrunch061 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedrOTN- Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 So much money for a game that will be unplayable when the servers shut off ... Meh. I will wait for a HUGE price cut or I'm just gonna buy a used game in a couple of months. Hopefully it wont take too long to wait for a proper Star Wars game with a story. I'm really craving for a game with a SW story. Thats right, almost forgot that the game doesn't even have single player campaign... great value for 120$. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starcrunch061 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Thats right, almost forgot that the game doesn't even have single player campaign... great value for 120$. Oh, crap - that makes the GOTY edition much less appealing. But my philosophy remains intact. Edited October 13, 2015 by starcrunch061 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaivRules Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) I shutter to think what kind of bitching would have taken over the internet if something like this happened today: http://earthboundcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Consumers-Distributing-Ultimate-1996-Video-Catalogue.jpg Edited October 13, 2015 by DaivRules 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redgrave Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Considering it's EA I'm not surprised at all. I knew from the very beginning that they were going to do the same thing as Battlefield with Battlefront, and the worst part is the new Battlefront has less features than even the first Battlefront. Or at least for now it does but those that don't get the Season Pass will probably be paying for the DLC. I think what really bothers me about this is the people who actually wanted Dice to make the new Battlefront are surprised this is a thing. So much money for a game that will be unplayable when the servers shut off ... Meh. I will wait for a HUGE price cut or I'm just gonna buy a used game in a couple of months. Hopefully it wont take too long to wait for a proper Star Wars game with a story. I'm really craving for a game with a SW story. There's supposed to be a tie-in novel to the game. So instead of experiencing the story you get to... read about it. Yay? But I've given up on there being a good Star Wars game honestly. Jedi Academy and KOTOR II should have raised the bar for Star Wars games. Or at least I feel like it did, but the games after it just never passed it save Republic Commando since it was a squad-based shooter. Edited October 13, 2015 by Redgrave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuinlanLJ Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 There's supposed to be a tie-in novel to the game. So instead of experiencing the story you get to... read about it. Yay? But I've given up on there being a good Star Wars game honestly. Jedi Academy and KOTOR II should have raised the bar for Star Wars games. Or at least I feel like it did, but the games after it just never passed it save Republic Commando since it was a squad-based shooter. I actually love reading novels, but it's still not the same as experiencing it through visual interaction. I think EA just got lazy by "not making a SP campaign because nobody would play it". Republic Commando is easily among the top three of my favourite SW games, behind Jedi Academy and KOTOR. And I think Force Unleashed was a cool game, but maybe I'm just a fanboy ... It's still baffling to me why Disney cancelled Star Wars 1313, that game looked amazing. Okay, I know that that doesn't mean it was going to be a good game, but it definitely looked like they were going in the right direction with it. I'm pretty sure we will be getting a good Star Wars game soon. With LucasFilm storytellers on board we at the least should be looking forward to a good Star Wars story in a game. We'll see what Visceral will do with their Uncharted-styled Star Wars game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVader66 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) I remember when I was loyal to EA back in the days of the PS2, I love them the same way I love Naughty Dog and Compile Heart now. Then they turned into greedy little whores, I can bet you that all the DLC that is going to be the features that were in Battlefront 2 but not in the new one: Space Battles, Clone Wars, The missing maps of the Galatic Civil War like Dagobah, Bespin and Death Star, Instant Action, and Galactic Conquest. So by the end should we buy the 60 dollar game and the 50 dollar DLC, making it 110 dollars plus tax, we end up with an HD version of Star Wars Battlefront 2 that was 60 dollars at launch, I am guessing since it has been way too long. I just wish Sony would do backward compatibilty with the past Playstations, so I can play Battlefront 2 on my PS4 in Higher Quality. Also normally I don't care about the DLC or Season Pass, I played Call of Duty but I have never bought Season Pass, but this is Battlefront series, it is part of my childhood. That is why I am so angry about it, but I should have know it is EA after all. Also it is funny this was going to be my first time buying an EA game in so many years, I got the Need for Speed: Most Wanted for free and Lord of the Rings: Conquest was used so the money went to gamestop. Edited October 14, 2015 by TheVader66 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrickenBiged Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Eurogamer are reporting that the game won't have dedicated voice chat. Essentially, if you are playing on PS4 or XBone, then you will have to use the party system to chat. PC users must use 3rd party software, e.g. Skype. Good luck coordinating with your team if you are playing alone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medenko1975 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 The second i read about season pass, the game went off my purchase list. Will pick up in few months for 25€ preowned. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ichiban-Hybrid Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 You gotta love it. Their selling their dlc a close than the actual fuckin game is worth. Why not just add the dlc content into the game and just raise the retail game price? I dont mind paying more but I do hate it that they show you the dlc content and the price tag before the game is ever release. Plus with the downloading and the memory space.. yeah bad idea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 When the game is basically a collection of MP modes and maps, I'm not sure if that's an issue. The publisher clearly considers that all of the MP maps and missions are worthy of inclusion in "the game" at some point in time, some at launch, some later, otherwise they'd call the whole DLC thing off. But EA has chosen to release now (probably to cash in on the upcoming movie). There's nothing stopping them from waiting until all the parts of the game are ready, and releasing it as one package. I think the only thing we can say is wait for the goddamn reviews, particularly in the case of the DLC. This is the most expensive season pass I can remember, and we've seen nothing in the gaming press about what will be included in it (other than a few vague descriptions). If you're happy to spend £40 on such an unknown, that's your prerogative (not you Parker, the general "you"). Just remember everyone that Batman: Arkham Knight had a very expensive season pass, and critical reception of the DLC packs has been, as far as I can see, universally negative. That is all true of course, but then where does it stop? From what I understand the developers are huge Star Wars fans and as such they probably want to include as much content as possible. If they delay the game to include the content that will be included in the season pass, I'm sure there is some more content that the developers will want to add. Should the game be delayed for that content as well? At what point do you stop delaying the game and adding more content? Previous PC games had "expansion packs" that I'm sure developers would be working on before the final game released, or at the very least had in the planning stage. Should those games have been held back in order to release with that content as well? I'm honestly not sure if these season passes are taking content from base games, with as many people who work in the gaming industry I'd think that if that were the case there would be some disgruntled employees coming forth and letting it be known. I do know that games have to be released eventually and they have to make money otherwise there won't be anymore game. I agree with you 100% though on waiting for reviews or at the very least know exactly what you're going to get before you drop the money. Sorry if I'm ranting or not making much sense, I just got off work and I've been up for about 18 hours. It is my Friday though! I must disagree with you sir, there's no evidence and there will never be for the simple fact that EA and several other companies make their games today with the mentality of "there must be a season pass" so they end up gathering a lot of ideas for that game around that season pass (even subconsciously) that otherwise would be on the main game. Im not against DLC or any form of content that increases the game's value, if they were really all about giving consumers the best game they can, why charge for a season pass 50$ (costs almost the same as the main game)? Make it free then or maybe charge a more reasonable price. Again i know that people don't have to buy the season pass to enjoy the game but if you really like the game you will end up buying it so, in your honest opinion, do you think 110$ or 120$ for a game is a reasonable price? I disagree, I think that if this was a common practice there would be disgruntled employees who would come forth and shed light on everything. A $50 season pass may be completely overpriced or it might be perfectly price, it depends on the amount of content you get. I don't think there will ever be a "correct" price for DLC, it all depends on the content. As for my opinion on if a $120 game is reasonable, again, it all depends on the person. For many people they buy one or two games a year, whether it is Call of Duty, Battlefield (or front) Madden or Fifa. To someone like that a $120 game might be reasonable. Say Battlefront is the game I'm buying this year. I loved the Beta, I'm a huge Star Wars fan and all that jazz so I drop $120 on the game. All the free time I have I play the game. My buddies have it, we play together, I play with randoms, it is Star Wars and I'm having a great time. So, say I play the game for 1,000 hours (which really isn't all that unreasonable for a lot of people who are really into games) and I paid $120 for it. By my morning math (which very well may be wrong) you're paying about $8.3 USD per hour for the game. Now, lets take something like Transformers: Devastation and see how it holds up. That game costs $50 and I beat it in about 4 hours of play time. But lets use 6 for this example. If you take $50 USD and divide that by 6 hours, you get the same number as Battlefront, $8.3 USD per hour. And that doesn't include any DLC for Transformers if that ever comes out. When I go out to eat with the wifey and kid (or a movie) I'm definitely paying more than $8 an hour and a game lasts a hell of a lot longer than a mean and movie. So, for someone like me who has many games I already play and plenty of games I'm looking forward to playing (come on Uncharted 4!) paying $120 doesn't make sense which is why I've stated I'll wait until I can pick everything up for $60 or so. For others though, it may make perfect sense. Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrickenBiged Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 That is all true of course, but then where does it stop? From what I understand the developers are huge Star Wars fans and as such they probably want to include as much content as possible. If they delay the game to include the content that will be included in the season pass, I'm sure there is some more content that the developers will want to add. Should the game be delayed for that content as well? At what point do you stop delaying the game and adding more content? Previous PC games had "expansion packs" that I'm sure developers would be working on before the final game released, or at the very least had in the planning stage. Should those games have been held back in order to release with that content as well? I'm honestly not sure if these season passes are taking content from base games, with as many people who work in the gaming industry I'd think that if that were the case there would be some disgruntled employees coming forth and letting it be known. I do know that games have to be released eventually and they have to make money otherwise there won't be anymore game. I agree with you 100% though on waiting for reviews or at the very least know exactly what you're going to get before you drop the money. Sorry if I'm ranting or not making much sense, I just got off work and I've been up for about 18 hours. It is my Friday though! With all due respect, I think you may be being a little naïve. The publisher's concern is to maximise revenue from each project and hopefully return a profit for their shareholders. It's only natural that they will keep a close eye on the development of the game (not least so that they know how to market it) and that they will have demands to make of the game given that they hold the purse strings. And they've been doing it for many years, and they are very sophisticated at it. For instance - why would a developer want to create an unbearable grind in their game? They wouldn't. These aren't fun for their players and they know it. But when you consider that a publisher wants to make more money and sees microtransactions as a good way of doing this, it suddenly makes sense why there is an unbearable grind for in-game currency or XP or whatever in that game. Now, it's possible that DICE planned the release schedule for the various modes without EA's involvement. But I doubt it. I think the conversation about what modes would make it into the base game, and which would go into the Season Pass would, logically, have taken place at the concept or prototyping stages. EA would have looked at what was being planned and thought, "yeah, the Hoth mission... an AT-AT would look awesome on the box art and everyone knows that scene from the movie, that's got to be in the base game and in a state that we can show it off at E3 and in trailers" and "what's this? A small 2v2 deathmatch between SW characters that only appear in the SW novels but who your regular guy in the street won't have heard of... Ok it's a lot of fun but... yeah, that mission can wait until after launch". (Speculating on that last one, I haven't read the novels.) And given the release schedule for the game and the fact that the data shows that you sell more DLC the closer you release it to the base-game's launch, you can bet your bottom dollar that the DLC game modes in this game will be pretty much complete, and only be in need of some polish. I'm not saying there's anything necessarily sinister in this, it's just the way the system works. EA will be concerned about making the most amount of money possible from the smallest possible amount of capital. It's only natural that they would insist on monetisation and content release strategies that serve this objective. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotAFoxAnymore Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 People seem to be reacting like it's a new thing...it even says in the OP, this is normal for Battlefield titles so it should've been expected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedrOTN- Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) That is all true of course, but then where does it stop? From what I understand the developers are huge Star Wars fans and as such they probably want to include as much content as possible. If they delay the game to include the content that will be included in the season pass, I'm sure there is some more content that the developers will want to add. Should the game be delayed for that content as well? At what point do you stop delaying the game and adding more content? Previous PC games had "expansion packs" that I'm sure developers would be working on before the final game released, or at the very least had in the planning stage. Should those games have been held back in order to release with that content as well? I'm honestly not sure if these season passes are taking content from base games, with as many people who work in the gaming industry I'd think that if that were the case there would be some disgruntled employees coming forth and letting it be known. I do know that games have to be released eventually and they have to make money otherwise there won't be anymore game. I agree with you 100% though on waiting for reviews or at the very least know exactly what you're going to get before you drop the money. Sorry if I'm ranting or not making much sense, I just got off work and I've been up for about 18 hours. It is my Friday though! I disagree, I think that if this was a common practice there would be disgruntled employees who would come forth and shed light on everything. A $50 season pass may be completely overpriced or it might be perfectly price, it depends on the amount of content you get. I don't think there will ever be a "correct" price for DLC, it all depends on the content. As for my opinion on if a $120 game is reasonable, again, it all depends on the person. For many people they buy one or two games a year, whether it is Call of Duty, Battlefield (or front) Madden or Fifa. To someone like that a $120 game might be reasonable. Say Battlefront is the game I'm buying this year. I loved the Beta, I'm a huge Star Wars fan and all that jazz so I drop $120 on the game. All the free time I have I play the game. My buddies have it, we play together, I play with randoms, it is Star Wars and I'm having a great time. So, say I play the game for 1,000 hours (which really isn't all that unreasonable for a lot of people who are really into games) and I paid $120 for it. By my morning math (which very well may be wrong) you're paying about $8.3 USD per hour for the game. Now, lets take something like Transformers: Devastation and see how it holds up. That game costs $50 and I beat it in about 4 hours of play time. But lets use 6 for this example. If you take $50 USD and divide that by 6 hours, you get the same number as Battlefront, $8.3 USD per hour. And that doesn't include any DLC for Transformers if that ever comes out. When I go out to eat with the wifey and kid (or a movie) I'm definitely paying more than $8 an hour and a game lasts a hell of a lot longer than a mean and movie. So, for someone like me who has many games I already play and plenty of games I'm looking forward to playing (come on Uncharted 4!) paying $120 doesn't make sense which is why I've stated I'll wait until I can pick everything up for $60 or so. For others though, it may make perfect sense. Parker Sure if you play a game for 1000 hours you get your money's worth but most of us plays way more than 2 games a year, playing videogames shouldn't be a luxury and we shouldn't have to wait 6 months after the game released to buy it just because its too expensive... I can tell you're a Star Wars fan and its probably the reason you enjoyed the beta but try and take out the Star Wars element of it, might change your view of the game itself. We can agree to disagree, thats my personal opinion and i respect all opinions, imagine if we all loved YELLOW Edited October 14, 2015 by PedrOYX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post StrickenBiged Posted October 14, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted October 14, 2015 Sure if you play a game for 1000 hours you get your money's worth, most of us plays way more than 2 games a year, playing videogames shouldn't be a luxury and we shouldn't have to wait 6 months after the game released to buy it just because its too expensive... We can agree to disagree, thats my personal opinion and i respect all opinions, imagine if we all liked YELLOW Of course they're a luxury! You're talking about a consumer entertainment product which involves a heck of a lot of technology, engineering, science, etc etc... And I don't think that's an opinion... they're hardly necessary to sustain life now are they?! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotAFoxAnymore Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 playing videogames shouldn't be a luxury Uhm...lolwhat You're not obliged to play games, it's not a human right. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now