What's your thoughts? I couldn't tell either way.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (77)
sorted by:
If the game is sufficiently large in scope, I think you could justify that. I'd sooner condemn them for their online monetisation than for making massive once-a-decade products.
They said the same about when 60$ became the norm. You know what happened? Every game just felt they deserved that full 60$ no matter the scope or worth, and the industry treats it as the default to go up or down from.
Nobody will look at GTA6 as a super exception that totally deserves it, they will just see that a game did it and assume their product is worth that too because the precedent was set.
60 bucks has been the norm since N64. Games have gotten nothing but cheaper given inflation.
This argument reminds me of when the Australians didn't realize that when games are sold for 60 USD it's like 90 ASD because they're currency is worthless and had a huge hissy fit over GTA or CoD that just kind of went away.
No, the norm in the 6th generation and a bit before was 50$. It became 60$ shortly after the release of the 360. During which the argument was that "games have come so much further and deserve the money!" because of the big push for hyper graphics and realism at the time. As well as the same argument about inflation too.
Does that change the overall point? 50 bucks in 1994 is the equivalent of $103.80 right now. Games haven't been keeping pace with inflation, thus they have actually been getting cheaper.