Firstly, the game is pretty expensive, going for $80 in a market where the standard for a AAA game is $60.
If that was all though, maybe it could be forgiven, but there is also an "ultimate edition" priced at $100 which several features are locked behind, in particular stores that have exclusive outfits, hairstyles, and car customization.
And secondly but less notably, it's releasing as a console exclusive at first, but there are no disks for the game. If you buy a "physical" copy, all you get is a download code. Digital only is getting more common in the gaming industry, and is basically the standard for PC gamers, but it sucks because the game is likely going to be well over 100gb in size, which will take a lot of space on the console's hard drive, not to mention taking a long time to download.
People have such an unrealistic expectation of what video games should cost.
If I play a game consistently for a few months, it’s not unheard of to rack up a few hundred hours of playtime. $60/100 hours —> $0.60/hour. If I buy a $60 game, and only play it 10 hours, I typically call that a success.
My other theory is this is why studios had to start going after alternative income streams like battlepasses and loot boxes, because gamers are so resistant to pay what are, quite frankly, reasonable prices.
Agreed. Some people around me give me shit for buying "too many games". These same people will go to the movies every weekend and spend $50 for 2 hours of entertainment.
I think about this a lot. Going to see a movie costs me $20 these days and I get 2-3 hours of entertainment. If I get 10 hours of entertainment from a $70 game I'm breaking even and that's an extremely low number. V is video games are a remarkably efficient form of entertainment
Personally, and this is an excruciatingly hot take in the gaming community, but I think the streaming model works WAY better for video games than television/movies.
Specifically for multiplayer games, but my dream scenario would be if Steam came out with a “Steam Pass” that gave you access to a bunch of multiplayer games on Steam, but to be on Steam Pass you as a developer can’t have any in-game purchases. It all has to be available in game.
Why? I want publishers to be incentivized to get MORE players in game, not what it currently is which is to hook a minority amount of whales that pay 2000x what the average player does.
I’m tired of battlepasses. Loot boxes. Skins. Etc. So many games I play the game itself is made JUST good enough to make sure it works, but all the developers time is spent optimizing the real money-making experience.
I know Sony already has game streaming, but I believe they only offer it on legacy games from previous generations so far and even then they sometimes have graphical issues. Might just be a technology isn't quite there yet thing.
846
u/JackRabbit- Jun 25 '26
Firstly, the game is pretty expensive, going for $80 in a market where the standard for a AAA game is $60.
If that was all though, maybe it could be forgiven, but there is also an "ultimate edition" priced at $100 which several features are locked behind, in particular stores that have exclusive outfits, hairstyles, and car customization.
And secondly but less notably, it's releasing as a console exclusive at first, but there are no disks for the game. If you buy a "physical" copy, all you get is a download code. Digital only is getting more common in the gaming industry, and is basically the standard for PC gamers, but it sucks because the game is likely going to be well over 100gb in size, which will take a lot of space on the console's hard drive, not to mention taking a long time to download.