Real talk, why are digital games $70?

[MalaXmaS 648]

Two months ago, I bought Zelda TOTK and it came in a cart.

There was no manual inside and I believe it is the same cart used for BOTW which was $60.

 

And then I bought Diablo IV out of peer pressure digitally, for $70.

 

Like wtf, I thought the raise in price was for blu-ray mass production and hi def content but none of these games deliver on that.

 

Well except Diablo IV but even then 

[Mr. House 3,371]

Funny how you mentioned games from two of the most greedy ass publishers. Nintendo never slash their prices, BOTW is still full price in store. Not the sequel, the 2017 game. 

 

And Activision Blizzard are so greedy they don't even allow their games on STEAM or other platforms because they want to make sure to get the full cut out of their PC sales. They are willing to sell less copies as long as they get a higher profit margin ratio. 

 

Do you expect these guys to give fair pricing on their digital goods? No, they want to fuck you over. And in a few years you might lose your digital license or something as the cherry on the shit sundae. 

[Twinblade★ 3,925]

Yeah digital games shouldn't be that expensive. If they're cutting out the retailer then they should at least be $5-$10 cheaper.

[TLHBO 2,162]

When they told you games would be cheaper when they would no longer have to produce physical copies, that was just a lie to get you on board. Now they have more control over pricing and access to that content.

 

The penny just dropped for this lemkid who after all his time on the Earth only just realized that corporations lie. Maybe now is a good time for you to go back and look through the history of things Microsoft has ever said

[Goukosan 2,255]

1 hour ago, MalaXmaS said:

Two months ago, I bought Zelda TOTK and it came in a cart.

There was no manual inside and I believe it is the same cart used for BOTW which was $60.

 

And then I bought Diablo IV out of peer pressure digitally, for $70.

 

Like wtf, I thought the raise in price was for blu-ray mass production and hi def content but none of these games deliver on that.

 

Well except Diablo IV but even then 

 

No it's not the same cart. TOTK is on a 32gb cart, BOTW is on a 16 GB cart.

 

With that said games being 70 is ridiculous, especially games that come bare bones and you have to purchase characters, skins, weapons etc with real money on DAY 1 after already spending 70.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Goukosan

[-GD-X★ 7,746]

3 hours ago, MalaXmaS said:

Two months ago, I bought Zelda TOTK and it came in a cart.

There was no manual inside and I believe it is the same cart used for BOTW which was $60.

 

And then I bought Diablo IV out of peer pressure digitally, for $70.

 

Like wtf, I thought the raise in price was for blu-ray mass production and hi def content but none of these games deliver on that.

 

Well except Diablo IV but even then 

bro...you still in elementary school?

[MalaXmaS 648]

2 hours ago, TLHBO said:

When they told you games would be cheaper when they would no longer have to produce physical copies, that was just a lie to get you on board. Now they have more control over pricing and access to that content.

 

The penny just dropped for this lemkid who after all his time on the Earth only just realized that corporations lie. Maybe now is a good time for you to go back and look through the history of things Microsoft has ever said

Actually Sony were the ones that started with this next gen tax.

[Mr. House 3,371]

5 minutes ago, MalaXmaS said:

Actually Sony were the ones that started with this next gen tax.

And Microsoft pushed the 60 dollars increase during the 360 era. Also the first company to charge users just to play their games online. None of these companies have your best interests.

 

The only reason why MS offer a cheap service like Gamepass is because they thought it would change the face of the industry and MS could lower the bar and released unfinished GAAS. They aren't doing it out of kindness. 

[MalaXmaS 648]

4 minutes ago, Ramza said:

And Microsoft pushed the 60 dollars increase during the 360 era. Also the first company to charge users just to play their games online. None of these companies have your best interests.

 

The only reason why MS offer a cheap service like Gamepass is because they thought it would change the face of the industry and MS could lower the bar and released unfinished GAAS. They aren't doing it out of kindness. 

I was talking about the $70 price tag.

Everyone took the $60 price tag well back in the day due to hd tech.

 

However what Sony is doing doesn't make sense.

 

Oh and I  was against the online price, till we had no choice.

[Mr. House 3,371]

2 minutes ago, MalaXmaS said:

I was talking about the $70 price tag.

Everyone took the $60 price tag well back in the day due to hd tech.

 

However what Sony is doing doesn't make sense.

 

Oh and I  was against the online price, till we had no choice.

PC had HD games for years prior to that and they weren't more costly. It's just excuses.

[MalaXmaS 648]

31 minutes ago, Ramza said:

PC had HD games for years prior to that and they weren't more costly. It's just excuses.

Pc gaming is more expensive too.

[TLHBO 2,162]

3 hours ago, MalaXmaS said:

Actually Sony were the ones that started with this next gen tax.

Aaaaand you're back to being a complete fucking retard, shame I had hope for you for a second there

 

So your complaint is that $70 digital gakes cost the same as $70 retail games, even though there's no manufacturing costs.....but when the same was true with $60 digital games and $60 retail games, THEN it was fine

 

Excusing Microsofts history of lies and what I was getting at with a quick "but sony " really kills all hope I had for you entering this thread. Stay sucking xdick fgt.

[Casual 732]

Meh, games are pretty cheap as far as hobbies go. Some of them should definitely cost more. 
 

if anything the relative standardization of prices considering the vastly differing quality/budget of these games is what I’d complain about. 

[Mr. Impossible 409]

8 hours ago, Twinblade said:

Yeah digital games shouldn't be that expensive. If they're cutting out the retailer then they should at least be $5-$10 cheaper.

 

Not to mention there being no overhead since it's not a physically produced product. This is why I'm not impressed with a digital only future. That's just way more money going to publishers with no value given to the consumer. 

[jehurey 3,231]

8 hours ago, TLHBO said:

When they told you games would be cheaper when they would no longer have to produce physical copies, that was just a lie to get you on board. Now they have more control over pricing and access to that content.

 

The penny just dropped for this lemkid who after all his time on the Earth only just realized that corporations lie. Maybe now is a good time for you to go back and look through the history of things Microsoft has ever said

which should be a huge red flag, because of the way they describe physical games right now as only having a 'license" to play the game.

 

They're trying to make physical products have as limited rights as digital products.

 

And they will eventually sneak in more language in which you lose more digital rights.

 

They will absolutely sneak in more restrictions in the future, such as "you bought the license to this game for its EXPECTED lifecycle" and therefore it will come with a time limit.

[jehurey 3,231]

5 hours ago, Ramza said:

PC had HD games for years prior to that and they weren't more costly. It's just excuses.

PC games have stopped being $10 less than console versions.

 

They did that well over 10 years ago.

 

Remember, console games had licensing fees to the platform holder.

 

PC games do not have to pay a licensing fee for developing an application in Windows. That is why PC games were historically cheaper.

 

People have actually forgotten that, and nobody brings that up anymore.

[Mr. House 3,371]

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

PC games have stopped being $10 less than console versions.

 

They did that well over 10 years ago.

 

Remember, console games had licensing fees to the platform holder.

 

PC games do not have to pay a licensing fee for developing an application in Windows. That is why PC games were historically cheaper.

 

People have actually forgotten that, and nobody brings that up anymore.

I know and I agree 100%. 

[Hot Sauce 2,734]

9 hours ago, Twinblade said:

Yeah digital games shouldn't be that expensive. If they're cutting out the retailer then they should at least be $5-$10 cheaper.

 

Retailers wouldn't stock games if there wasn't price parity.

[MalaXmaS 648]

3 hours ago, TLHBO said:

Aaaaand you're back to being a complete fucking retard, shame I had hope for you for a second there

 

So your complaint is that $70 digital gakes cost the same as $70 retail games, even though there's no manufacturing costs.....but when the same was true with $60 digital games and $60 retail games, THEN it was fine

 

Excusing Microsofts history of lies and what I was getting at with a quick "but sony " really kills all hope I had for you entering this thread. Stay sucking xdick fgt.

It was fine back then because the gimmick was HD tech, even 720p games back in 2007 was a sight to behold, and that brought the HDTV craze.

However, charging $10 more for god knows why in 2023, because Sony said so is just a mystery.

You should let your fanboy mode go away when looking at this issue.

[jehurey 3,231]

2 hours ago, MalaXmaS said:

It was fine back then because the gimmick was HD tech, even 720p games back in 2007 was a sight to behold, and that brought the HDTV craze.

However, charging $10 more for god knows why in 2023, because Sony said so is just a mystery.

 

or the reason could be, y'know....overdue inflation

 

go to the official BLS inflation calculation and put $60 from 2006 in there, and see what today's value of that would be.