Star Wars: Outlaws

[Cap2024]

130 dollars is ludicrous. The "extra mission" is just something chopped from the main game to bring artificial value to the more expensive game editions. The actual DLC packs that they're developing for the season pass are going to be released weeks/months later, as per usual. Predatory industry practices are nothing to celebrate, especially as the cost of a base game has risen so much. Pre-order incentives are getting more ridiculous by the date, especially the current early access trend. These games are more often that not shipped broken, with severe, even game-breaking bugs. Early access as a premium feature for a faulty product that commonly won't be patched until the wide release is interesting at the very least.

It’s 104 dollars for DLC. 130 is for additional features such as - an art book which absolutely no one needs and it’s plain greed to expect that for free as well.

It’s amusing to me when people complain that they have to pay companies extra for an art book, statue, or soundtrack of the game. Those aren’t even related to playing the game so of course that shouldn’t come with the base game itself or be inexpensive since those kinds of books, statues, and soundtracks cost “a lot” of money when sold by themselves.

Why people believe they deserve a book, soundtrack, or statue with the base game or of little expense is beyond me.

These are known as financial incentives. That means - not for everyone (not everything has to be).

If you want to argue that those items (books that usually range from 20 to 50 dollars, soundtracks which range from 10 to 20, and statues that range from 50 to 100 all by themselves) should be free - actually give a rational business explanation. Not just “I want, no fair!”

A company making additional content to have different prices is common business practices. Every form of business does it (whole or half sub (just the meal or meal with fries), cars come with all kinds of bells and whistles, there’s paperback and hardcover books, tvs with all kinds of different features, etc.). This is because businesses are for profit. Customers aren’t forced to pay more than they want to or can afford.

There is no reason for a between 20 and 50 dollar book to be given away for free or near it. It’s only meant for people who would buy the book separately; as said, not everything is meant for everyone.

(These digital art books exclusives that many games have also actually usually cost less than when they are bought separately which is a noticeable perk for those who would usually buy it that way )

 

[Bobber]

So 104 dollars is completely fair then?

 

[Cap2024]

So 104 dollars is completely fair then?

Absolutely fair.

Additional content means additional price - it works that way across the board for every business. No business gives additional content for the same price.

I consider it a hand-out or a version for people who want the game, but just don't have the ability to pay what studios would very likely want for the full price.

Your larger issue is this - video game prices due to inflation are always rising. Don't be surprised if within the next couple of years a single AAA game (no DLC) is 80 or 90 or above. You're getting what you pay for - it's part of the reason why every game company is looking to add incentives for higher profit. Just seventy dollars for every customer isn't cutting it any more and increasingly won't.

To go farther - it's more wages not matching inflation. If one was to complain that these companies are increasing prices relative to inflation without also treating their employees better and giving them their fair amount - I'd whole heartedly agree. That's a different matter though entirely than just being outraged that prices across the board (as in every business) are rising.

Adding: The writing here is on the wall and many articles online note this oncoming hike. If not for incentives (getting at least some customers to pay more) - you would more than likely have this happen a lot sooner. Which do you prefer? The base game being 100 or just DLC to reach that right now? Relatively recently the manager of Capcom came out and said games are currently - UNDER-priced. Profit matters because it impacts staffing and employees.

Why $100 Video Games Could Be Possible by the End of the Decade

$100 video games by the end of the decade might sound farfetched to some, but 2023 has shown us the unsustainability of the industry.

insider-gaming.com

 

[psylockolussus]

This is a Ubisoft game, give it a year, the base game will be much cheaper.

And sometimes, they give pre-order bonuses later on...

 

[henzINNIT]

We practically ALWAYS hear about it before a game's release. That has become a central part of pre-orders these years in knowing which version to purchase.

Ubisoft is known for giving hours worth of content in DLCs. Assassin's Creed Odyssey: Atlantis DLC was about 15 to 30 hours of gameplay. Dawn of Ragnarok was around 21 hours for completionists. I'd personally call that very far from barely expanding on the content available.

If one studio is "greedy" for DLC gameplay content - which, okay, I can buy that - ALL companies similarly are for doing the exact same thing. That's my point, at least be - consistent; without that it just comes across as disingenuous.

I didn't say Outlaws was unique in announcing its DLC before the game is out, just that it is never a popular subject. 'Knowing which version to purchase' may be a central part of a game roll-out these days (which is unfortunate) but Ubisoft are leaders in the field of crapping out several different levels of 'deluxe' edition. This is another unpopular subject every time a game goes up for pre-order.

Ubisoft are known for giving hours worth of content. Won't argue that. They are well known for huge games with long grinds, for which they sell customers an option to skip. I can't say I've played any of the DLCs you mentioned so I can't speak to their quality.

Pretty much every studio is doing something shady. I criticise every predatory thing as I see it. There are levels to it though. Ubisoft are particularly unpopular for good reason. They have a reputation for being a terrible company to work for, they love excessive monetisation, and they don't even release great games very often.

Your larger issue is this - video game prices due to inflation are always rising. Don't be surprised if within the next couple of years a single AAA game (no DLC) is 80 or 90 or above. You're getting what you pay for - it's part of the reason why every game company is looking to add incentives for higher profit. Just seventy dollars for every customer isn't cutting it any more and increasingly won't.

And yet video game companies report record profits. The video game market has grown and grown and grown. More customers, more copies sold. It's the wealthiest companies that shifted the price upward, despite the countless ways they have implemented to generate additional revenue after sale. The price rose because they could get away with it.

 

[Cap2024]

I didn't say Outlaws was unique in announcing its DLC before the game is out, just that it is never a popular subject. 'Knowing which version to purchase' may be a central part of a game roll-out these days (which is unfortunate) but Ubisoft are leaders in the field of crapping out several different levels of 'deluxe' edition. This is another unpopular subject every time a game goes up for pre-order.

Ubisoft are known for giving hours worth of content. Won't argue that. They are well known for huge games with long grinds, for which they sell customers an option to skip. I can't say I've played any of the DLCs you mentioned so I can't speak to their quality.

Pretty much every studio is doing something shady. I criticise every predatory thing as I see it. There are levels to it though. Ubisoft are particularly unpopular for good reason. They have a reputation for being a terrible company to work for, they love excessive monetisation, and they don't even release great games very often.



And yet video game companies report record profits. The video game market has grown and grown and grown. More customers, more copies sold. It's the wealthiest companies that shifted the price upward, despite the countless ways they have implemented to generate additional revenue after sale. The price rose because they could get away with it.

Do you have any reports on companies rising prices “because they can get away with it” rather than it having to do with inflation? From reputable sources that work in the industry, not just - consumers angry over inflation.

The boss at Capcom for instance is on record for saying the exact opposite.

Not only that, it matches trends across industries of it being increasingly more expensive to produce content than it was in years previous. That adds credibility to his statement.

Price has to meet production budgets. As many articles have pointed out - that is increasingly looking to be around $100; people get what they pay for.

As said, and I repeat, do you have any source that contradicts that that works in the industry rather than merely complaining consumers?

I’m just used to witnessing customers acting outraged on social media that content producing industries - like all other businesses - are profit based, not charities (which should be obvious).

Capcom Boss Says Games Are Too Cheap

Video game prices could be going up.

www.yahoo.com

 

[henzINNIT]

I have no interest in arguing something as apparent as the broken business of the video game industry. It's clear every time a company announces mass lay-offs, then announces record profits, and then record bonuses for executives. Of course a CEO will say his products should cost more. I don't think that's a smoking gun if I'm honest.

 

[Cap2024]

I have no interest in arguing something as apparent as the broken business of the video game industry. It's clear every time a company announces mass lay-offs, then announces record profits, and then record bonuses for executives. Of course a CEO will say his products should cost more. I don't think that's a smoking gun if I'm honest.

People in the industry across the board are similarly saying games are too cheap. That a CEO came out as saying the game only furthers that.

Are there ****ty companies out there that screw employees over? Yes. Are games too inexpensive that it increasingly doesn’t match budget? Yes. Both can be true at the same time, one doesn’t negate the other.

That there aren’t reputable sources out there saying that games are too expensive while there are reputable sources and articles backing that games aren’t as expensive as they need to be says it all.

 

[Bobber]

Videogame companies have allowed their budgets to balloon up to absolutely insane heights, to the point that it is barely sustainable. We have seen it with films as well, Indiana Jones, a bunch of Marvel films, etc.

Is the answer to that, to just jack up the prices for videogames (that have already gone from 60 to 70 usd, with this newest generation of consoles) or should the videogame companies maybe look at their expenditure and find a more reasonable way of producing their games?

 

[TheVileOne]

Videogame companies have allowed their budgets to balloon up to absolutely insane heights, to the point that it is barely sustainable. We have seen it with films as well, Indiana Jones, a bunch of Marvel films, etc.

Is the answer to that, to just jack up the prices for videogames (that have already gone from 60 to 70 usd, with this newest generation of consoles) or should the videogame companies maybe look at their expenditure and find a more reasonable way of producing their games?

Gamers should be looking to titles that give them more value and maximize their money, and they are finding the more in budget titles and Double-A titles. AAA industry is imploding in on itself. AAA live-service is imploding. It was not sustainable.

They should also wait for reviews and wait for discounts. There's no incentive to pre-ordering and paying the maximum price.

 

[psylockolussus]

Also, its much better to buy a game when all patches are already released.

For someone who rarely replays a game from scratch, I would miss a lot of fixings, patches, additional features if I were to play all games at launch.

 

[Cap2024]

Videogame companies have allowed their budgets to balloon up to absolutely insane heights, to the point that it is barely sustainable. We have seen it with films as well, Indiana Jones, a bunch of Marvel films, etc.

Is the answer to that, to just jack up the prices for videogames (that have already gone from 60 to 70 usd, with this newest generation of consoles) or should the videogame companies maybe look at their expenditure and find a more reasonable way of producing their games?

This article is my take on it.

Shorter as to rein it in or more expensive? I opt - more expensive and keeping what some refer to as "the bloat." I personally hope this game is long af.

To me the Jabba DLC signals that hopefully the DLC is going to be valuable and showcase aspects important to the story and the SW mythos rather than not.

In the end, here's the thing: it's all consumer choice. Customers get to decide what they want to spend their money on. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Simple.

Video games are too cheap for their own good (and no I’m not crazy)

A reader argues that video games either need to see an increase in price or a decrease in length, in order to keep them sustainable.

metro.co.uk

 

[Mani-Man]

I have no interest in arguing something as apparent as the broken business of the video game industry. It's clear every time a company announces mass lay-offs, then announces record profits, and then record bonuses for executives. Of course a CEO will say his products should cost more. I don't think that's a smoking gun if I'm honest.

The only surprising is how little fear these CEO etc have to say stuff like that.
There was a time where big companies feared announcing lay offs and profit close together.
That this isnt the case anymore, is really the only thing that surprises.

The one thing i wonder, is if these CEOs have a limit.
If they have a number where even they would say "Nope, that would be too expensive, we cant do that".
500 bucks for a game? 800?
Would that be enough or is their greed really limitless?

 

[henzINNIT]

The only surprising is how little fear these CEO etc have to say stuff like that.
There was a time where big companies feared announcing lay offs and profit close together.
That this isnt the case anymore, is really the only thing that surprises.

The one thing i wonder, is if these CEOs have a limit.
If they have a number where even they would say "Nope, that would be too expensive, we cant do that".
500 bucks for a game? 800?
Would that be enough or is their greed really limitless?

This is an industry that sells gambling mechanics in games for children, and refers to customers most susceptible to exploitation as whales; I don't think there is a limit to the greed.

 

[Sithborg]

The only surprising is how little fear these CEO etc have to say stuff like that.
There was a time where big companies feared announcing lay offs and profit close together.
That this isnt the case anymore, is really the only thing that surprises.

The one thing i wonder, is if these CEOs have a limit.
If they have a number where even they would say "Nope, that would be too expensive, we cant do that".
500 bucks for a game? 800?
Would that be enough or is their greed really limitless?

****ing tech bros man....