I won't pay $70 just out of principle

[Silenterror]

Look I make really good money and can afford it but I think the continued price bar raising is unacceptable and just frankly greedy. As a long time MH fan I just won't do it. Why do that when 70 dollars in 3 to 6 indie games gives more value. Sorry I had to vent on that one.

[Mythily]

"Massive title project"
More like massive flop :)

[RedQuarters]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Kiririn:

Opprinnelig skrevet av RedQuarters:

It feels like you just described a special edition.

Not even close.

World had nearly $550 of DLC.

I need a physical case. A nice manual to read. A CD or cartridge with the full game. The complete game with no microtransactions. All cosmetics earn-able via gameplay and not by swiping the card. A playable, relatively well-optimized experience with very few bugs. Zero install times. Ready to go as soon as I plug the cart or put the CD in. No Denuvo check-in. The ability to re-sell the game. I'm sure I am forgetting a lot of things as well.

I think it's flawed to consider think that buying every DLC is a viable value comparison. Maybe it only seems obvious to me but each of those DLCs are designed to appeal to small specialty groups, they are cheap to produce and very profitable, they are designed to only be sold to small fractions of the player base and the number of people who have bought ANY of them is probably a minority of players while someone who bought EVERY ONE is virtually non-existent.

Also none of that DLC was required to enjoy the full game (unless you count IB as DLC then that obviously was.) but the cross-overs with actual game content like FF14 and The Witcher were both free.

The are games with special editions around 100$ that have physical components that's a valid ask.

ALL cosmetics earnable through gameplay would DEFINITELY require a base game price-hike since youre effectively closing off a revenue stream entirely. (but i wouldnt take that deal, theyd just add that ♥♥♥♥ in later, so its basically impossible because we cant "trust" corpos to hold to it)

"A playable, relatively well-optimized experience with very few bugs." That's a moving goalpost, they're going to stick to minimum-viable-product and just make adjustments until community outcry isn't affecting sales. That's every AAA game.

"Zero install times." This is dumb. Sorry, youre in the future now, maybe you dont realize but installations, downloads, and patches are all services you are receiving and paying for. Not only would something like this make the price go up it would make the value go down and the development time longer.

"Ready to go as soon as I plug the cart or put the CD in." "The ability to re-sell the game." You're just ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about the way our technology has progressed at this point. Digital distribution is better in most ways, though i agree that no ownership was and still is a bitter pill to accept.. thats something that's going to have to be dealt with at a legal lvl though, even capcoms CEO couldn't change that, not even just for this game.

[RedQuarters]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Mythily:

"Massive title project"
More like massive flop :)

The game is going to be massively successful and probably be on every shows GOTY contenders this year.

Youre allowed to be dissatisfied with it for sure, not liking anything is valid you dont gotta like ♥♥♥♥, but pretend i have a crystal ball, cause im right.

[Nauct]

Ok I'll post here to let you know how the game is on the 28th. What are you gonna play on the 28th?

[Kiririn]

I was just listing what we used to have.

I would still pay $100, the price after inflation, for a game that had everything we used to get. People love to talk about the fact that games cost $50 back in the 90s and so they should cost $100 now.

Ok cool, give me what I used to get and I'll pay the $100. Don't sell me an MVP(minimum viable product) for $70 and then try and sell me $550 in DLC and cosmetics. You can sell expansions, but all cosmetics should be earn-able in game.

They used to have to pay for making the physical media and manual and boxes and jewel cases, etc. We got the complete games and retained the rights to sell them. They make more on video games than they used even counting for inflation.

[LegionXNX]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Mythily:

"Massive title project"
More like massive flop :)

Keep that same energy on the 28th when everyone out here having fun, you better not let anyone catch you with that game on you steam library.

[Nauct]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Kiririn:

I was just listing what we used to have.

I would still pay $100, the price after inflation, for a game that had everything we used to get. People love to talk about the fact that games cost $50 back in the 90s and so they should cost $100 now.

Ok cool, give me what I used to get and I'll pay the $100. Don't sell me an MVP(minimum viable product) for $70 and then try and sell me $550 in DLC and cosmetics. You can sell expansions, but all cosmetics should be earn-able in game.

They used to have to pay for making the physical media and manual and boxes and jewel cases, etc. We got the complete games and retained the rights to sell them. They make more on video games than they used even counting for inflation.

You could also make an argument that games could be cheaper. Limited physical media costs and games sell 10s of millions now instead of 100s of thousands. The revenue increase is tremendous

[Kiririn]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Nauct:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Kiririn:

I was just listing what we used to have.

I would still pay $100, the price after inflation, for a game that had everything we used to get. People love to talk about the fact that games cost $50 back in the 90s and so they should cost $100 now.

Ok cool, give me what I used to get and I'll pay the $100. Don't sell me an MVP(minimum viable product) for $70 and then try and sell me $550 in DLC and cosmetics. You can sell expansions, but all cosmetics should be earn-able in game.

They used to have to pay for making the physical media and manual and boxes and jewel cases, etc. We got the complete games and retained the rights to sell them. They make more on video games than they used even counting for inflation.

You could also make an argument that games could be cheaper. Limited physical media costs and games sell 10s of millions now instead of 100s of thousands. The revenue increase is tremendous

I agree.

[Moonwitch]

I'm not paying $70 for a sub 50 fps experience because these devs decides to cut corners with terrible optimization and the upscaling plus frame gen requirement. I'll maybe get it on sale when they get around to actually making it worth it, since right now as it stands, it isn't worth.

I'd rather burn $70 for a Bloodborne PC port at 60 fps.

[RedQuarters]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Kiririn:

I was just listing what we used to have.

I would still pay $100, the price after inflation, for a game that had everything we used to get. People love to talk about the fact that games cost $50 back in the 90s and so they should cost $100 now.

Ok cool, give me what I used to get and I'll pay the $100. Don't sell me an MVP(minimum viable product) for $70 and then try and sell me $550 in DLC and cosmetics. You can sell expansions, but all cosmetics should be earn-able in game.

They used to have to pay for making the physical media and manual and boxes and jewel cases, etc. We got the complete games and retained the rights to sell them. They make more on video games than they used even counting for inflation.

I mean, i know it seemed like i was but im not going to defend AAA development or pricing. I get it, it feels like we're being shafted by AAA lately and we totally are. Ill buy like MAYBE 3 AAA games a year TOPS at this point and thats only if it's something i know know KNOW im going to like because every time i see a AAA game i think "bloated development cycle" "feature bloat" "probably a toxic community" "some sort of politics/drama involved" "min-maxed value/profit" blah blah blah.

That being said, i like monster hunter, i like THIS monster hunter, im going to PLAY this monster hunter. AAA can pound sand on anything that hasn't been proven to be worth my money but honestly 100$ (yes i bought the special ed) is nothing for the easy 1000 hours im going to drag out of this ♥♥♥♥♥, and really from that value proposition it's still an easy buy.

What AAA has lost from me is my trust. I dont buy anything i dont know is going to be worth it and i dont trust them when they say they're not going to do the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ thing that makes them money so they lost my business in those circumstances, this game doesnt check those boxes... yet.

[Mysterycookie]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Silenterror:

Look I make really good money and can afford it but I think the continued price bar raising is unacceptable and just frankly greedy. As a long time MH fan I just won't do it. Why do that when 70 dollars in 3 to 6 indie games gives more value. Sorry I had to vent on that one.

I agree, to an extent.
I feel the same about GTA, not buying it
But MH? Alright, I'll fold lol

[Mysterycookie]

by the way, back in my day AAA games were 30 bucks.

[Nauct]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Moonwitch:

I'm not paying $70 for a sub 50 fps experience because these devs decides to cut corners with terrible optimization and the upscaling plus frame gen requirement. I'll maybe get it on sale when they get around to actually making it worth it, since right now as it stands, it isn't worth.

I'd rather burn $70 for a Bloodborne PC port at 60 fps.

If you can't run this at 60, don't expect to be able to run a future Fromsoft game at 60

[Nauct]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Mysterycookie:

by the way, back in my day AAA games were 30 bucks.

In Canada I remember Triple A Nintendo games were $60. But back then new games would be cheaper if they were lower quality. Now they all expect max price even if they're trash

[Cadaver]

Look i like indie games, i play a lot of them.
But claiming that they give same or similiar value to a monster hunter game is just a silly claim