I am scared of the price...

[TimeBomb_64]

$70 on release, with a warning that we should expect the game to be buggy? I'm confused as to why this is more expensive then Skyrim, which it is constantly compared to, or even BG3, which was very highly rated and that was reflected in the price. But $70?? For this?? Based on what I've seen so far, the art and UI aren't very pleasing to look at, and make this game feel unpolished. To me, it feels like it's going to be a fantasy themed Outer Worlds. And that's fine, I really enjoyed playing Outer Worlds. But Outer Worlds was $30. Is the writing, total game time, and game play going to make up for the price difference? I did some research and saw people say that Avowed is pretty much going to be 40 hours long to complete, same as Outer Worlds. But if that's true, then why is it more than twice the price? The cost-benefit analysis isn't working in this game's favor. I really want to try this game, but the cost is holding me back. I'd definitely buy Avowed if it was $30, but I can only hope the release justifies this game's hefty price tag.

[Jeffer'son Airship]

I think everyone here can agree the price seems quite high.

Kinda believe the theory it's meant to drive people to gamepass.

[Jade]

The Outer Worlds released at $60, the standard price at the time. now the standard price is $70.

It sucks but that's just how it is, I doubt it'll change anytime soon especially with game pass existing and all. Just hope the rumors about GTA VI releasing at an even higher price are false.

[Verde]

Originally posted by Aria:

The Outer Worlds released at $60, the standard price at the time. now the standard price is $70.

Those price tags are standard for triple-A games, this isn't a triple-A game.

A 70$ price tag on Avowed makes absolutely zero sense unless they don't expect many direct sales and just want to funnel people into using GamePass.

[juulstrup83]

Originally posted by Aria:

The Outer Worlds released at $60, the standard price at the time. now the standard price is $70.

It sucks but that's just how it is, I doubt it'll change anytime soon especially with game pass existing and all. Just hope the rumors about GTA VI releasing at an even higher price are false.

Outer Worlds definetily wasn't worth 60. Should have been 40, though I personally think even that would have been too much when compared to FNV.

[Kraze]

don't be broke then

[AdahnGorion]

Its a premium price since this is a 3rd party platform and MS wants you to use gamepass.

Originally posted by Aria:

The Outer Worlds released at $60, the standard price at the time. now the standard price is $70.

It sucks but that's just how it is, I doubt it'll change anytime soon especially with game pass existing and all. Just hope the rumors about GTA VI releasing at an even higher price are false.

It is not standard price for AA and AA+ titles.
They ask a premium for this game because they want you to use their gamepass.

This game is on gamepass PC day one (that is where MS wants you)
If you buy it on the MS store, then you pay

[archonsod]

Originally posted by Verde:

Those price tags are standard for triple-A games, this isn't a triple-A game.

Civ, Monster Hunter, Like a Dragon and PGA Tour 2K25 all launch this month at the same price point. None of which I'd generally call a triple-A game, nor do I think any of them are on Gamepass.

[AdahnGorion]

Originally posted by archonsod:

Originally posted by Verde:

Those price tags are standard for triple-A games, this isn't a triple-A game.

Civ, Monster Hunter, Like a Dragon and PGA Tour 2K25 all launch this month at the same price point. None of which I'd generally call a triple-A game, nor do I think any of them are on Gamepass.

All of them have one thing in common however.
They are console games.

[Verde]

Originally posted by archonsod:

Civ, Monster Hunter, Like a Dragon and PGA Tour 2K25 all launch this month at the same price point. None of which I'd generally call a triple-A game, nor do I think any of them are on Gamepass.

If Monster Hunter Wilds isn't a high-budget, high-production quality game then I don't know what is. Capcom's (modern) Monster Hunter entries are as triple-A as they get. This no longer is the same niche franchise it was years ago.

Yakuza: Pirates is 60$, not 70$, so basically a 50$ game back in the day, even though these games deserve a triple-A price tag.

As for the other two I haven't played those franchises so I can't comment on their pricing.

[Phantus]

Yeah. it's a $40 value tops. Totally scaled back, dumbed down for consoles and broken at launch. Maybe it's a $30 value come to think of it....

[monster_urby]

Originally posted by AdahnGorion:

Originally posted by archonsod:

Civ, Monster Hunter, Like a Dragon and PGA Tour 2K25 all launch this month at the same price point. None of which I'd generally call a triple-A game, nor do I think any of them are on Gamepass.

All of them have one thing in common however.
They are console games.

I can't imagine anyone playing Civilization VII, a 4X Grand Strategy Game on a console...

[Vorshin]

Well a friend bought it for me as an Xmas+early B/D gift. I told him i was going to refuse it because of the price, he phoned me and said take it. If the game sucks when it comes out IT will be refunded back. If its buggy as hell it will be refunded back, why, at that price it better be more or less in FULL playing order.
I am NOT paying to playtest and report issues to be fixed, when that used to be for testers and now they expect people to buy at full price to test and get nothing back.

[Mr blue]

Originally posted by Jeffer'son Airship:

I think everyone here can agree the price seems quite high.

Kinda believe the theory it's meant to drive people to gamepass.

inflation this price would have = $50.20 in 2011

[archonsod]

Originally posted by Verde:

If Monster Hunter Wilds isn't a high-budget, high-production quality game then I don't know what is. Capcom's (modern) Monster Hunter entries are as triple-A as they get.

Monster Hunter World development budget = $30 million. As a comparator, Far Cry 5 released the same year, development cost $130 million. Capcom's development studio as a whole (which bear in mind is usually split into several teams) employs 300 people. Far Cry 5 on the other hand was a joint effort between Ubisoft Toronto (600 staff) and Ubisoft Montreal (4000 staff).
Monster Hunter probably is a high budget, high production game in Capcom terms. Comparing Capcom to a triple A studio however is like comparing a motorised scooter to a formula 1 car; one is several orders of magnitude larger than the other.

Yakuza: Pirates is 60$, not 70$, so basically a 50$ game back in the day, even though these games deserve a triple-A price tag.

It's five quid cheaper in proper money. Though it's deliberate strategy from RGG and Sega; helps quieten the complaints about the re-use of assets.

Originally posted by monster_urby:

I can't imagine anyone playing Civilization VII, a 4X Grand Strategy Game on a console...

Plenty played the original Sid Meier's Civilization on the Super Nintendo ...

[AdahnGorion]

Originally posted by monster_urby:

Originally posted by AdahnGorion:

All of them have one thing in common however.
They are console games.

I can't imagine anyone playing Civilization VII, a 4X Grand Strategy Game on a console...

I did not see civ there, it kinda watered out of view.

But Civ7 is an AAA budget game.. its still extremely dumbed down, it feels like a mobile game tbh..