I will wait until they get discounted or are on sale if the said game peaks my interest.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AAA game price increase
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What are you talking about? A complicated fun game that runs on 4K and is a 100% single player game, has won the award for the best game of 2022.
And alot more than 150-300 people played Elden Ring.
Big multi-player games like Battlefield 2042 is now actually free on Xbox Game Pass.
I think they meant the size of the team needed to make the game (FromSoftware has ~350 people). And it for sure has "multiplayer".
Oh I know, but for them, I can see that any price increase helps justify their subscription.Apparently not just Microsoft…
As I and others mentioned, just waiting will save you money, as games age they get cheaper.
That and they mostly work as promised. Purchasing a new release now, you're just paying for the privilege of being a beta tester.
If going to put my $70 on the table, I expect a fully fleshed out & polished game, not broken garbage with paid DLC's. So like many others I just hold back, time is free and patience a virtue...
Q-6
Last edited:
And the shocker here is I have played that game on an old GTX 1080. So for all those “WERES THE 4090 ON THE MAC!!!! It’s needed for the GAMES” just shows it’s not. In fact I played a game released in November this year on my 1080. And the M1 in most configs beats the 1080.
I agree with this line of thinking. Upon release, many computer games require heavy patching, and gamers who purchase early are doing so in order to have the privilege of beta testing the latest and greatest broken games. I'm perfectly fine with waiting a year or more, because I like my games to be, you know, actually finished.
One of the primary genres that I play are isometric turn-based RPGs, which are complex and inevitably need a considerable number of patches. "Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous" was released in September of 2021 and it's still receiving frequent updates. Maybe I'll pick it up during GOG's new year's sale...or just keep waiting for more patches, the changelog is never ending and each new patch looks like a massive laundry list. You'd think the number of fixes would have abated by now. This patten is expected of most mainstream computer games; the norm that we are accustomed to.
Some games have it much worse, being completely unplayable upon release. With the initial version of "The Callisto Protocol", it was plagued by a stuttering bug. This is what happens when the developers are pushed by the bean counters to release their games before Christmas. You only get one chance to make a terrible first impression. Imagine spending $80 USD for the Deluxe Edition, plus pre-ordering the DLC for another $30, then finding out that because of a "damn clerical error" it isn't even playable on a $1,600 RTX 4090. Assuming that they eventually patch those issues, the Denuvo DRM is never going away, hence there won't be a GOG version, my preferred games store. I suppose invasive DRM is the least of the concerns of those who bought early.
So, patience isn't just a virtue, but sometimes necessary. Waiting also allows you to purchase computer games at a considerably lower price, and they tend to be fully patched at that point, as well. This is an older survey, but according to PC Gamer, the best waiting period is about seven months after a game is released.
It's remarkable how many "AAA" or "AA" games that I've gotten for $5 or less to play on my Mac, simply because I was willing to wait a year or more to play them. For example, I got Metro Exodus Gold, Borderlands 3, and Hades for about $5 each during last year's Winter sales. Those prices are a pittance compared to the prices on release day, plus all of the patches that come along with waiting. I let all of the early adopters do the beta testing and absorb the upfront development costs while waiting for excellent deals on the finished product.
Daggerfall, maybe with some mods, but there's very good reason why the game remains to be listed...
"The Callisto Protocol" not played but seen enough to think the management lost it's nerve and cut content to get the game out of the door before the upcoming "Dead Space" remake. Think was a very bad move as will likely kill the IP. I don't think "The Callisto Protocol" is a bad game by any means, but it's definitely not worth $70 and seems to be rather incomplete on the storyline nor do I remotely care for features being paywalled via DLC's.
Pity as I'm big fan of the OG "Dead Space"
Q-6
Last edited:
This is an inevitable result, because the tastes of game players have been improving. To meet the needs of these players, they have to put more effort into making games than before. The cost has been increasing, but the price has been 60 dollars. Then the company has only one result, that is, bankruptcy. It is impossible not to raise the price.
That is a possibility. I am also somewhat surprised Nintendo hasn't increased the price of the Switch hardware (yet).
I am sorry, I am a huge Switch fan. Breath of the Wild was one of my favorite games, it even made it to my top 10 favorite games of all time list. But the Switch needs to go....it needs to be upgraded. It's just becoming a joke now Nintendo. I do NOT want to see Tears of the Kingdom run sub-par resolution and dip to 15fps because its on ancient super ancient hardware at this point. As much as I love Breath of the Wild, I am holding off purchasing this Zelda game until I see how it looks and performs. I do not have high hopes for it.
What does? Breath of the Wild had horrible performance issues in several areas that nearly ruined the experience for me.
Now a new Zelda is coming out 6 years later and the hardware is mobile tech from 2015. I don’t expect it to be good.
Yeah, "the average user" don't really care about the performance drops in console games, at least historically.
Strictly speaking, the performance of switch is similar to or worse than that of mobile phone.
In my dictionary, there are only two kinds of console games, XBOX and PS series.
NS is really a joke.
It seems that they have stopped pursuing newer technologies, only expensive first-party games and poor hardware.
BotW was a launch title and port of a game originally developed and designed for the Wii U. I think Nintendo has much better grips with what the Switch can do and what optimizations can be made. It's not like this game is releasing for PC/PS5/XSX too so they can take the limitations of the Switch fully into account and doesn't seem rushed out the door to hit some random holiday release date. It'll probably run fine, at the very least similar to BotW where a few demanding areas pull it down but mostly pretty good.
But I swear some of you are babies when it comes to framerate. I think you'd probably die if you played an N64 or PS1 or software rendered Quake on period accurate hardware.
Why do you go to an extreme? How am I a “baby” about frame rate? The switch was running outdated hardware when it launched. Did you look to see what third party devs need to do to make things work on Switch?