You can always for a sale. The game (imo) is absolutely worth the price tag. I mean COD comes out every year and now includes a premium battle pass on top of the regular battle pass, not to mention the $20 skins sold separately.
If you like these types of CRPGs, this one is hard to beat.
As the other comment mentioned, I’m saying it’s getting harder and harder to find well designed games that dont include a plethora of microtransactions. So, yes, BG3 is full priced AAA game but you get a complete game unlike many games coming out (see RedFall, Gollum, and Forspoken to just name a few).
Nah, it’s pretty easy to avoid games with microtransactions. You’re just listing the games with the most marketing, but those are also the games most likely to have microtransactions because they know they’ve got you in the hype cycle. If you look a little bit outside of that bubble, the next closest games are most likely to earn your dollar just by making a good product.
It’s as arbitrary a number as anything else. Games used to be $50 in the sixth gen, and N64 games in the generation before that could cost as much as $90. We first switched to $60 games in the mid 00s, and if you adjust for inflation, that would mean games today should cost $90, all other things being equal, but not everything is. The average game, and especially Baldur’s Gate 3, is way bigger now than it used to be. Those non-inflation-adjusted $90 N64 games and $50 PS1 games were made by about 20 people as opposed to Baldur’s Gate 3’s 400. If the game isn’t worth $70 or $80 to you (there is a $70 version, FYI, but you seemingly only saw the deluxe edition), then you can wait for a sale or play a cheaper game, but I do believe they’re charging what the game is worth, if not underpricing it. I know I bought Elden Ring for $60 and felt like I’d rarely ever gotten that much value out of a game before; and value goes well beyond how long the game is.
Right, but while I don’t want to speak on behalf of the original commenter, I’m sure what they’re trying to get across is the value, with the comparison of COD charging the base cost plus DLC plus skins, whereas Balder’s Gate is a one time purchase of $80, and that’s it.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !gaming@beehaw.org
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
You can always for a sale. The game (imo) is absolutely worth the price tag. I mean COD comes out every year and now includes a premium battle pass on top of the regular battle pass, not to mention the $20 skins sold separately.
If you like these types of CRPGs, this one is hard to beat.
I don’t even like CRPG’s and BG3 is probably gonna end up being my personal GOTY.
Comparing it to COD, a game I don’t even play doesn’t make it better.
As the other comment mentioned, I’m saying it’s getting harder and harder to find well designed games that dont include a plethora of microtransactions. So, yes, BG3 is full priced AAA game but you get a complete game unlike many games coming out (see RedFall, Gollum, and Forspoken to just name a few).
Nah, it’s pretty easy to avoid games with microtransactions. You’re just listing the games with the most marketing, but those are also the games most likely to have microtransactions because they know they’ve got you in the hype cycle. If you look a little bit outside of that bubble, the next closest games are most likely to earn your dollar just by making a good product.
EDIT: Also, what about Forspoken is “incomplete”?
See the problem here? Micro transactions, or charge extra for not having micro transactions… either way- you’re paying more than you should.
What “should” you pay?
The usual $59.99 that it’s been for years.
It’s as arbitrary a number as anything else. Games used to be $50 in the sixth gen, and N64 games in the generation before that could cost as much as $90. We first switched to $60 games in the mid 00s, and if you adjust for inflation, that would mean games today should cost $90, all other things being equal, but not everything is. The average game, and especially Baldur’s Gate 3, is way bigger now than it used to be. Those non-inflation-adjusted $90 N64 games and $50 PS1 games were made by about 20 people as opposed to Baldur’s Gate 3’s 400. If the game isn’t worth $70 or $80 to you (there is a $70 version, FYI, but you seemingly only saw the deluxe edition), then you can wait for a sale or play a cheaper game, but I do believe they’re charging what the game is worth, if not underpricing it. I know I bought Elden Ring for $60 and felt like I’d rarely ever gotten that much value out of a game before; and value goes well beyond how long the game is.
Right, but while I don’t want to speak on behalf of the original commenter, I’m sure what they’re trying to get across is the value, with the comparison of COD charging the base cost plus DLC plus skins, whereas Balder’s Gate is a one time purchase of $80, and that’s it.