There was condemnation of the industry’s decision to transition to $70 new releases at the start of the PS5 generation. For many, this price point breaks a psychological barrier, with software simply too expensive to be justified. Some have argued that cartridge-based software in the 90s was more costly, especially when adjusted for inflation; others have pointed out that budgets on AAA titles have exploded over the past decade. Either way, the prices aren’t coming down.
In fact, they’re quietly going up – but publishers are being sneaky about it. Many are now locking “early access” behind expensive Ultimate Editions of their games, pushing the price of new releases up to $100 or more. This is a trend we’ve noticed become increasingly common over the past few months, with titles like Dragon Ball: Sparking! Zero and Silent Hill 2 adopting it as recently as last week.
Publishers sell the concept of “early access”, but really you’re paying extra to play on day one. In the case of Bandai Namco’s aforementioned anime battler, it cost $100 to play the game 72 hours earlier than its “official” release date. To be fair, the arena outing’s Deluxe Edition does also include a Season Pass, so you get added value beyond the “early access” – but this is the very definition of upselling, and consumers are showing up in droves.
Prior to its standard edition releasing, almost 90k concurrent Steam players were logged in on Dragon Ball: Sparking! Zero, confirming an enormous number of consumers had stumped up for the expensive “early access”. The publisher announced the game had sold through three million units within 24 hours of its “official” launch, but it’s likely a large proportion of those sales came from the Deluxe Edition and Ultimate Edition, which was available to play earlier.
The thing is, this practice used to apply primarily to multiplayer games, but it’s clear single player titles are benefitting from the FOMO, too. Silent Hill 2 was available 72 hours earlier for those who paid $10 extra, and currently the first two chapters in Life Is Strange: Double Exposure are available to those who pod out $80 for the game. Those willing to wait an extra two weeks to start the next leg of Max Caulfield’s story will pay just $50. In both examples, additional content is included to sweeten the deal.
Effectively, though, we’re seeing the price of games almost double for those who want to play as early as possible – and it’s working. Star Wars Outlaws is perhaps the most egregious recent example, as it charged $130 for “early access” to its sci-fi open world – and then forced fans to restart their progress on PS5, due to a bug. The game was ultimately unfinished and undercooked, with the publisher plotting a series of crucial patches to get it back on track. The French publisher’s since said that everyone will be able to play Assassin’s Creed Shadows on the same day, regardless of which version you buy.
But this won’t be the end of the practice – in fact, we think it’s going to get worse. Sony dabbled with the idea for its ill-fated Concord, and we doubt it’ll be able to resist the temptation to upsell titles like Ghost of Yotei and Marvel’s Wolverine when they eventually arrive. And then there’s GTA 6: Rockstar will comfortably sell millions upon millions of copies at a significant mark-up with the promise of “early access”. Fans simply won’t want to miss out.
And thus, the price of playing new games at launch is going up. Yes, it’s still possible to sit on the sidelines with $70 pre-oreders and wait 72 hours or more to play – but many value being part of the zeitgeist. There’s an inherent need to be part of the conversation, and it’s going to drive the price of playing your favourites on launch day higher than it’s ever been. This is particularly sneaky because it’s technically not a price increase at all, yet it uses FOMO to force players into spending as much as possible.
Make no mistake, “early access” is not “early access” – it’s the game’s release date. If anything, the traditional $70 versions of titles are being delayed in order to upsell fans on expensive Ultimate Editions. Yes, they bundle in extra content and anyone with a shred of self-discipline will resist – but it’s clear this tactic is working, and it’s only going to get more and more common. How long before 72 hours becomes a week becomes a month? And even if you personally refuse to pay, there are millions upon millions who will.
How do you feel about the current trend of publishers locking “early access” to the most expensive edition of their games? Are you willing to pay extra to play early, or is this all a big scam? You don’t need to buy an Ultimate Edition to comment below.
Are you willing to pay more than $70 for "early access"? (2,272 votes)
- Yes, I want to play games as soon as possible
- Maybe, but it'd depend a lot on the game
- No, I don't care about FOMO and won't pay extra
Comments 176
I'll just wait three days and save 30 bucks. Although I do think gta 6 base will cost more than 70.
If you're impatient, you end up paying for it. It's even sillier to pay more for early access. I will leave you with immortal words of wisdom that have been my compass for many years:
"If you buy a game at launch, you are paying the most amount of money for the worst version of a game." -TotalBiscuit
It's an annoying practice, but I'm part of the problem sometimes and will continue to be depending on the game. I don't usually buy deluxe editions of games, but "early access" is far more compelling to me than extra costumes, a digital "art book", or music tracks I can easily find on YouTube. I know myself too damn well to know I'd fork over extra to play GTA VI or Ghost of Yotei "early".
I wonder if the reason PlayStation hasn't done this sooner is that they want their games to feel like "events", so they don't want spoilers out there even faster than usual. I'm sure they'll do this eventually because the extra revenue is too tempting, but I'm curious if this is the rare time the massive egos at PlayStation unintentionally gave them some restraint.
I want to be part of the conversation on all things gaming but there is a special feeling when you are actively part of the launch day celebrations. I don't know if it's worth 30 bucks to play 3 days early though. Knowing my luck my game would come late and I would have wasted the 30 on nothing.
Some people just have more money than sense 🤣😭
I hardly buy games day one anymore. Astro bot maybe the only game this gen I have bought day one. Most games have bugs day one so if you wait you get a better deal financially and experience wise. With a huge backlog I am more then happy to wait. I havent even purchased spiderman 2 yet.
I usually pre-order games digitally mostly solely for the art book (because I'm an artist) but I haven't pre-ordered anything digitally for a while due to financial issues.
The whole gaming industry is on a course of self destruction...prices go up, yet virtually every game is broken in some way upon launch. If you bought a new TV and something didn't work, you'd return it, you wouldn't wait around until Matsui sent you a new button or dial to fit yourself.The whole thing is becoming weary. Don't have the same passion or interest in the video game hobby these days. Bring back £1.99 budget games on cassette
I legit just wait for most games to hit $40 now
Unless it’s something I’m gonna play with friends, i don’t care to hop in at launch 🤷🏻♂️
@Northlander "The whole gaming industry is on a course of self destruction."
I'm not sure I agree really. I think we'd see a drop-off in consumers paying for these Ultimate Editions if that was the case, but from my observation — and I don't have data to support it — feels like more and more are coughing up.
I bet the average selling price for successful games in their first month is now higher than $70.
Given how much games cost to produce, and providing they are not buggy, or poorly optimised for 60fps, I have absolutely no problem with £70.
But, paying more for early access is a big No.
I don't really mind this practice much personally. I don't like it but it's not enough of a nuisance to get upset about. Now the real kicker would be if they charge extra to play a game without ad breaks or something along those lines. That would annoy me a bit more and make me consider not supporting the product at all.
I might consider paying extra for more content or some extra goodies (limited editions and such) but definitely not just to play early
That said, let them offer it. Who cares.
For me, it's a win-win-win-win. The people who want to pay to play early and be Guinea pigs for the unpatched version of the game can, the publisher gets more revenues which might encourage more niche titles to get developed, the developers get earlier telemetry on bugs and glitches from a larger player-base, and I get to jump into the game after a few patches.
Wait a month and buy a disc from various retailers for £10-20 less than the ridiculous store price.
Simple, really.
@Korgon
You raise a very good point - this is a far, far less egrigious practice than others, that really only harms those willing to pay, so yes, let them get on with it I suppose.
To be fair the majority of games that charge over £/$70 for “early access” also include DLC or an expansion pass as well, eg the “Gold” edition of Star Wars Outlaws. As far as “standard” releases charging £/$70 goes, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if GTA 6 is the first game to break through this barrier.
For my 1000th comment I will say this:
The poor are complainers,
we the wealthy are day -3 players
Paying a signficant extra sum just to play a couple of days early is one of the most pointless phenomena in modern day gaming - at least in my opinion. I will still pay full price if I really want to support the studio, but extra to play early? Not a chance.
Today I bought Astro Bot for 48 EUR (the same price I paid for Zelda Echoes of Wisdom day-one, btw).
WE are the customers who pay all the development and marketing. So WE have the power to teach the publishers
Sony learned it on the hard way that we want original games like Helldivers 2 and not shallow copy-cats like Concord. We taught them!
With my backlog I have absolutely no need to play a game day one (though sometimes I will pre-order games to show support, as I did with "Banishers: Ghosts of New Eden").
That being said, I don't mind the practice; if people feel it's worth the extra money it's good they have the option.
I will also only consider Ultimate/Deluxe/Whatever editions of a game if it has extra gameplay (like a season pass for expansions), otherwise the regular game will work fine for me
This has been discussed in enthusiast circles, on numerous blogs, for literal years. This is not a new take nor point.
Just because PS doesn't discuss it doesn't mean no one talks about it.
I skipped out on the PS4.
I got a PS5 months after release, and guess what? I've been able to enjoy an endless deluge of last-gen games at cut-rate prices. Pennies on the Pound stuff. Disc drive. Used copy. PSN sale. No problems whatsoever.
And then the new PS Plus tiers came, and I bought a few years of PS Now to convert into Premium cheaply. Now I genuinely don't remember the last game I bought new on day 1. Yakuza Like a Dragon, I think? Purely to support RGG studio.
All this to say, don't be a mug. Let others pay the premium and beta test the bugs for you, and ride their coat tails for cheap a few months or years later. You don't seriously think games like Star Wars Outlaws are worth playing on release, right?
It’s downright madness. You can wait the couple days.
What I find more interesting is after release, expensive ultimate and deluxe editions go on sale more often than the standard edition. And even on sale they cost more than the SE.
It isn't though, is it? You said day one games. That is early access. Fay one games are still the same price they've been for ages. I bought Metaphor for £40 day one.
Eh, I only play kids games so I don't spend more than $60 for a single game.
The price of making games is rising quicker than the price of buying them to be fair. I mean no one wants to pay more if they don’t have to but it unfortunately is what it is 🤷♂️
While I agree that the early access scam is predatory and disgusting, I continue to be perplexed why people get surprised or upset about video game costs. Not even counting inflation, games are dollar for dollar less expensive to purchase vs what they cost to make than they ever have. Its a luxury purchase, not a right or necessity.
Maybe in my younger years i did buy day one but with age comes wisdom 😉
I paid over $100 to get Sparking Zero three days early and it was one of the best choices I've ever made. Such a better game than say, Concord or Star War Outlaw or heck, even The Last of Us 2
If people are stupid enough to pay it then why not? But then I'd never pay £70 for a game either, most day one games are around £55 physical and my limit for a digital game is about £30 max
I usually don’t get deluxe versions of games. I did do it with Sparking Zero recently, but that was for the DLC. I didn’t even know there was early access when I got the fancy version!
The only game I’ve ever had such FOMO that I went for early access deliberately was Starfield, the ultimate 6/10 experience. I can honestly say I don’t think I’ll do it again unless there’s other better stuff to warrant it beyond the early access.
@get2sammyb You give your unpaid intern proofreader the day off? For some reason GTA6 is followed by a : rather than a period, unless the name of the game is “GTA6: Rockstar”. And I know we spell things weird over here but $70 pre-oreders seems strange even for the UK. 🤷🏻♂️
On topic. It is a bit scammy. Like NY gas stations that advertise $3.29 for a gallon of gas on their REALLY BIG SIGN but that’s the cash price and your credit card gets charged $3.59 a gallon. 🤑 And now restaurants are in on it too. 🤑
This doesn’t seem new though. While everyone was busy complaining about “free-to-start” games the industry went full blown “$60-to-start” with all the dlc micro transactions and season passes that cost more than the base game. Even Nintendo, which poo-pooh’d dlc and said “we only sell complete games” then had more dlc for Smash Wii U than the cost of the game.
https://nintendoeverything.com/sakurai-no-premium-smash-bros-dlc-currently-planned-more/
And you also left out the cost of hardware, which I thought this article was going to be about. Joycon and PS5 both have really bad drift, so you constantly need to buy new controllers. And the PS5 controllers keep going up in price, $70, $75, $170!!! Then you have all of the accessories like PS VR2 and Portal. And Switch went up to $350 for OLED after 6 years on the market w/o a single price cut. And PS5 Pro is $700 w/o a disc drive to play our old games or borrow them from friends or the library.
Gaming is crazy expensive now compared to even 10 years ago, it’s non-stop pay pay pay, hardware and software. Just like everything else. The class war is over, we lost.😩
Given that games release with a ton of bugs, I'm not willing to pay the developer for the privilege of being QA.
Meh. It's entirely the consumers' fault the more this catches on.
I remember when I was a teenager, my life revolved around video game release dates — so I get why some feel feel the need to play something ASAP. But, at this point, I often don't think about a game until it's already launched, maybe at most a month prior to launch. And I have more than enough going on in my life such that a game's release is never at the forefront of my mind.
@Anti-Matter you only play kids game eh… who knew?
Simple solution, buy physical at reduced prices if you must play a game at launch. Keep buying digital and you're a turkey voting for Christmas and you've no-one but yourself to blame. Console gamers are not getting the same treatment as PC players who chose convenience over physical ownership because games sales are not a walled garden on PC.
It's not a scam if companies raise prices for early access and people CHOOSE to go along with that.
What is a scam is game design incorporating psychologically manipulative mechanics to induce extra spending, like FIFA for example.
Or annual releases with rudimentary changes compared to the year before that could've been sold as a cheaper update.
Or digital prices being kept artificially high on console marketplaces, especially compared to PC prices for the same game.
Or charging to play online and not separating it from the subscription service.
Or trying to kill the secondhand market. Or buying DLC that quickly because unplayable and inaccessible, like with Destiny 2.
Or forcing online connection for games that don't require it.
You start by saying that you could argue that games are costlier to make than ever and if inflation is taken into consideration game prices are at a normal level. But then you condemn a practice which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Atleast i dont mind as much. People get something extra and get to play earlier, who cares. Other people wait years for a lower price before they play a game. Thats fine as well.
People already calling others stupid and undisciplined, smh
Im wondering, if people agree that cost of production had gone up. How should publishers fund or make their money back for the games they create. Without increasing price? Cause this seems like a reasonable way to me. Doesn't mean i would go for it btw
I’m going to be controversial here but I’m actually not against early access with deluxe/premium editions. These £80/£90/£100 editions with DLC, skins, season passes and all that jazz have been around now for the best part of a decade, they are nothing new. At least with some of them nowadays you might get 3-5 days early access on top.
I’m seeing a lot of “if people are stupid enough to pay for it” comments etc but at the end of the day people put different values on different things and shouldn’t be judged for how they spend their money. If they can afford it, being able to play a game for a whole weekend before it releases on a Tuesday for example might be worth the extra £20. Only game I have done it for is BG3 when I had a completely free weekend for early access but my next 3 weekends were jam packed with plans. It was a no brainer for me.
As I read this, I realize I paid full price for Outlaws and still don’t play it as much as many of my older games. I’m through paying for day 1’s unless it’s something I love a la Uncharted, TLOU, etc.
I’ve recently bought Outlaws and Wu Kong and still play Elder Scrolls Online far more than I play those 2 games. Furthermore, I was day 1 die Diablo IV and quit it after about a month and a half. Just unwise financial decisions made by a guy who manages money.
This thing about "charged $130 for early access" is nonsense. The $130 was for season pass, skins for Kay, Nix, speeder, the Trailblazer spaceship, instant unlock of a bonus mission, and a digital art book. If they took all of that away I VERY highly doubt they would charge $60 more than the base game just for three days early access.
If i buy a game digitally i will buy it out of credit that ive purchased at a discounted price from Shopto etc and this wont change for as long as i can buy it. No way am i ever paying more for a digital game than i can get it from a retail store. No middle man or retail packaging to charge for but they still charge more. I certainly wouldnt pay more to play a game a couple of days early.
Me and mine are always talking about it lol. Most gamers I know play console and they all decry the recent price increases. I’m assuming we’ll see reductions in development costs due to more and more AI use but whether or not they are passed onto the consumer well I won’t hold my breath on that one.
If people are willing of course companies will do it. I don't personally see the appeal and think there are worse issues than early access.
There's things like specific armour colours being locked off as paid DLC in Space Marine 2 for absolutely no reason other than they needed some kind of content for the 'deluxe' editions. That's more an issue for me, it's so mean spirited and takes the fun out of customisation when oh I can't have purple, I have to pay extra for purple. I just dropped £50 for this game and I can't even grind for the colour I want? I need to give MORE money?? Even Astro Bot couldn't not have a little bit of content withheld for the 'deluxe' edition.
It all feels so greedy. Games used to have this stuff hidden in them to unlock and that's what would keep you playing. Not a season pass to drip-feed you content across the year or a battle pass to force you to keep playing so you actually get the stuff you paid for.
Yea the price should really start low at day 1 and increase over the next month or so to full price. Your paying full price or extra to be the test dummy and expose all the day 1 bugs. Then by the time the patches are put out to fix the game its about to be discounted.. its backwards
I'm mixed on this. Ultimately people are free to spend their money how they choose, and in some circumstances i can understand the appeal.
On the other, it frustrates me that people buy into stuff like this because it perpetuates a cycle where more and more publishers think it's OK to follow this model. It's the same with places like Disney world. They keep introducing new ways to part people from their cash, and so long as people keep paying, these companies will keep finding new opportunities to monetise.
The Life is Strange situation is ridiculous and highly inappropriate for a story driven game imo. It just means more opportunities for crucial plot points to be spoiled online before most people have chance to play it for themselves. People shouldn't be forced to pay more if they want to avoid spoilers.
On the otherhand, I don't really have a problem with early access (or ya know....beta tests as they used to be known...) for online multiplayer titles to stress test servers ahead of launch. I have no doubt the likes of GTA online will follow this model next year either.
But for single player games or campaign elements of titles, I dont like this shift. Particularly as the last few years have shown that devs and publishers can't be trusted to release bug free games at launch. The star wars outlaws situation was particularly outrageous, but it's not the only example. More often than not it feels like those paying for early access are acting as beta testers and that feels egregious when arguably these consumers are the most loyal customers
Nintendo games I buy day one. And I have no quibbles.
I’m not sure I’ve bought an Xbox or PlayStation game day one this gen.
Monster Hunter Wilds might change that though…
@Waitinonpsvr2 No, really the bugs should be fixed by launch. Day one players shouldn't be paying to pick up bugs, less or otherwise. I am glad we're in an age where bugs can be patched out later. But it's too relied upon now.
The person who invented early-access must be laughing their arse off. "I cannot believe we convinced gamers to pay us extra for something that costs us NOTHING!"
From the perspective of the publisher, it’s brilliant charging extra for early access. But I will not support this trend with my cash.
Depend on what game. For this year,the only game I bought day 1 is Alan Wake 2 as it is 1 of my most anticipated game. And early access for Hades 2 on steam deck ( i trust Supergiant games quality )
Next year is gonna be a Monster Hunter Wild as im a huge fan of this series since psp,and making a lots of new friends and team around the world.
But im not gonna support 3 day early access. Plain greedy and dumb to me. Not a chance
It doesn't really bother me tbh. If people want to spend extra to play the game before most other people then that's up to them. If I do pre-order a game than I always get the cheapest version available. I didn't even realise Silent Hill 2 had early access because I just pre-ordered the standard version without even thinking about it.
Well this is a non issue. They pay for it. Who cares.
You dont want to you dont.
Are you guys jealous when someone drives a more powerful model of Car then you do? They pay more they get more. Simple.
First let me say I do not have any care on how others spend there money. I have purchased 26 PS5 games from the start of this generation. Six of the games I picked up on day one they were my must have games. 20 of them were Black Friday deep discounts. I don't do any of the up-selling garbage. I am fine just playing the base game.
Its only getting higher if you allow want it too. You don't have to pay extra you can just wait and have some patience.
They're taking advantage of people's fomo, which is not nice! Same with the Pro, same with everything, people who can't afford daily necessities are looking forward to the latest iPhone, it's ridiculous.
While I understand the want to be a part of conversation you can realistically wait for that 72 hours and nothing would change. Most people have other things to do and are therefore slow in playing those new games anyway. If the discourse around a game dies down during those 72 hours then there's something wrong with the game and at that point being 72 hours "late" is a very small issue.
It's an incredibly gross practice I refuse to support on principle.
That said, these days, there's less incentive than ever to buy a game at release. Waiting even a few months will almost always net you a cheaper and more complete version of the game than what people at launch experienced.
If I pay full price, depends on what said full price is. Locally, full price for Sonic games tends to be around kr500 NOK. (Around $50 USD) I’m fine with that. I also generally pay full price for games from limited print companies like limited run, strictly limited or super rare.
I pay full price for niche games I’m interested.
I do not pay $70 USD or more for mainstream normie games unless I know 100% I’m going to love it. Usually I wait until Easter sale or Summer sale as those tends to be the times mainstream games are cheapest here in Norway.
The price is not the problem. The problem is the state the games are released in. Which also makes the price even higher since you pay for borken things. If they are not, then you know what it is and you paid it. Noone forced you. But buying smth to realize it is broken is *****.
I play board games and got into Star Wars Shatterpoint recently. The starter set is £120+ and it can be £40+ for three additional miniatures, so £70 for a new videogame doesn't seem that bad in comparison, especially if I get a few months out of a game. The time it takes to develop a AAA game has grown so costs are always going to increase for those, and that's probably fair. However, charging for just a few days early access is knowingly predatory from publishers, especially with the common practice of having a day one patch.
Players need to hold off buying until game price reduces. If most do this, publishers will stop taking the urine and reduce day one prices.
As long as people pay extortionate prices, they will keep charging extortionate prices.
Far from wanting to play games early, I will ALWAYS wait for them to be on sale and get the less buggy, patched version for cheaper. I can’t fathom how anyone has so much FOMO (especially for single player games) that they’d pay extra to effectively be a beta tester.
I dont even buy games at the standard launch price anymore. Aside from the occasional Nintendo game, I usually wait to pay $20-$30 dollars for every game i buy physically. On PC, I usually try to get closer to $10. And with Nintendo I am more likely to skip a game entirely than to fork over $60-$70 on a game I am unsure about liking.
@get2sammyb When the profit won't be enough for the investors then the whole thing will implode.
And looking at BandaiNamco even with record sales in 24 hours they still need to fire people. Activision Blizzard fires 800 people after record sales.
Games get released broken even unplayable without a day one patch somehow maybe I believe it would be a good thing to have a reset.
With investors wanting more and more profit what will you nickle and dime after this. Maybe we will get to pay for reloading your gun in the future.
People don't get early acces they just pay extra for the rest of the people to wait.
Personally I find the article a little misleading. There is no way to confirm people are buying the more expensive edition because of early access or all the other included stuff. Also we can't talk about prices going up just because of a mostly 3 day difference.
On the other hand there are plenty of games that are discounted before they even come out. I see no one complaining about that.
I for one am never so desperate to shell out more cash just to play a mostly inferior game earlier, quite the opposite in fact. If history thaught us anything, it's smarter to wait a month or two for patches and skip all the potential headaches of buggyness^^
But to each his own I guess. The market will always be on the edge of what is acceptable for customers. But there will almost always be ways to circumvent it or lessen the blow to the wallet.
It is so crazy how much the industry caters to its own needs and not the consumer. Okay not that crazy but seriously no one really asked for games to become what they are, which is mainly very expensive to make. But genuinely no one was asking for these levels of graphics and detail. As proved by the whole 75% of users opting for frame rate.
But now the answer is always 'games are so expensive to make now and take so long' which results in them costing a small fortune Day 1.
Again the consumers never really asked for this. Not as a majority. So yeah it sucks how the industry continues as so, making games with tech that pleases them and their needs but doesn't really care for the wants of the end consumer. Which is basically an experience of good value. Something which is rarely achieved these days at the AAA level.
I definitely understand fronting a few dollars to play early. If it were Doom, I'd be tempted...but I wouldn't do it, and probably see it as tainting a series I love instead of some fomo, silent threat. I react really negatively to that kind of arm twisting. Besides, everything releases with a huge day one patch nowadays. Then a month, three months, and year one and year two patch, lol.
Admittedly, I don't have much of a dog in this fight. My PS5 is mostly for me to play PS4 games on the Dadstation Portal and for the kids to play Teardown, Minecraft, Fortnite, TABS, Killer Clowns, etc. I don't buy a lot of "AAA" games at launch.
@Kenobi42 I don't feel game prices drop as quickly or as much as they used to anymore. It feels like you have to wait at least three years to see any serious discounts. I see a lot of posts about waiting for SW Outlaws to drop in price, but with Star Wars being a Disney license I can see it staying full price or almost full price for a long while.
I'm a year behind. I have a work life that takes me away. I bought all of this years games from CEX. But I used to be that day one chap, bought Far Cry 5 gold edition, and was disappointed with the eventual dlc. Lesson learnt.
My stance is that a higher price is fine if quality is of equal improvement. Clearly in most cases it is not. Tim Sweeney defended the price increase and cited the cost of unreal engine 5 as a key factor. However, the vast majority of developers are not using UE5 yet are still absolutely gouging prices. There’s a reason mmos and games that are live service still exist. The value of subscribing to FFXIV or WoW simply eclipses most new games, which is problematic because those games don’t always do much to keep things fresh or interesting.
The industry wants to charge a premium while diminishing quality of goods. This is what’s driving layoffs and closures, and will eventually cause a massive crash. I don’t buy day one most of the time, and have left PlayStation after almost 20 years because the value proposition of ps plus is horrendous. Not to mention the lack of games that really can justify the cost of the hardware.
Times change. If an industry doesn’t adapt in a full capacity and simply remains complacent it starts to fail. It’s simple.
Maybe when I was a teenager I would have reluctantly caved if my friends where playing some cod early or something but not now, got bigger things to worry about than playing a game day one.
I can't keep up with the flood of games, so I'm always playing through something already when a game I'm interested in releases. Even a game I am massively excited for like GTA VI (trying to keep those expectations tempered however), I will probably buy a few months after release.
@MFTWrecks I agree. The price of games has been a talking point ever since the ps5 launched. £70+ for day one releases is too expensive and I'll either wait for a sale or see if I can find a physical copy online cheaper. If pushsquare actually paid attention to the comments section they would have realised this article is pointless and isn't news to us.
Playing games on launch or 72 hours early doesn't interest me in the slightest anymore. At launch, games are expensive (although, adjusting for inflation, they're actually cheaper than they've ever been) and oftentimes buggy or unbalanced.
If you pre-order a game nowadays just so you can be part of the conversation, then you're paying through the nose for the privilege of being able to complain with everyone else about how borked the game is.
I never really thought about that. My brother bought the Ultimate Edition for Sparking Zero for the bonuses. But was the three days early part of the cost? I personally don’t have any systems newer than a Vita, so I just buy my games used. Still, I do agree that these weird pricing strategies when most games lately seem to need some big patch to properly become playable.
@Golem25
Ditto. I missed the PS4 generation, except for the last year. I’ve got a huge backlog of some of the best games in history. I don’t need to buy anything and I’d be set for years. Sometimes I still do though, mostly just when I want to play with friends who are firing up a new release. Or when I’m super duper excited for a game. Like Red Dead 3, which is coming out next month. Wait…what?
I don't see a major issue with it myself as long as the base prices stick to around the £65 - £70 mark on the "official" release date
If people want to pay a bit more to play sooner then that's completely upto them
I won't lose any sleep either way
Thinking about it, it's very rare that I actually buy a game on launch day. Super Mario Wonder was probably the last one and that was this time last year
I don't care about early access nor 'Ultimate Edition'. And i'm not rich enough to spend $100+ for one game.
On one hand people cry when people in the vanity gaming industry get let go. As surprise people that work for gaming companies have salary, need healthcare and other benefits. And if people protest about the low cost of a new game that provides more entertainment hours than a new movie ticket then I don’t know what the solution is. 70$ to play a new game for the normal release date is fine. It’s optional to be in a rush to play a game a few days earlier. No one is forcing anyone to spend their money on hobbies. Which have nothing to do with the essentials of life. Remember folks gaming is a hobby. And hobbies cost money so does said equipment for a hobby.
@McBurn "Personally I find the article a little misleading."
Why? The price to play on day one, for a lot of games, is getting higher than $70 now.
Gaming isn’t a cheap hobby, but it’s far from an expensive one. Unless, you want/need the very best hardware and the newest software. I don’t need either. I buy games 6-8 months from launch, sometimes much later than that. I bought Astro at launch to support Team Asobi, but before that the last launch title I bought was CP2077. Ultimately, there is one thing that needs to be said: things are worth as much money as someone is willing to pay for them. Apparently, many people are ready and willing to pay $70+ per game. No amount of shaking one’s fist will change it. Just play your way.
These days… for me day 1 is the day it hits 50% off. By then it’s patched up and more of a finished product anyway.
I think my copy of Chrono Trigger for 94.99 in 1996ish that correlates to about 200$ today says hold my beer. Need to keep it in perspective lol. Also multiple N64 games were crushing the 80$ threshold and there weren't any extra bells and whistles attached to that price tag
I haven't bought a game on day 1, or even month 1, since the PS3 generation. In fact, for the past decade I haven't played a game in its year 1. I just don't have the money or the time. I'm currently about 5 years behind and I don't mind it at all. I pay an average of $15 per game, including AAA titles. I do buy/play a lot of games, however.
If it was a game I was dying to play and it was a sizable pre-launch window, maaaaaybe? Like I could only imagine it for like a Street Fighter game for me. Otherwise, I don't buy games at launch, so this doesn't effect me.
Honestly, as icky as this stuff is, maybe it's better for most consumers? I feel like if publishers don't find ways to sneakily get more money out that actual MSRPs at launch will rise again, sooner than later. People are already speculating GTA6 might be $80 at launch, period.
If some whales want to pay $100 to play a game a couple days early and it let's me pay significantly less for basically the same experience... I'm okay with that.
I’m guilty of it but I may have a reason for it that most likely don’t, my work schedule.
I have a crazy work schedule.
I would NOT do this for 99% of games, but there was a game in the past year that if I got it early, I actually got to play it on my days off before my upcoming 8 day work stretch. So I did, but, I still have to really want a game badly for me to do this.
@get2sammyb I just don't think early access is the new "release date" or "day 1" and shouldn't be viewed as that. By that logic wouldn't day 1 be the review codes YouTubers and game websites get? And by extension wouldn't the games than be at its cheapest (free) xD
Don't mean to be nitpicky, I guess the term "day 1" just has a different meaning depending on who you're asking. I also don't see it used in official announcements.
Games usually have a day-one patch, and they keep getting optimizations and fixes as well as 3 months after launch.
You are literally paying more to do free QA and beta-testing.
@Golem25 patient gaming is the only way to go! I'm usually a few years behind.
YouTuber gamecross and his other channel cultofmush has been saying this for over a year and mind u he's got almost 700k followers and people were not paying attention to him saying this exact thing
Completely depends on the game and my feelings about the team behind it.
It's a disgusting practice that I'll never support but if a fool wants to waste his money then that's their business so whatever.
Most games come out in a ropey state day 1. Until they start polishing the game for release I will continue to buy in a sale months or years down the line once it is in a better state. So called "Early access" only makes me even more determined not to buy into their BS.
@Ogbert yea i agree. makes you think back on the pre PS2 days where theres zero patches or online updates to any game after release and had minimal to zero bugs. so its possible
"...no one's really talking about it"
You had a knock on the head Sammy ?-) This is talked about a lot, it's really no different from buying anything tech related on day 1.
Just out of interest I looked up the price of ZX81 games back in 81/82. 3D Monster Maze, for example, cost £4.99 (I still have a copy!). "But that's only £22 in todays money" I hear people cry, "you've proven my point!". Nope, it took one bloke about a month to make. Your £70 quid game today took a few more folks quite a bit longer to make and I guess they like to eat.
Buy it day 1 or don't, it's a choice.
As the headline actually mentioned 'day one' and not early access, I find that in my 40+ years of gaming, the price I pay has stayed relatively static for at least the last 15.
Cos I shop around. Always have.
On the PS4, Day one Elden Ring, £40, for example.
£48 for Demons Souls PS5.
Have never paid more than £50 for a game that has been delivered on release day.
And a couple have even been delivered early
Oh and as we are talking day one, Game Pass on me Series X. Which has always been paid for with at least a 30% discount code.
If people are paying full MSRP for anything, and not shopping around, fill yer boots, or actually a retailers coffers.
Paying even more for up to 3 days early access... Well, that's a different breed altogether. Bless 'em.
I'm finding it hard to get overly exercised by the early access idiot tax...
So far Eiyuden is the only game I was excited about enough to buy day one. Everything else is just more of the same.
I’m about 8-12 months behind being current these days, and I’m quite a bit better off for it.
@idiotthechef It depends on the game. I waited a year for Jedi Survivor to drop in price. £100 is excessive
@Decimateh-xblz your pfp mad cute dawg
Early access has never motivated me. I get the power of FOMO, but if you’re buying ultimate editions just to play a game “first” then you seriously need to unplug from social media, forums, news sites, etc.
Thanks for bringing this up. I've noticed this happening a lot lately but it really caught my attention with silent hill 2. Like why? Well I know why. Also should companies be allowed call it 'early access'? There must be some sort of advertising rules that apply here because it's not early access it's more like 'not late access'
The prices on the PlayStation Store are ridiculous. Imo it should be cheaper the physical games. It's probably not that simple with keeping the servers running and all, but I just can't spend that much on something digital.
Notice that this gen games cost £70 and publishers are making layoffs because not enough people are playing games. Coincidence maybe!?
@Nyne11Tyme I could understand why cartridges were more expensive with all the chips and circuit boards etc so I find it even more difficult to get behind the cost of modern games. I bought wukong for £55 which I find acceptable but I'll never spend over £60. My wife bought me diablo 4 as a gift and I wasn't happy until she told me she used nectar points so I suppose it cost nothing in the long run. Going back to cartridges I remember buying starfox for the snes on import with an adapter made by datel for over a £100 and I think my American copy of smash TV was around £75 but I was young,had hair and didn't care.
look at a graph of inflation over the last 20 years, then compare it to the increase in video games over the same period. Game prices have actually increased at a slower rate. These are profit driven businesses and their cogs has skyrocketed. They'll think of any way they can to extract more from the users. Just like every-other industry. This isn't some special or unique situation
@Voltan
I sort of agree, but there are way too many dumb consumers out there and it will affect us all.
The way I'll just wishlist a game and patiently wait until it goes on sale before I buy it...
$70 for a video game is BS & exorbitant . idc what the game is , it’s still just a video game. $70 for a video game is insane.
I really wanted a recent Final Fantasy game but couldn’t believe all of the most recent are, at a minimum, £50 still. Madness.
I selected the "maybe" option, but in reality, for 99% of games, I couldn't care less about paying extra for "early" access. If they do something similar for the Witcher or the hypothetical Bloodborne 2, I'll be there, but it's a really hard sell for most of anything else.
@nomither6 Completely disagree. For the amount of time you spend with a video game, $70 is insanely cheap. Going to see a movie in the theatre is around $20, plus anything you spend on confections, and that comes to what? 90 minutes to 3 hours? Buy that same movie digitally when it comes out, it's the same cost. Spend $70 on a video game and you can get dozens of hours of entertainment. Seems worthwhile, to me.
With all of these frequent sales it's easy to just say no to initial high prices. Perhaps they should release games at $60 dollars and lower prices more slowly.
I also think more mid tier budget games like Warhammer Space Marines 2. I prefer open zone to true open world games. Heck, I prefer JRPGS like Trails of Daybreak compared to FF7 Rebirth. Tone down the budgets and just make more games!
my friends laugh and call me a cheapskate but this is exactly the reason why I don't buy anything digital until it hits at least 50% off
The base games cost almost 100 here which is insane. Gami g has become an unsustainable hobby and it really sucks. Add the trend to lau ch games u finished and patch later and its feeling like we as consumers aren't really appreciated:(
If I have 20 or 30 unfinished games, why should I pay so much for a game?. I almost never buy right away.
@Northern_munkey lol. That last part. Hair is overrated!! But hear me out. Budgets were a fraction (like disproportionately so compared to today) and if you had a banger you could still sell millions of copies. Mario 64 budget was about 1.5 million. Adjusted basically 3 million. It sold 12 million copies at anywhere from 60-90msrp lol.
I pre-ordered Starfield and I'm still pissed at myself, and I had "swore" I'd never do it again years ago. That game bums me out......
Stalker 2 is very exciting, but I'm just waiting out player reviews in this instance. Not FOMO for me, just being an overhyped gamer
Pay more, get less. Guaranteed. That's the 9th gen promise!!
I truly do not understand these FOMO people. I have FOMO. Fear of missing out on the half price sale when it hits. Who in their right mind pays fortunes for things just to get a worse beta then the people that didn't pay fortunes.
Though in the DBZ example it's not a fair example. People didn't upsell to get early access, people upsold to get the DLC they were going to buy anyway because that's how fighters work now, and as a bonus for prepaying they got to play "early." I've bought Ubisoft "upsell editions", didn't touch the early access, it was just a good deal for the game and DLC when it also included one of their remasters of older games with it. The bundle price was cheaper than all the parts together, even on sale, because the DLCs rarely go on sale while the base games do.
@Nyne11Tyme I'm not going to argue sales figures but in relation to how much it must have cost to have produced those cartridges compared to a single disc would have been way more expensive. I hate to think how much those cartridges would cost to make today. I understand production values in today's games are through the roof but the games are hardly launching in a perfect state something those cartridge based games had to as they couldn't be patched. £70 for almost finished games is disgusting and to be loaded up with mtx's too..its a sad state of affairs at the moment and I doubt it will get better.
Just remember, in the future were most likely going to be paying $100 for standard edition of games if this keeps going of raising the price of games by $10
The trouble is, “early access” gives you a game mid-week, so on work days, and in the all too common pre-patch condition, with bugs, glitches, flaws and crashes fresh off the press! I’m not paying extra for that thank you.
I’m 52, so video game FOMO does not exist. But even waiting has its downsides; price erosion just doesn’t happen like it used to. The “sales” on PSN are a joke.
My dad used to pay £70 for N64 games when he was young. I don't know what people are going on about. Gaming is a luxury! These companies can charge whatever they want
@nomither6 they were £70 in 1997 in the uk for the N64 they aren't getting any cheaper.
@get2sammyb games were £70 for the N64 was in the 90s my dad told me. What's the issue? I will say the one thing that's worse these days that didn't exist then is obviously DLC for example I play the old PES games & you can unlock classic teams where as today they'd be DLC I'm sure. So yeah if you buy DLC a game can cost £100 plus
Yeah the prices are a bit hmm, with how they push visuals, push story telling we either do or don't care for, gameplay got duller and unexciting, projects end up however they do with changes happening more 180 then in the past due to leadership these days (varies per studio/publisher of course but if Anthem/BF2042 as examples then EA know how to be great as offering game restarts then XD).
DLC, MTX, and more is one thing but the prices, fixing the game or passable enough to still be an acclaimed product if it shines through.
It's an interesting era for gaming that's for sure.
The prices for N64/SNES is one thing but CDs, Betamax then VHS prices, we get what Switch remasters or niche games at $10 cheaper I noticed.
No matter the era, how new the tech is, how expensive they never hear about them till they are in people's homes or in business and unless a business/tech enthusiast you never hear about them in a normal home level of audience (I know after researching many).
Odd games like AC Mirage were cheaper, other productions that are cheaper like Helldivers. It varies really.
@Cal_ what’s your point? i can have my opinions , you won’t change that. $70 is exorbitant for video games, idc if they even charged $100 for them back then or in the near future, that won’t change my thoughts about it being bull**** & overpriced
@nomither6 my point is games cost £70 25 years ago so everyone should stop going on about it! Gaming is a luxury not a given. Not everyone can afford it. Maybe people should try to do better. Get a better job ect. Games aren't going to lower in price. The ps6 will likely cost £800 plus & games will cost £100.
@Cal_ i couldn’t care less about your cheerleading & gaslighting assertions, you’re the one getting worked up over peoples opinions about their money as if you’re a shareholder or work for the business; i’ll never understand your types that’s against the consumer despite being one , but either way i try to avoid you guys like the plague .
Streamers are why the early pass is a hit. If you are a game streamer, paying that extra money could literally make you a lot of money by upping your visibility because there much less competition for viewers. If I was a streamer I'd definitely buy it.
@nomither6 shhhhh maybe find something else to do. You dodnt have to reply to my comment. £70 is expensive yes but like I said gaming combines can charge whatever they want. It's a luxury item. People think nothing of spending £500 on a jumper these days. People have more money than ever.
Maybe if I was a young adult with no responsibilities, but then I probably wouldn’t have the money anyways. Too busy adulting with a lifetime worth of backlog to worry about getting early access to anything.
I would never do it, but I don’t have a problem with the practice. If people want to spend extra money to play games a few days “early”, that’s their problem. I don’t see how it hurts anything.
@BoingX2 they're also the reason a lot of games end up terrible and ruin whole franchises because they got kids hooked on Fortnite same thing happened in sports games where you got these morally bankrupt streamers shilling ultimate team microtransactions to kids.
The god of war devs did a presentation showcasing how they simplify their games for "the average player" and they used darksydephil as the example, games are infested with microtransactions, garbage modes like battle royale take precedence over established modes and games are being dumbed down for people who suck at video games hence why dead rising demaster has autosaves and other help system garbage that wasn't needed!
What's there to talk about? I am speaking with my wallet.
Whales speak with theirs. Whatever. I don't mind waiting and getting the games for a gentler price to my wallet.
I have a huge back catalog. I am in no risk of running out of something to play.
There is no rush for popular games that'll print out tons of copies but things I know will be a pain to get later i'll grab at launch.
Just don't look, just don't look...or just don't buy games as early access. It may not go away like the advertising monsters from the Simpsons, but companies make less money when we resist this trend. I understand it's hard, but it's only a few days wait. Or wait months if you can for patches to drop.
It's kinda insane that people are impatient enough to wait few days. Clearly it's working and publishers are exploiting that.
It's also funny, how this is working with Microsoft and Game Pass. Yes, you get day one first-party games, but you kinda don't since several of them (like Starfield last year, Age of Mythology and Indy this year) have Early Access period tied to premium edition upgrades. So you are both paying for the game (around 30 bucks) and you are also paying for subscription. Kinda genius. But in evil way.
But it is what it is. People showed that they are willing to pay for that *****, so publishers will continue to do it. It's our fault a the end of the day.
in Canada:
Black Myth Wukong: 79.99
Dragon Age Veilguard: 89.99
Silent Hill 2/Metaphor: 93.49
Monster Hunter Wilds: 96.99
Dead Island 2: 98.00 (?!)
I know Sony doesnt set the prices but make it make sense.
The basis of economics is scarcity, and one of the challenges of digital is that it eliminates scarcity - copies can be made instantaneously and at no cost.
'Early Access' is a way to re-introduce scarcity in artificial form, especially if its marketed as a 'limited edition'.
There is no intrinsic value to anything - only what people are prepared to pay for a thing - and if people will pay then these techniques will proliferate, and costs will continue to increase.
Silent Hill 2 was available 72 hours earlier for those who paid $10 extra
Nein, it was 48 hours, as written on the official description of the Digital Deluxe edition.
The game became available Sunday 06th of Oct, that's 2 days before launching on the 8th.
I bought this version too, so I could play during the weekend, simply because I had some free time then (as opposed to during the following week).
And I'd do it again for a maximum of 10$ price difference, and IF the game fist some standards (good (pr)reviews and game play opinions from various sources, or it comes from a good reputation dev team etc etc).
But for 40$ or more just to play a few days early, like Ubisoft request for it's games, NO SIR ! That's pure greed, and I won't endorse it.
Also there is another angle here: I buy Deluxe Editions for the games that (to me at least) are truly worth it.
Not for the included content (that's good too sometimes, but weighs low on the final decision).
But it's my way of saying "Thank You" to the devs of mentioned epic creations, for all of the hard work and dedication they've invested in them.
This is just an article to pad out the quiet week. I dont see any problem with this practice. I never buy deluxe edition for early access but purchased a few deluxe for other perks. Those who buy are adults and they make an informed decision. Who are you people to judge how they spend their own money is right or wrong?
Nice article Sammy. I agree this practice is getting ridiculous and designed to fleece the dumb and the 'super fans' out of cash for nothing.
I've long argued with team green fanatics, that day 1 is the first day someone can play a game, and therefore game pass often doesn't release 'day one' games despite their specific promises.
It amazes me that some even try and defend the practice.
Those that would defend such nonsense, here or elsewhere, are the people who also don't see a problem with loot boxes or other exploitative business practices - 'people can buy what they want'. They are probably telesales people who spend all day exploiting the vulnerable to sell them sh*t they dont need. Hideous attitude.
Increase the base price by 10 dollars every 3 or so years and this stuff wouldn't happen on the regular.
@get2sammyb I disagrre about 'early access' - its a 'bonus' perk to tempt pre-ordering a game along with any 'cosmetic' bonuses often given too. The fact that it maybe 'bundled' in with a Season Pass (sold separately to those buying Standard versions) doesn't mean you are paying 'more' for Early Access either. In 5yrs time, the records will all state the game released on the date the game was 'officially' released. It's only a 'bonus' to entice 'pre-ordering' as it is pointless post-release - you can't go back in time!
That being said, I do agree with your sentiment about prices overall. I couldn't care less that cartridge based games cost 'more' - they had a LOT more manufacturing cost and far less 'money' per sale in profit. Not only did you have a Cartridge, that cartridge was 'hardware' too. It also came in a box, often with a booklet too - now the vast majority get 'nothing' Physical at all, nothing that had manufacturing and distribution costs of the 'Physical' media.
In other words, Publishers have massively reduced their costs on producing Physical media since the Cartridge days when the majority of that 'price' was covering their manufacturing and distribution costs.
Its not as if these games won't be less than £50 within a few months after release - especially if they don't sell well. There is no way I can 'Justify' paying £70 to play a game - just because its 'new' when there are AAA games for far less money I could buy.
With Backwards Compatibility, the 'need' to buy 'NEW' games is significantly reduced. That Backlog can tide you over until Games are on Sale and/or take advantage of the very cheap older games you missed until the prices drop. Play games like the Witcher 3 for example which is still one of the best games of the past decade...
Of course, Subscription Services too can offer a 'big' Library of Games to fill your gaming time until the prices drop and/or the games are actually patched to be worth playing. Even if they don't offer the newest release(s), they can offer a LOT of great games to play that makes '$70' for one game look incredibly bad value. Pay $70 for 1 game or $15 to play 500+ games inc some of the best games from the past 10yrs or so...
Everyone out there has a backlog of games they've not finished. In most cases you can just get around to finishing the games you've already got and then pick up the next game for half price, six months later, when the patches have fixed all the issues.
Videogame reviewers are a business. From Twitch, all the way down to these various gaming sites. Ya’ll need to have the info/review before streamers, or the other guys (IGN etc.). So they know that these sites have to buy the earliest possible release of any game…along with the latest hardware release of whatever company they’re mascoting. And it is entertainment after all, so communities will also buy the game earlier.
So they feed off of that and the new “millions sold” after a week of a games’ launch. Not “sold through” but just sold to various sites and big box stores. Then it’s on sale in 4-6 months, when the FOMO is gone and they have to rely on hype.
And thaaaat’s gaming in 2024!
@get2sammyb It's transparently obvious the gaming industry as it stands is on a course for self-destruction, if not oblivion, and not just because of this particular shady practice. It's not a question of blame because destructive courses are essentially organic and unstoppable, as seen in other now obsolete media formats and sectors. But however you look at it, this is a pretty ugly practice.
@BAMozzy I'm afraid you are exactly part of the problem. In order to protect your corp of choice from their obvious deception, you pretend that a release date is 'whatever gets recorded in 5 years time'.
Every other gamer will see that it's when the public start playing the game and videos of gameplay and end game are being played all over social media. Extorting money from people to actually play it on day 1 instead of day 7 is a MS BS strategy to exploit its players whilst still pretending it service gives you games on day 1.
Trying to pretend that paying more money is not 'paying more' is also absolutely ridiculous, it simply doesn't bear any close inspection and you make absolutely no sense. If the game is $70 and I paid $90, then I paid more and no amount of gaslighting from you will change this. Nobody is paying for a digital art book and different looking set of clothes, they are paying more to play the game on day 1.
..and why are you trying to advertise GP standard here? Why is that relevant to the article at all in any way?
I'm torn. I find the practice so shady and anti-consumer that I'd never support it. But then there are people that are willing to do it so maybe the publishers are stupid not to do it? I can't help but feel that it will just help nudge game prices higher and higher.
This gen, I've moved more and more to PC gaming because of the price. I rarely buy any PS games at launch anymore because it a) too risky and b)I refuse to pay $70 for a game that will, in most cases, drop back to $50 in a mere matter of months. Often with more content and better support.
I mean, tangentially, the site gave a 90 to what will inevitably turn out to be a $70 two year early access game before the final version actually releases (Metaphor) and you have to pay for it again. If there's a company that's trained me to wait at least three years (final version + sale) before buying one of their games, it's definitely Atlus.
@Titntin I disagree and your opinion doesn't change mine.
Its still a 'Bonus' for Pre-ordering, something to encourage gamers to pre-order in advance of Release - often with some Cosmetics and/or Seasonal Pass content. That 'Special' Edition will cost the SAME whether you pre-order and get a few days 'early access' or buy the day it releases 'officially' when the 'bonus'' of Early access is lost...
There are many games in Early Access in Steam for example that anyone can 'play' but they aren't 'officially' released.
This isn't about MS and/or Game Pass - it's been used by many Games in the past - Activision, long before MS purchased them would offer 'Early Access' for Pre-ordering - whether it's 'Beta' access to their MP in advance or play the Campaign early. If you don't pre-order, then you don't get to participate in the Beta and/or can't earn some exclusive cosmetic reward.
As this article points out, its also games from other Publishers - all keen to try and get people to Pre-order. If you don't 'pre-order', the cost is exactly the Same so you are NOT paying more to play a few days early. Even if you look at Game Pass, you are only asked to pay for the upgrade to a 'Gold' edition that includes the Season Pass/DLC - which is the same cost (if not less) than someone purchasing the Standard edition would need to pay to get the DLC/Season Pass.
To keep this 'neutral' (so to speak), lets consider a Multi-platform release (not on a Sub Service). It will have a Standard $70 release with a 'Special Edition' inc a 'season pass' for the DLC and Cosmetics for $100, the Season Pass sold separately is often $35-40. On the 'official' day of release, that Special Edition is still $100 so the Early Access was ONLY a 'free bonus' to pre-orders. You aren't paying more to play the game a few days early.
If you paid $90, you paid $90 for the DLC and additional content that will come post launch. You could have paid $70 for the 'base' game or been expected to pay $90 on release day for that SAME version without early access. With Game Pass, you'd pay $20 for the 'upgrade' as the $70 'standard' edition is included.
@Cherip-the-Ripper thanks 🤣🤣🤣
@Titntin
And I never mentioned Game Pass at all - I said Subscription Services to include PS+ Extra/Premium tiers as well - PS+ Extra has 100's of games for $15 a month too - inc some of the best games from the past Decade - Spider-Man, God of War, R&C, Horizon etc - all of which can fill your 'game-time' whilst waiting for New releases to drop in price and/or be patched.
The game release date is just that. You are NOT paying more for Early Access, it may 'entice' you to buy a Special Edition with the DLC/Season Pass content 'included' in that price, may entice you to 'pre-order' in advance instead of waiting until the release day to buy etc but on the day of 'release', you have NOT paid more for your Game than those who bought the SAME version but missed out on Early Access.
Its you that brought Game Pass/MS into the conversation so lets talk about that. Game Pass ONLY gives gamers the Standard Edition - no Season Passes/DLC etc and also get 'no pre-orders', no money in advance. They also sell a 'deluxe' edition with DLC included for say $100 and an 'upgrade' in Game Pass to that edition for $30. That additional content will also be sold to Standard/base game players for $30+ post release too despite the fact that the Early Access 'bonus' is no longer available - you can't go back in time.
As I've stated, its just a Bonus to entice you to buy 'early', before release, to Pre-order in advance. That's ALL it is. Its not affecting the price at launch because at launch, the price is exactly the same. If it was $90 with 3-5days early access before launch, its $90 at launch. You still get the Digital Art Book, Cosmetics and whatever else was promised with that edition that isn't included with the $70 edition.
Regardless - I still won't pay $70 at launch regardless of whether it has Early Access or not. This is about game prices and less than 5yrs ago, you could buy the 'Gold' Edition including ALL the DLC content for less than $70. As Ubisoft has been mentioned, AC: Valhalla had a Gold Edition with all the DLC included for less than the cost of just the base game if it released today. The base game was ~£40-45, with the Gold edition about £65 - now its £70 & £100+.
That's the issue - the Early Access is nothing more than an additional 'bonus/perk' they are trying to use to get you to 'pre-order' when years ago, a poster or some other physical item would have been sufficient to entice 'pre-orders'. It isn't 'costing' more as the price doesn't change once the game officially releases - at least not in the first months of release. If you paid 'more' because only the special edition offered Early Access, then that is on you....
@BAMozzy
I certainly never expected to change your opinion. In the years I've been on these sites I've never seen you change your opinion on anything. I'd bet you would still tell users on Pure that MS buying ABK was great for them all, despite the majority having seen how that didnt help them one bit.
I expected a huge wall of text where essentially you say exactly what you said in the first place, because that's what you always do.
Day 1 is when the public start playing the game. Everyone will feel the same and can see through this. I worked 20 years on AAA games and we all knew exactly when day 1 was.
My only reason to copy you in at all, was to point out that your obfuscation and defence of this practice makes you part of the problem.
Despite seeing you as part of the problem, that doesn't stop me from wishing you a good day and ending our conversation there. So have a good day
@Northern_munkey Seriously. Patience has been the key to success as a gaming consumer for well over 2 generations. Whether you think $60-70 is "too high" or not doesn't matter if you are frugal. It literally pays to wait. Has for ages.
People currently pay top dollar for the worst version of a game 99% of the time. Most games are tricking you into be a paying (not paid!) beta tester as they release with bugs and balance issues, and only fix them weeks or months down the line, if at all. Sometimes that process can even take years or worse, it never comes.
By the time a game truly becomes stable and smoothed out, they can normally be had for 33%+ off the original price. Often times much more.
As a dude with a family and a job, I have no clout to chase. I have no reason to jump in day one (let alone day -3). I wait patiently and play games slightly behind the times and I love it. I save money, I get smoother experiences overall, and it helps me wade through the BS games that weren't going to be worth my time anyhow. (It also lets me play games completely straight through because I can get GOTY or all-in-one editions and not have to jump back into old games after long stretches between DLC drops.)
Plus, it affords me the chance to play a wider selection of titles, because my money stretches further. I'm also willing to take more chances when the purchase price is down to the $20 range. I rarely need to think about the value I get because I'm rarely being suckered into spending multiple times that on something that ends up not being fun for me.
I'm pretty sure I have only paid full price, upfront for 2 titles all generation, but they were long term purchases I KNEW I'd get my value from (Remnant 2 and Diablo 4 - no regrets, those games are my JAM). Otherwise... why bother, ya know?
@Titntin I am NOT part of the Problem as I refuse to pay Day 1 prices regardless of whether they come with a 'pre-order' bonus of Early Access. I don't see that as ANY different for 'pre-ordering' for some Cosmetic only bonuses or pre-ordering special editions with DLC content included with that too.
If I won't pay $70 for a game on release, then I am NOT paying $70 or more to play a few days early. Therefore I am NOT the problem or part of it. I don't see it as any different to offering some cosmetic digital content or even Physical content like Artbooks or Posters. They are all to entice you to spend the money in 'advance' for some 'extra' bonus that is 'obsolete' a few days later.
I'm not the one buying games at $70 or more - I see the 'bonus' for what it is - nothing more than a 'bonus', something to encourage people to 'pre-order' as it has NO value or utility to ANYONE who will buy at (or post) release. Unlike the Artbook or Soundtrack you can look at or listen to anytime.
As I tried to say, modern gamers have far morr choice and options for Games. They don't need to 'buy' Day 1, don't need to buy 'Special Editions' in advance when buying Digital as they are 'NOT' limited in quantity, etc, etc. You have BC and a hundreds of games offered on sale. You also have Sub services that offer a large Library of games to play so don't 'need' to spend $70 just to get the 'Base' game, let alone $90+ to get 'bonuses/extra' content.
If you, or anyone else are 'persuaded' to part with your money to get 'early access', encouraged to pre-order in advance for any edition (Standard, Special, Limited, Gold etc) because of 'bonuses' like Early Access, that is on you - you've obviously decided it was 'worth it' to you. I'd prefer to wait until that game is offered on sale because NO game (regardless of whether it offers early access or not) is worth paying $70 or more.
That doesn't affect my opinion or mean that I am a shill because my opinion 'differs' from yours. I am not being suckered in to pay for a 'Premium' edition BEFORE Launch because one of the bonuses is a few days early access. And as for the 'date' that EVERYONE can 'buy' and therefore play is the OFFICIAL date. Only those that 'pre-order' get early access...
I am ALSO NOT Defending the Practice, just equating it to the exact same 'Practice' that's been going on for years - offering some incentive/bonus to get people to 'Pre-order' in advance - not that you have to 'pre-order' as the game will be available a few days later.
Its a marketing ploy - just like all 'pre-order' bonuses. That is ALL I was implying - not defending (or criticising to be fair), and that if you (or anyone else) gets 'pulled' in because of that Marketing, its 'worked' and so others will use it. Its been going on for years - long before MS used it - even Sony use it too with pre-order bonuses to encourage gamers to 'pre-order/purchase before the game 'officially' releases to get money in 'earlier'. Again not defending it - but I also don't get 'fooled' by it....
I have such a backlog, I’ve almost entirely stopped buying games. My last purchase of a new game was Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth. I’m focusing on playing the PS+ subscription games I’m most interested in, so I can drop to the lowest level tier next time.
Then I’ll start chipping away at my backlog of owned games. I’ll continue to buy physical copies at good prices, because they have a higher floor than digital does.
I’m used to playing games several years after they release. A few days makes no difference.
The whole point of my post was to say that things like Early Access and/or Digital Cosmetic bundles have replaced the Physical stuff you used to get for Pre-ordering - some Poster or Postcards, Actual Artbooks instead of digital ones, actual useful items like USB's and/or Keyrings etc Some of which I still own today.
With games increasingly sold Digitally, they use Early Access as well as Digital content, like Cosmetics, Soundtracks, artbooks (all digital versions - nothing 'Physical' they had to manufacture/produce). In fact it really costs them 'nothing' as the Game is released a few days later . Its not as if they had to create something 'specifically' and its already in the hands of all the media and content creators to write reviews and 'play it' on Streams to promote it.
What I object to is that the price has jumped up - As I said, $70 5yrs ago would have been more than enough to buy AC:Valhalla and get the season pass included as well as all the 'bonus' cosmetics that it offered in the 'Gold' (or Complete) edition - same with other Gold editions of FarCry 5 or AC: Origins. Now $70 is just the Base Game at launch. These 'base' games can be picked up for under £20 within a year or two - in fact sometimes its cheaper to buy the 'Gold' edition in a Sale than buy the Standard Edition which maybe £5 cheaper, because the Season Pass isn't on Sale and still £30+
As this is about 'pricing' and I won't pay $70 for ANY 'Base' game or 'more' even if it does offer Early Access. I'd rather spend $15 on a Sub service (meaning PS+ Extra on a Playstation site or Game Pass on an Xbox site - but either is applicable to demonstrate) with 500+ games to play and/or spend my money on multiple Games in the Sales. I can often buy 2 or 3 AAA games and pay my Sub fee for the 'same' cost as buying a Game Day 1 that is not 'better, bigger or offering some 'unique' game-play that justifies its 'cost'.
Each to their own, but Early access is nothing more than a marketing tool to try and get you to pre-order their game (along with whatever else they offer like Cosmetics, or the Season Pass/DLC content) because they want maximum profit margins and Gamers have so many 'cheaper' options that without some 'exclusive' Bonus that can ONLY be beneficial to 'Pre-orderers' (as once the game releases, you can't use or redeem 'early access' anyway) to get them to spend their money in Advance.
All those who aren't 'suckered' in to that marketing can still buy the games, still play the same content - just maybe pay less if they wait long enough and/or get a better experience as it ofte launches in a 'bad state' with the lowest amount of content as the rest comes post launch. Hence I'd rather wait until 'new' releases are on sale or in a Sub Service so I am NOT paying $70 (or more). I can't remember the last game I bought 'new' or even 'Pre-ordered' - it was before these new consoles arrived...
If you don't agree with these 'bonuses', or that these are even 'marketing' to try and get gamers to 'pre-order', pay in advance of release rather than 'wait' until 'release day when it 'officially is playable by 'Everyone' not just the handful of dedicated fans who pre-ordered. If you don't 'pre-order' to get Early Access - the price isn't different. If it cost $90 with Early Access (and other Digital content) prior to launch, its $90 at launch too - its a 'free perk/bonus' to encourage people to spend their money in advance.
Wait 6-12 months and you save even more, though lately Sony has been slower to discount. Spider-Man 2 still hasn't dropped below $50.
I feel a bit ashamed to admit that I fell for the FOMO with Starfield. Not only that; I don’t own a gaming PC, so the cheaper option was to buy an Xbox Series X. This was the singular worst gaming decision I ever made.
Games like astrobot and final fantasy I bought day one..
But other games I will often wait up to a month,. especially if I'm not absolutely sure if I want it, and can even buy games used for half the price.
I justify the day one purchases by saving on so many other games
CNN said inflation was in our heads...
Usually I get keys because I don't appreciate monopolised industries. But at the same time, I've realised that with PlayStation and Nintendo, you're paying the extra tax that comes with their brand. On PC you don't have that tax. If I have to wait a year to play a game, I'll wait. There's other things I can do for, playing a game day one isn't priority.
It really does depend on the game. But As of late there has not been a game I have felt this way about. I have been burnt to many times paying for early play only for the game to be broken to ***** at launch.
Also I refused to buy gta 6 on console. I will wait for the PC release.
I've been waiting since Hogwards Legacy launched for it to drop to a reasonable since and just bought the deluxe edition for around $25. I got both versions and the extra content so it's a great deal.
I'm in my mid 40's I have a family these days and my backlog goes back to when the PlayStation 4 released so I'm never in a rush if at all. I feel for the people who have to have thing's day one and even rate online retailers based on their ability to do so but for me whenever is it's cheap is fine for me.
I'm fine with £60 and I'd be fine with £70 too. Everything else costs more, why wouldn't video games? At least you're still getting what you pay for with videogames.
Everything else out there seems to me we pay more AND we get less at the same time.
Besides, youth of today don't seem to realise how much certain SNES and N64 games used to cost. Not to mention all the Japan imports we "had" to do!
Moaning over £60 and £70... if you really want to know expensive games, try collecting retro! Trust me, the new stuff is cheap.
Removed - unconstructive feedback
I don't mind the Early Access, because Early Access means anyone with it can post true Youtube videos of the game experience without being withheld by the publisher. So I scour Youtube in those short days of Early Access seeing true gameplay and what he/she truly thinks of it. Did that with Outlaws, saw a lot of people playing with all the bugs and held off spending my money, however I was keen on it prior to that early access timeframe. So Ubisoft doing Early Access actually lost a customer by doing it.
So Early Access is good for me just to see all the guinea pigs playing first to get my thoughts on spending $$$
Nah. I'm months or years behind normally, and proud.
@nocdaes yeah retro games can be crazy expensive, but those prices aren't really about playing video games though. Most old games can be emulated or played for free-ish via ROMs, or have been ported. They also hold or even appreciate in value so it's a different proposition.
They are collectibles and should be compared to comics, trading cards, coins, stamps, antique pants... Whatever floats your boat.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...