Nutstool

@Cyrus29 I primarily use my Series X for gaming, although I have a PS5 as well for the PS exclusives. I still think the increase to a £70 price point is unnecessary and I will defend neither Xbox nor Sony for doing so. That being said, Microsoft knows full well that gamers will see that their first party titles are available day and date on Game pass and it'll likely drive more subs to the service so at least on Xbox people have the choice to either pay the £70 outright or to pay the lower monthly fee to play those games, as well as many others. I prefer to have choice and I believe it's a more consumer friendly approach. I know that the monthly price of Game Pass Ultimate will likely increase in the near future but, let's face it, the top tier of PS+ is already £1.50 more a month than Game Pass Ultimate, and I cancelled my PS+Premium and went down to essential after 2 months because Premium is garbage. I'm not going to whine if Game Pass increases by a couple of quid a month

@Bez87 And Sony hasn't bought their way to the top? This whole fallacy that Sony built all their development studios from the ground up and Xbox should just do the same. If my maths is correct, of the current Sony studios, around 62% of them have been acquired by Sony, not built from the ground up. If I were to factor in the studios they acquired but have since shut down that percentage would be higher, possibly as much as 75% although I haven't done the sums to confirm that figure as those studios have closed. Sony are quite used to using their bank balance to get leverage over competitors, and still do with the amount of 3rd party exclusives they pay for, it just so happens that Xbox has access to a fatter wallet.

@TrickyDicky99 Again, you completely failed to comprehend what I said.

@TrickyDicky99 oh, I get where you're coming from now. You're a fanboy that thinks Sony's anti-consumer actions are perfectly acceptable. You think it's perfectly acceptable for PS5 owners to pay a premium, per game, for the greater fidelity their console is capable of, simply because Sony says that's the way it should be. Sad sad times when individuals would blindly defend the greed of multi billion dollar corporations than their fellow man. Sad times indeed.

@TrickyDicky99 Did you even read my comment fully? Evidently not because if you had you would know that I was not advocating for PS4 games to be £70.

@kcarnes9051 20 to 30 years ago gives a range of 1992 to 2002, which was the time frame given by the commenter who put the statement to me in the first place. I therefore did a calculation of inflation on the price of 40 quid for PS1 game in 1995. I've made my point, backed it up and it therefore stands. I'm off to play some games now. Have a nice evening.

@naruball Inflation was not mentioned in his statement as a factor in how he arrived at that conclusion. He merely stated games were more expensive, and £ for £ they were not. In actual fact, the difference is marginal when adjusting for inflation anyway as games back then would be around £70 in today's money. However, if you factor in the vast increase in gamers, which results in greater volumes sold comparatively and thus greater profits, inflation still does not justify the £70 Sony are charging for their first party titles. They are making billions after all. There is no reason, for example, that the PS5 version of GoW Ragnarok should be priced differently than the PS4 version and if Sony was using inflation as their excuse, which they have not, then they'd be selling the PS4 version for £70 as well. This is simply Sony trying to push the gaming sector as a whole to move to the £70 price point out of sheer greed.

@kcarnes9051 That's not entirely correct. I'm 46 years old and have been gaming since the early 1980s, starting with the ZX Spectrum before moving on to consoles in the late eighties, and the most expensive games, other than Neo Geo AES carts which were 200 quid, were usually the Street Fighter II cartridges which at launch were £64.99 here in the UK. The reason games were expensive back then was mainly because of the cost of cartridge manufacturing. Games got cheaper when companies began using CD as a format e.g. PS1 games were typically around £39.99 in the mid to late 1990s.

Already purchased and preloaded so it's ready to play on Friday.

Regarding the price, I think $ony are bang out of order charging £70 for any game, never mind this one but we are where we are. I decided to purchase an £80 top up card from CD Keys for £68.99 and bought the digital deluxe edition so I feel that Jim Ryan only managed to bend me over the table about 3/4 of the way. In any event, I love this game so much, I just couldn't not buy it at launch but, that's just me and each to their own. I won't be getting GoW Ragnarok at launch because I'm one of the minority that wasn't blown away with the first game. I know that I personally will get loads of replay value out of TLoU P1 and that's where I feel I'll get the value out of it. Whether that value is worth £70 is subjective.