[cwyers]

I feel like I'm way out of touch with what I read online about game prices, and I don't think that I'm looking at things wrong. Games still cost about what they did when I was a teenager -- which is to say game prices haven't kept price with inflation. Meanwhile, games have added big increased in graphical quality, in the amount of voice acting and mo-cap involved, in the size of maps and whatnot. Meanwhile, for instance, I got Assassin's Creed Odyssey for myself for Christmas, and I've been putting 5-10 hours a week into it ever since and I'm still only about 2/3rd of the way through the main story campaign. There's almost no other entertainment medium where I can go spend $60 and get that much time spent out of it. And by just waiting for the holidays, I didn't have to spend $60, I spent like $30. And yet online I see complaint after complaint about how big AAA games aren't delivering value for the money because of all the DLC available that they feel "should" be part of the base game. I don't get it.

[Macha]

1. Sales numbers have increased significantly. Compare GTA 3 (2001) which sold 2 million in its first 3 months, 6 million in its first two years and 15 million lifetime to GTA 4 (2008) which sold 8.5 million in its first month, and 20 million in its first 3 years to GTA 5 (2013) which sold 11.2 million on its first day, 29 million it its first 6 weeks and is currently at 100 million lifetime sales.

2. Add to that DLC (and now microtransactions and loot boxes) pushing the ARPU up.

3. The rise of special editions and preorder content mean most games are launching with special editions in the €120-€200 range. I don't have a breakdown for special vs regular edition sales but they're certainly pushed hard and I know of people who do buy them.

4. Also not everywhere has seen the same stagnation in video game prices, here the price of a new release on console has gone from IR£25 (€32/$35) in the PS1 era to €70 ($80) these days.

[falcolas]

> And yet online I see complaint after complaint about how big AAA games aren't delivering value for the money because of all the DLC available that they feel "should" be part of the base game. I don't get it.

My complaint: If I, something of a story completionist, want to ensure I get to play all the story content which was built for, say, Asassain's Creed Odessey, I have to not only pay that up front $100+ (to get the appropriate level of pre-order exclusive content) cost, I have to spend an additional hundred plus for season passes and other DLC. And that's not counting all the extra skins and weapons for sale.

I'm glad you feel you're getting your money's worth, but not everyone plays games the same way you do. For some people, the level of content you purchased is a week's worth of entertainment.

[cwyers]

I'm pretty sure the game plus season pass was $80 at launch. Where are you getting $200 from?

And what is someone _doing_ if they can burn through a game like Odyssey in a week? According to How Long To Beat, even if you skip the side quests and blow through the main campaign, that's 30 hours.

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=57503

[falcolas]

Gold was $100 (game plus season pass, plus an additional launch-time storyline), ultimate was $120 (additional skins and gear).

https://vulkk.com/2018/06/12/assassins-creed-odyssey-pre-ord...

30 hours over a week is only 4-5 hours per day. For someone without children, that's hardly outlandish.