OT: Video Game Computers/Gadgets/Gizmos Thread

[jschligs]

Is Valhalla a $70 PS5 game? Because Demon’s Souls was definitely confirmed as $70.

I knew prices would go up eventually, but was hoping we'd make it another generation. Something about $70 feels so much worse than $60.

Yeah, it's a weird feeling. I know game prices need to go up so that developers can reasonably continue to make bigger and better games. At some point the cost to return on $60 isn't sufficient enough to keep studios afloat if they don't deliver an absolute blockbuster. And yet, as a consumer, I think some part of my lizard brain looks at $70 and rounds up to $100. And $100 for a game feels like too much --- I'd become quite a bit more selective at that price tag. It's something I'll have to reconcile with at some point, but is slightly uncomfortable at the moment.

I can understand the bump, but I expect better games. I know that's a pipe dream, as microtransactions and DLC has become the norm. That's why I almost never pay full price for a game anymore unless I have to have it.

A bunch of previews went live for Valhalla this morning. Looks very, very good. One or both of Valhalla and Demon's Souls are gonna be the two games I start off with.

I played a good amount of AC: Odyssey, but it felt far too big and time consuming for me at the time. I hadn't been looking at Valhalla at all. The way Valhalla lays out the main quest and then dots like Zelda's shrines is appealing to me as it seems more pick-up-and-play, but still super deep. It looks like a fun game I'll have to get until CP2077 comes out.

[Matches Malone]

The new 2K game is only $38 on Steam. Didn't it just come out last month? Might snag it just because of the deal even though most of us have stopped buying this game every year

[MikeIsGood]

I knew prices would go up eventually, but was hoping we'd make it another generation. Something about $70 feels so much worse than $60.

Yeah, it's a weird feeling. I know game prices need to go up so that developers can reasonably continue to make bigger and better games. At some point the cost to return on $60 isn't sufficient enough to keep studios afloat if they don't deliver an absolute blockbuster. And yet, as a consumer, I think some part of my lizard brain looks at $70 and rounds up to $100. And $100 for a game feels like too much --- I'd become quite a bit more selective at that price tag. It's something I'll have to reconcile with at some point, but is slightly uncomfortable at the moment.

I can understand the bump, but I expect better games. I know that's a pipe dream, as microtransactions and DLC has become the norm. That's why I almost never pay full price for a game anymore unless I have to have it.

My thing is that games should more frequently be appropriately priced. I feel like games that are probably worth more than $60 just get knocked down to $60 because it's the 'ceiling', and things worth like $30 get bumped up (mostly) because $60 is also the 'floor'.

Not everything takes the same resources, and/or is an AAA title. I know this will never happen, I just wish it was accepted that there was that kind of variance.

ETA: This is far, far, far more frequent on PC, BTW.

[ReasonablySober]

Ha, I forgot about Cyberpunk. That might be at the top of the list to play.

I think we were probably long overdue for a price hike on games. When I was a kid, SNES games were $50. So a $20 increase over 30 years is fine.

[Ron Swanson]

The AAA title price hikes would make sense if, like inflation and cost of living expenses, it correlated with median income and wages. But asking people in the midst of the largest economic recession and jobless-ness rate in a century to pay 20% more for games is just terrible optics and I'm in no way giving Microsoft and Sony a pass for such a blatantly immoral cash-grab.

As other people have said as well, these titles are no-longer "complete games" anyways and "content over quality" has become the norm. So in reality, with DLC/add-ons and micro-transactions, you'll end up dropping a good $100-plus simply to play a AAA title with everything that, 10-20 years ago, would have been included at launch. It's ridiculous.

[ReasonablySober]

The AAA title price hikes would make sense if, like inflation and cost of living expenses, it correlated with median income and wages. But asking people in the midst of the largest economic recession and jobless-ness rate in a century to pay 20% more for games is just terrible optics and I'm in no way giving Microsoft and Sony a pass for such a blatantly immoral cash-grab.

As other people have said as well, these titles are no-longer "complete games" anyways and "content over quality" has become the norm. So in reality, with DLC/add-ons and micro-transactions, you'll end up dropping a good $100-plus simply to play a AAA title with everything that, 10-20 years ago, would have been included at launch. It's ridiculous.

The games today, even without DLC, are massively bigger than they used to be. We're getting exponentially more for our $ than we ever have before.

Like I said, this hike probably should have come with the PS4 or even the PS3.

[ACGB]

I would have rather they increased the box price on games sooner rather than infest everything with DLC and other monetization schemes to make up the difference. It's already been 15 years since $60 became the standard, that's a long time to eat the inflation.

[MikeIsGood]

I do not for a second believe that DLC, MTX, GaaS (lol), and other monetization exists because of a lack of inflation on box prices. Those things exist because they were found to be an absolute cash cow that consumers would buy into regardless of the tactics. They work, they produce money, so they do it.

[Ron Swanson]

Another thing is that digital replacing physical copies is saving these major developers millions of dollars. "Quantity of content" has never been what game prices were based on anyways, nor should it be. Of course we all understand why they're doing it, but the justification they're using for the price hikes is 100% BS, and it's a little worrisome to see all these publications recently (Polygon, GamesRadar) that are straight up shilling for this practice and/or excusing the slippery slope problems this could create as "inevitable". I rarely buy new games as-is and now I don't think I ever will.

[ReasonablySober]

Another thing is that digital replacing physical copies is saving these major developers millions of dollars. "Quantity of content" has never been what game prices were based on anyways, nor should it be. Of course we all understand why they're doing it, but the justification they're using for the price hikes is 100% BS, and it's a little worrisome to see all these publications recently (Polygon, GamesRadar) that are straight up shilling for this practice and/or excusing the slippery slope problems this could create as "inevitable". I rarely buy new games as-is and now I don't think I ever will.

I think it's impossible to observe the number of studios shutting down or, worse, the crunch that goes into making these games and come away thinking that games should be cheaper/cost the same. It takes thousands upon thousands of hours more, with massively larger studios to produce AAA games than it ever did in the past. Expecting to get a much better product for the same price is crazy to me.

[machu46]

The new 2K game is only $38 on Steam. Didn't it just come out last month? Might snag it just because of the deal even though most of us have stopped buying this game every year

Yeah, likewise Madden and UFC were down to $30 as well which came out around the same time. I think companies are trying to lock in some more sales before they pivot to the next gen consoles; especially with 2K where they're advertising the next gen copy as a totally different game (versus Madden for example which will simply be a patch for better graphics or something on next gen).

[Matches Malone]

The new 2K game is only $38 on Steam. Didn't it just come out last month? Might snag it just because of the deal even though most of us have stopped buying this game every year

Yeah, likewise Madden and UFC were down to $30 as well which came out around the same time. I think companies are trying to lock in some more sales before they pivot to the next gen consoles; especially with 2K where they're advertising the next gen copy as a totally different game (versus Madden for example which will simply be a patch for better graphics or something on next gen).

I just hope Madden sticks to its word and actually enhances Franchise Mode. Sounds like after getting torched on Twitter, they're going to start adding to the game instead of just copy and paste and only caring about MyTeam.

[machu46]

The new 2K game is only $38 on Steam. Didn't it just come out last month? Might snag it just because of the deal even though most of us have stopped buying this game every year

Yeah, likewise Madden and UFC were down to $30 as well which came out around the same time. I think companies are trying to lock in some more sales before they pivot to the next gen consoles; especially with 2K where they're advertising the next gen copy as a totally different game (versus Madden for example which will simply be a patch for better graphics or something on next gen).

I just hope Madden sticks to its word and actually enhances Franchise Mode. Sounds like after getting torched on Twitter, they're going to start adding to the game instead of just copy and paste and only caring about MyTeam.

Yeah, I saw that. I'll believe it when I see it. Would be great to finally feel good about buying the game again but I just can't do it anymore with their franchise mode the way it is.

[Sauce Boss]

Just came here to say:



Nice.

[ReasonablySober]

I installed Destiny 2 an an expansion I never played last night. I barely remember anything about this game at all. Haven't played it for almost three years. But I guess I have two characters and starting this expansion leveled them and my gear up accordingly. This and the Borderlands series are the only shooters I've ever really gotten into, but the systems of Destiny usually turn me away after a time.

[Matches Malone]

I installed Destiny 2 an an expansion I never played last night. I barely remember anything about this game at all. Haven't played it for almost three years. But I guess I have two characters and starting this expansion leveled them and my gear up accordingly. This and the Borderlands series are the only shooters I've ever really gotten into, but the systems of Destiny usually turn me away after a time.

I played some Destiny 2 last year and finished up the Solstice armor upgrades but haven't played since then.

[jschligs]

Yeah, likewise Madden and UFC were down to $30 as well which came out around the same time. I think companies are trying to lock in some more sales before they pivot to the next gen consoles; especially with 2K where they're advertising the next gen copy as a totally different game (versus Madden for example which will simply be a patch for better graphics or something on next gen).

I just hope Madden sticks to its word and actually enhances Franchise Mode. Sounds like after getting torched on Twitter, they're going to start adding to the game instead of just copy and paste and only caring about MyTeam.

Yeah, I saw that. I'll believe it when I see it. Would be great to finally feel good about buying the game again but I just can't do it anymore with their franchise mode the way it is.

I can't remember which one it was, I think Madden 04 with Vick on the cover, but that Madden had the best Franchise mode in 20 years. It let you go full GM/owner, set ticket prices, vending prices, upgrade player facilities, relocate, etc. and was unreal. Then I think when they went to 360/PS3 they stopped giving a damn about that mode. I remember seeing Madden 06 footage before that gen thinking "Oh my god we've made it to hyper realism" only for the game to be complete ass in every way.

If they actually put effort into that mode I would consider it, but much like you I will do the wait and see approach to it.

[tski1972]

Suggestions for a solid, budget friendly laptop? Looking to get one for our 13 year old. It will be used for schoolwork, minor gaming, chatting with friends, etc.

After a little research I’ve realized there are about 500 different options, so if you could help me whittle it down it’d be much appreciated.

[ReasonablySober]

Suggestions for a solid, budget friendly laptop? Looking to get one for our 13 year old. It will be used for schoolwork, minor gaming, chatting with friends, etc.

After a little research I’ve realized there are about 500 different options, so if you could help me whittle it down it’d be much appreciated.

Macbook Air, for sure. Here's the latest model for $150 off (additional $100 off at checkout).

[MikeIsGood]

Suggestions for a solid, budget friendly laptop? Looking to get one for our 13 year old. It will be used for schoolwork, minor gaming, chatting with friends, etc.

After a little research I’ve realized there are about 500 different options, so if you could help me whittle it down it’d be much appreciated.

Macbook Air, for sure. Here's the latest model for $150 off (additional $100 off at checkout).

I won't argue with an Air, especially as it's a really good deal for an Apple.

If you are looking for a PC and a bit less cash, check out HP or Lenovo 2-in-1s. Awesome machines, and great for notes, messing around with videos, YouTube, games, and also video chatting.

Here's a well received HP. Lenovo's tend to be the more premium (Yogas) and ~$100 more on average.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-envy-x360-2-in-1-15-6-touch-screen-laptop-amd-ryzen-5-8gb-memory-256gb-ssd-nightfall-black/6403441.p?skuId=6403441