Are you ready for $70 standard pricing?

>console cucks

Attached: 1308054209348.png (1185x1137, 55.15K)

Don’t mind me just, posting the archive link since OP was too retarded to do it themselves
archive.is/7zfIw
and here’s the entire article just because:

>It’ll cost you $69.99 to grab a Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War cross-gen bundle, meaning that you’ll be able to play the game on the PlayStation 5 and the PlayStation 4. But the reason for that increase is because Activision is charging $69.99 for standard next-gen copies of the game, exactly the same as NBA 2K21 confirmed earlier in the year.

>This suggests that the publisher will be opting for the higher price-point for all of its upcoming titles, which is something that many companies were confirmed to be mulling over earlier in the year. Ubisoft has so far resisted the temptation to charge more, but make no mistake: more will adopt this pricing as the generation goes on.

>For almost 15 years now, players have become accustomed to paying $59.99 for the latest big release, but development costs have spiralled. While some publishers have attempted to compensate with the addition of microtransactions and other optional extras, it looks like you’re going to have to pod out that little bit more to buy the biggest titles day one.

Remember, only retards start threads with just a headline pic!

Attached: 2768625A-B48E-4412-9C8A-44B9201D4239.gif (250x250, 64.08K)

My main question is what price they will be selling it on PC, probably $70 knowing how shitty they are.

>boohoo games cost 2 much 2 maek, pls understand :((
Bitch, nobody asked you to spend that billion on marketing alone

Attached: 1579971099358.jpg (640x345, 158.41K)

i pay more than that for japanese games, but this will reduce the number of aaa games i bother to buy at luanch

good point. games should be a lot cheaper since the memory they're stored on is a lot cheaper now

Game company CEOs are fucking multimillionaires. They'll still fill their games will loot boxes, season passes, battle passes, intentionally withheld DLC, etc. to milk consumers out of as much cash as possible. The only justification they have to charging more is "it's hard work", but their employees will see little or none of the increased income.

I firmly believe in capitalism, and I firmly believe in game developers and publishers charging more money. I also believe in not buying games until they're 50% off on steam. Fuck em.

All this is doing is ensuring that I will not buy games I'm only slightly interested in or on the fence about at launch.

I don't understand why fags are acting like a 10 buck increase is a big deal.

it made sense at the time because some games had expensive memory and coprocessors and others didn't

>games should be a lot cheaper since the memory they're stored on is a lot cheaper now
If things were priced based on any sort of metric other then "what people are willing to pay for it" you might as well flip the world upside down.

your rent is now 17% higher

Are any of you actually buying the new consoles? All I see are complaints.

This. Alot of people defend this saying that the only reason they put microtransactions and DLC in all new games is because of the games being too cheap yet they're raising the price and will still have all the same shit to milk idiots for money because why would they take out something that prints money

im waiting on the official backwards compatibility for PS5 before i decide on launch or later for the console, but I'll definitely be grabbing one to play with normie friends and the RPGs that dont hit PC for years.
if we get full BC for PS4, and maybe some PS3 support, I'm getting the PS5 day one. otherwise, probably 2022, when stock isnt limited and theres more games to play.

they are it's called free to play, where games cost nothing unless you are an addict. free is less than what a sizeable number of people would pay, but reducing the cost to zero allows you to fish for addicts that don't know they'd be willing to pay until they're addicts.
this can be generalized to various other things, where what you might actually being paying is too difficult to reason about, because it's not reflected in the price (ostensibly free)

Did you skip the PS4? I have an Xbox One and a PS3.

depends on whether there's a reason to buy one of them or not. this will come down to what nips release games on and what my children want to play.

I have a release PS4, and its showing its age. Its rough playing any games from the last 3 years, so i've been avoiding stuff like RDR2, FF7R, and the other more intensive ones. If the PS5 has BC for the 4, then I'll grab it day one and play the older games I'm missing out on now.
Besides that, it'd be nice to save space on my shelf. I have my xbone, switch, and PS4 there, and I have to constantly rotate out my 360, PS3, and the classic consoles if i want to stream them

Wrf is that an ad from those stores that would offer credit but jacked the price by loke 40%?

It should be $100 already, anyone who says different is a fucking retard.

no. keep in mind renting games was popular back then, because they were expensive.

All the more reason to pirate games. All that money I save goes into getting stronger hardware.

No, it should never be $100!

>I don't understand how the world works.
In another few decades when we have nothing but shit games just remember you did this.

this is fake