Re: Is there any justification for a price increase on the current gen version?

Totally agreed with everything you said @rainkloud !

Looking back, I can see that I have spent less than 1 cent per hour in license costs for playing across all my past BF games.  And despite some back in the day may have considered the price for those Premium packs, Platinum or Ultimate editions for excessively priced.  I personally think that <1 cent per hour has been worth every single $ that may have added up to over the years, considered all the great fun and entertainment they provided ! 

@rainkloud 

Didn't see the justification for the price increase myself so I sold my Xbox Series X. Battlefield 2042 being more expensive on Xbox Series X than PC was the tipping point with my decision.

@rainkloud 

Firstly, if reading a post on a forum makes you infuriated then I'm not sure why you would continue reading it, let alone reply. Secondly. I feel as though you've countered points I haven't even made, ranted about points that are of no prevalence to what I've said, stated points as if I'm not aware of them even though my initial post proves that I am, to then ultimately conclude by stating "Do the graphics, sound design, gameplay and content justify the price I paid?" which is practically the same conclusion I've made and stated as the only justification for the price increase. Regardless, I will try to "briefly" go through and counter some points you've made, as well as concur with others.

So, the inflation point seems contradictory to me, why would the next gen version only be subjected to inflation? with your logic all versions should be subject to it considering the games are all getting the exact same content, the only difference is the performance. Furthermore, this ties directly into the "game development isn't cheap" argument, once again why would the next gen console version specifically be the only version subject to the price increase? that logics flawed.

I do however agree that EA/DICE have had a somewhat shaky track record in relation to quality and refinement. However, one of the most unethical decisions they've made was the pay to win model implemented in Battlefront 2, I don't think that this scenario is necessarily measurable to the price increase, but there are definitely foreboding signs of a similar unethical precedent being set with this pricing model being applied to BF 2042 and other upcoming EA published titles, along with other signs (e.g. No backward compatibility between BF 2042 versions, but instead inclusive copies of both games with gold editions; EA differentiating between current and last gen versions with a price increase, instead of providing singular version which is compatible on last and current gen platforms without inflation and with the upgrades included, like other publishers are doing.) I do also believe in quality over quantity, and I suppose will never truly know if BF 2042 is worth the price increase unless I actually purchase and play/explore all the content on release, but by this point it would be too late and the pricing scheme would've worked. 

I have no idea what you're referring to with the "1000 hours" paragraph and how that pertains to what I've said, you even begin with "you have people making fun..." but I didn't. However, I do concur that 1000 hours of content in a game that is unpolished yet larger in size isn't better than 1000 hours of content in a game that is polished yet smaller in size, but whether or not BF 2042 is the latter is speculative, it seems DICE are aiming to deliver that so maybe that could justify a price increase, but it still doesn't explain why the current gen version is the only version subjective to this? why wouldn't other versions prices be increased if this was the case?

@rainkloud Again, you're using "people" I wasn't confused to your response, I was confused to how it was prevalent to my initial post because you clearly were directing it at others by using the using the generalised "people" instead of "you" as if it was me personally, which I proved.

To not not get too semantic, you state numerous times "current gen" when you actually mean "last gen" we are currently on the 9th generation of consoles being the PS5 and Xbox X|S, the 8th generation of consoles being the PS4 and Xbox One is the last generation. Nevertheless, it is and astute point that the inflation to production costing on last gen could actually be being reflected by the price remaining the same, honesty though this inflation argument is somewhat pedantic, region based inflation is more of a cause for concern, I'm English and the price of this game is £69 which would mean the USA would pay $97 for the standard version.

However, I'm not making an argument as far as charging the same price for all versions on all platforms is reasonable, what I was stating is that: why is the current gen console version only seeing this notable increase: if it is an overall more content packed and polished product then why isn't the increase spread in smaller percentages across all standard versions for all platforms. Understandably they want to get the game to as many players as possible on last gen to increase profits so a lower price is more appealing, but even last gen players should be concerned because presumably they plan on upgrading to the current gen at some point and will have to pay again unless they buy a gold edition pre-emptively, these are all profit based decision as oppose to consumer satisfaction ones, which is unethical in my mind.

Next, I fully understand that with each console iteration there is a mark up in price, but I disagree with your case based on the fact that other publishers/developers are not doing this, they're still providing overall better optimisation for current gen versions whilst releasing an all inclusive game that has the compatibility on both generations for the same price. This is, once again, a marketing choice EA are the only ones currently adopting which could set a dangerous precedent, this is without going back into the EA/Dice's acknowledgment that compatibility between last and current gen is plausible but not included unless you buy two separate versions of the game, which is included in the gold edition for an extra £30, so I'm not taking note of the whole speculative "backward compatibility, it's just too much a of a pain to be done" argument because if they wanted to they could, whether or not it would impact how they "harness all the power" they can is based on assumptions and speculation which you're giving them the benefit of the doubt for.

At the end of the day, nobody can really justify the price increase prior to actually purchasing and seeing for themselves: influencers, official media releases, BETAs will never give a complete picture and that's my point that, my initial post maybe didn't convey it as well as it should've but in my mind the price increase is based on nothing physical other than promises of optimised/polished gameplay for the current gen. which isn't a justifiable reason for having current gen only be subject to this notable increase, which I personally don't think is unwarranted to scepticism. We'll leave it at I'm being a 'pragmatic pessimist' and you're being a 'idealistic optimist', neither of which have a negative connotations and its a good topic for debate regardless, but I guess we'll agree to disagree.

they can charge whatever they want.  

you can choose to buy or not to buy.  

that's how the market works.  

in videogames you can wait if you don't like the price and generally speaking the price eventually goes down to almost zero for most games.

@trip1ex Of course they can change what ever they want, it doesn't mean it's a justifiable change from the consumer perspective.

I can vote with my cash and choose not purchase, that's my privilege as a consumer, but that means the change hasn't worked from a marketing perspective.

But this isn't how the market works, it's how EA's pricing scheme works, the proof is that the rest of the market has not adopted the same scheme.

Amazing how quickly some people forget.

What we paid to get BFV bought us a hell of a lot of frustration, anger even at times.

Who knows if this next BF title will be any better.

DICE are great at making trailers and building hype. Unfortunately there tends to be the same problems with their games over and over: Lacking team balance, lacking anti-cheat, lacking game balance, way too much focus on adding gimmicky stuff…

Pricing does seem a bit random for next gen:

PS5 battlefield, amazon 65 marked down from 70, game 65 full price, psn 70 full or 63 with ea play discount.

Was looking at hitman 3 and game had ps5 version £5 more expensive then ps4, amazon the other way round and psn both the same in a 50% sale.

But games normally go up in price when a new console comes out and yes you probably are paying more for polygons and lighting and some extra square footage rather than actual game. I was expecting £60 rather than £70 though. And you probably need the subscription for online too?

@HattoriHanzo420 

i wasn't being sarcastic. Nothing I stated about selling the Xbox Series X or the reason was a joke.

I like it how people say it is too expensive, and that strange line of saying 1% of cost of license ? What license ? I dont buy license, I buy a product. Corporates wont twist my language. They surely wish, but them saying things dont make them true.

In theory, you should not even have to bother once the product is finished on time with bugs and what not. I am not responsible for corporate leadership having extremely high targets for (CEO and similar, I do not know them in person or anything, corporate culture puts too much stuff in one guy at others expense) profits, not really margins to speak of. I am not responsible for them not finishing and not testing the game enough pre-release.

I am fully in right to keep my personal data without it being sent to any entity that I dont even know about. When I buy something, it does not have any right to force me online, regardless of them wishing so. If laws are too weak against such forceful exploitation, the only other option is to beat corporates with the only thing they feel - the money, the fear of not getting more of it, they call it a loss, Im almost at a loss at such perverted wording. They are really shaking in terror about money. But they project an image of confidence, how is all gonna happen good for them. Saying, wishing, all that, does not make it true still. BFV debacle serves as an example. It was gonna be all the x y z, cool words, and then the lie (the great projections) deflated. I was watching the balloon grow big, then have hydrogen go boom. Big balloon got deflated and dwarfed. Not the first time, apparently, not last either.

More than 10 years ago there was a kind of intrusive DRM that prevented people from reselling their game. (on DVDs) 3 installs, finished. I guess it was unlawful, or causing too much outrage so they approached intrusion in different ways. Constant surveillance cause you bought their product ? On certain propaganda outlets I would expect 'CCP would be proud', or more like, actually, CCCP would be proud :P Or Stasi/KGB/CIA/NSA and other 'famous' institutions. Building a brighter future, with a straight face. RA3 game came with such stuff as well, I did not buy it until much later on on Steam and for much less. I did not participate in betatesting after release.

How come are companies making you free betatesters, not only free, but you paying for the game in the first place ? Some companies have mastered this art of not just from paying people to test, to getting the game for free for testing, to even have people pay actual extra for beta access. That is outright upside down lol. And those companies make it look like it is normal. Surely, one thing is doing the testing voluntarily, using your machinery, your electricity, your internet that you pay for.

Game development is expensive, so is there anybody like me buying bfme 2 expansion only to learn that it was a mistake that EA never bothered to patch because it was released in terrible state ? 1 patch after 5-6 months didnt fix that much. I felt completely ripped and I think I was. But then I was younger and I was not expecting evil behavior by default.

I believe I'll be buying a 'Ferrari-of-a-Game' when I happily pay whatever for BF2042 .

I predict very much fun in discovering how it 'corners' , its 'acceleration' , 'braking' etc. 😛

However , if I buy it thinking that half the cost of this fine Vehicle is 'Game' and half is 'Name' , well . . .

The same second I do that , its Cost Justification becomes rather unattainable .