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.
