{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/29/2014 7:28:30 AM
7
To be fair, when we are demanding game devs to make bigger better games year after year but aren't willing to pay more for them at store level ya kinda force them to use cheap money tactics to make us pay more then those 60$.
English
-
Spot on
-
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? this game dosent even have anything worth 60$ cost of content or else i would be glad to pay for dlc
-
Bump forever
-
I have been saying this since the leak and the people crying about the "cut content". Seriously, i feel like i got my 60$ worth of game already. And its great thats its in the disk already, now i dont have to download 2gb like gaming 5 years ago everytime a new DLC comes, and have to wait 6-8 hours cause my internet speed is catastrophicly bad xD
-
This statement is intelligent as hell dude. You're my hero.
-
Edited by OJ191: 9/29/2014 8:29:01 AMit's certainly an interesting dilemma if you assume equal game quality per $ spent (not something you can do realistically, but just hypothetically), then all the big budget AAA games should cost more like $100-120 USD launch these days but if you price them even $10 more than the norm you get massive backlash
-
That's probably the best reasoning I've seen on this forum since release. Are they money hungry, or are we being too selfish? Is it fair to pay 60$ for a game anymore when budgets to make them surpass 5x the budget of older games
