I’m not paying $80 for this game.
As the other comment mentioned, I’m saying it’s getting harder and harder to find well designed games that dont include a plethora of microtransactions. So, yes, BG3 is full priced AAA game but you get a complete game unlike many games coming out (see RedFall, Gollum, and Forspoken to just name a few).
See the problem here? Micro transactions, or charge extra for not having micro transactions… either way- you’re paying more than you should.
What “should” you pay?
The usual $59.99 that it’s been for years.
It’s as arbitrary a number as anything else. Games used to be $50 in the sixth gen, and N64 games in the generation before that could cost as much as $90. We first switched to $60 games in the mid 00s, and if you adjust for inflation, that would mean games today should cost $90, all other things being equal, but not everything is. The average game, and especially Baldur’s Gate 3, is way bigger now than it used to be. Those non-inflation-adjusted $90 N64 games and $50 PS1 games were made by about 20 people as opposed to Baldur’s Gate 3’s 400. If the game isn’t worth $70 or $80 to you (there is a $70 version, FYI, but you seemingly only saw the deluxe edition), then you can wait for a sale or play a cheaper game, but I do believe they’re charging what the game is worth, if not underpricing it. I know I bought Elden Ring for $60 and felt like I’d rarely ever gotten that much value out of a game before; and value goes well beyond how long the game is.
Nah, it’s pretty easy to avoid games with microtransactions. You’re just listing the games with the most marketing, but those are also the games most likely to have microtransactions because they know they’ve got you in the hype cycle. If you look a little bit outside of that bubble, the next closest games are most likely to earn your dollar just by making a good product.
EDIT: Also, what about Forspoken is “incomplete”?
