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

[HattoriHanzo420]

As far as I can tell there isn't, I understand that current gen offers increased graphics/framerates but is that really a justification for an increased price? I also can't understand why people aren't that perturbed considering this genuinely feels as though EA are just trying to test the market to see what they can get away with regarding titles released on current gen.

I could understand the price increase if there was any notable benefit (i.e. last gen compatibility included, exclusive items/perks) but there isn't, if anything it could be seen as "a slap in the face of gullible console users" considering there's a price increase on the current gen console version but not on PC, even though the platforms are compatible. With that being said, playing with KB&M users already brings a huge disadvantage, which is then further compounded by the fact that current gen console players may be low due to the chip shortage causing a lack of availability of the consoles themselves, so even with PC cross-play disabled servers could be filled with bots.

Either way, It's hard not to look at the price increase as an overwhelming negative with absolutely no positives, as far as I can see. An analogy I had was 'If I bought a new car in 2013, but then upgraded to the new model of that same car in 2020, I all of sudden don't start paying extra for fuel because I'm driving the newer model, the fuels the same, the only difference is the driving experience of the cars,"

[TL;DR] This honestly looks like a cash grab that is unethical and is a detriment to the current gen console version of BF 2042. I also see this setting a dangerous president for the pricing of future current gen titles that any developer/publisher could adopt. Has anyone got a reasonable justification to the price increase?

[rainkloud]

@HattoriHanzo420 Posts like this are infuriating for me to read. The US price for standard edition adjusted for inflation is about $56 when compared to 2010. That is an extremely reasonable amount for a game like this especially considering you're getting Portal and Hazard mode too.

Game development is not cheap. Engine upgrades, paying developers and console license fees, marketing....all of this stuff is crazy expensive and producing game is risky even for big publishers like EA.

There are plenty of unethical things I can point to that EA does but they are related to quality: bugs, balance, anti cheat and occasionally network issues. If you want to argue that quality and refinement, historically speaking, doesn't justify the price then we can find common ground on that.

But most people aren't coming from that angle. They're arguing from a content standpoint. To them, a game with 50 garbage maps and 100 trash weapons is better than one with 10 quality maps and 30 well balanced weapons. Such thinking will only encourage developers to pump out half baked content so they can boast about the volume of content players are getting.

On the flip side you have people making fun of players with 1000 hours saying a game is bad. Again it's not about the sheer number of hours its about the quality. What if a large amount of those 1000 hours were spend in frustration dealing with crashes, bugs and balance issues? What if the player just stuck around because they devs kept saying "don't worry, next patch will be fixed" only to see them break something else even more severely? What if the player would just jump to a competitor but can't because that's the only game in its specific genre?

Bottom line is that its about the quality and value being delivered. Why this is such an esoteric concept is beyond me. Ultimately you need to judge for yourself once you have had the chance to play it. Do the graphics, sound design, gameplay and content justify the price I paid?

For me personally, yes in theory it does. There is so much we don't know yet though and then we have to see if they can actually execute better than they have in the past.

[CyberDyme]

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 ! 

[kregora]

@HattoriHanzo420It isn't unusual, that console versions are more expensive that pc versions.
In my opinion that is, because the price to purchse a console is subventioned. Taken all the parts of the console it should be much more expensive, to compensate that games cost more.
Now, the new consoles use even more sophisticated hardware, so Sony and Microsoft charge even more for the games.

So I believe the 10$/€ difference between last generation and new generation consoles just remains with Sony and Microsoft.

[PacNbowls]

@HattoriHanzo420 Honestly dont agree, how big these maps are and how costs went up during the pandemic, and the people saying it shouldn't be full price do to a campaign is getting old to.

[carsono311]

@HattoriHanzo420Another consideration here is the additional costs of getting the game certified for those consoles and their respective marketplaces.

Overall, if you do not like the pricing, do not buy it. Or, better yet, wait till it inevitably goes on sale.

[Trokey66]

Considering how long I have been playing, the price of standard versions has went up a surprisingly little amount when you consider inflation.

Bit of a bargain really..... 

[Popa2caps]

@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.

[HattoriHanzo420]

@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]

@HattoriHanzo420 People are often mired in M-N thinking. M causes N, case closed. Time to clock out and go to Margaritaville. To understand something full we need to consider the environment and context. We have to consider that L caused M which caused N which led to O. The commentary you were confused by seeks to give context to my response.

To your question about why the current gen version will not be affected by inflation: We don't know that it hasn't been. BF2042 on PS4 is being powered by virtually the same hardware as 2013's BF4. One would expect as tech gets older and developing on the platform becomes more cost efficient that prices would go down to reflect that. In truth this is likely a $49.99 game in today's market but because of inflation it remains at $59.99

There's also the matter that aside from sharing the same name the current and last gen versions are fundamentally different with the last gen getting only 64 players and less detailed graphics. The PS4 was great for its time but it is significantly less capable than current gen and higher end PC's. From a marketing perspective it doesn't make sense to charge the same price when the PS5 version is simply a different and better game but with a smaller user base. With the current gen you have a large, established base of players so you want to get it into the hands of as many people as possible so you can get them into season passes.

There's nothing unethical about charging more for the PS5 version. PS5 development costs are higher than PS4 and it's, objectively speaking, a different and better version of the game. Eventually prices have to go up and it just makes sense to have that transition occur during a transition to a new console period as people can make the mental connection between better looking/performing games and price.

As far as backward compatibility, it's just too much a of a pain to be done likely. The maps and graphics and likely a lot of other code related stuff is markedly different between last and current gen. Capability wise, current gen has A LOT more in common with PC than it does last gen. For EA it comes down to "Do we * the PS5 version to make it compatible or do we try to harness all the power we can from the new hardware which is what people buy a new console for to begin with?"

There's simply no way they could get away with the former.