$80 Game Prices Need to Deliver the Full Experience, Not Just Promises
I hear you—and I’m not thrilled about the move toward triple-A releases that cost $80. It’s frustrating, even when a studio tries to justify it with a slow, overly patient explanation that feels less like a business discussion and more like someone talking to a kid. I get the big-picture argument: game development is getting more expensive, and certain ways of funding projects don’t hold up forever. I also know there were $80 games back in the 1990s, when life looked different and people had different kinds of spending power. And sure, some developers claim that “real fans” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) will happily pay extra for the titles they love.
That said, I’m also probably part of the problem. I’ll likely complain with a dramatic head shake while still handing over an extra $20 compared to what I used to spend. But here’s the simple request I think is fair: if I’m paying $80 for a game, I should receive the complete game—not a version that’s missing key parts behind additional purchases.
$80 Is Too Much Money For A Video Game To Still Leave You Paying More
It’s not like we haven’t noticed the pattern for years. When I buy a major new game on Steam, it often feels like I’m seeing the same setup: a standard edition priced at $60, plus a “special” version that runs ten or twenty dollars higher. That higher-tier package might include bonus gear, extra costumes I’m unlikely to ever use, and promises of future content—except that future content can later be locked behind yet another paywall (more on that in a moment).
Even if you personally don’t care about those add-ons, the structure still matters. When you purchase the base version of a game that clearly has lots of premium extras available, you aren’t actually buying the “full” product. Maybe it’s “worth it” to pay more for a “Deluxe Super Special Digital Boxed Set.” Maybe you don’t. Either way, you can probably guess what the developer hopes you choose: the most expensive option. They want you to buy it.
So if I’m spending $80, I’m going to need the whole experience. Pre-order bonuses are one thing—sure, give me a reason to jump in early, like starting with 50 additional gold pieces. Incentives can be persuasive. But what’s also persuasive? $80 freaking dollars.
For some players, the gap might not matter much. For others—especially kids—it could be the difference between buying a new game at all and sticking with the huge library of free-to-play titles that keep rolling out content at a steadier pace while draining wallets more slowly. It’s not always a “hardcore fan versus casual tourist” situation either. Sometimes it’s just budgeting in a time when the broader economy feels like it’s constantly being thrown around. And, no, you’re not automatically disqualified from being a true Borderlands fan because you also want to pay for groceries that week.
Since we don’t really get to choose the current pricing model, then the least the industry can do is give me the complete game for the complete price. And maybe Borderlands 4 will be the example here. Right now, the Steam store listing doesn’t show upgraded versions yet. It’s possible they’ll charge $80 and only $80, with everyone receiving the same content. I don’t fully expect that, but I’d genuinely be glad if it happened.
At minimum, it would be a good signal: players would get the actual whole game when paying the full cost. It might sound petty to argue over extra weapons, faster unlocks, or other small differences, but I still think it’s better when everyone has the chance to experience everything the game offers—even parts I personally don’t care about. I don’t want to buy a game like I’m placing an order at a sushi counter, hoping I guessed the right portions and prices well enough to keep the table satisfied. Especially if the eel roll somehow costs $80.
Special Editions Are Okay—But Don’t Manipulate Players
This isn’t me saying I’m against real special editions that include items outside the game. If you want a bundle with the soundtrack and an art book, fine—add ten dollars and make it worth it. If you want to include a big upsell gimmick like a sci-fi helmet that’s awkward to wear and annoying to hide when real people are around, that’s at least still clearly an extra. Those kinds of add-ons shouldn’t change what the core product is. They can be bonus items. But if you’re selling “more” while delivering something cheap or misleading—like promising one thing and giving players a crappy bag that isn’t even made from the material you claimed—that’s a different issue. It’s not the same problem I’m trying to highlight here.
And I’ll even go a step further: I can tolerate major DLC released after the main game, as long as it’s genuinely extra content. If someone finishes a complete story and later releases what’s basically an entire sequel’s worth of material inside the same game, then yeah, asking for another $20 or $30 later can make sense. But give us a second. If the base game and a season pass show up at the exact same time, what it implies is that the core release isn’t complete—and that players will have to wait longer and pay more just to make it whole within a few months. In that scenario, you’re not just buying an unfinished product; you’re also following a plan to figure out when it becomes playable in the way it should have been at launch. Or when the full story finally arrives.
And look, I’m going to be blunt: if I have to spend $80 on a fighting game and half of the character slots are greyed out with a padlock icon, plus a button telling me I can buy them right now, I’m going to lose it. That’s not just monetization—it’s basically treating the customer like a joke. If I pay $20 more than usual and still get hit with additional fees for basic access, I’m going to be furious. I’ll probably still fall for it sometimes because the industry knows how to get people to cave, and I’m not immune to that. But the anger won’t magically disappear.
If prices are rising because it costs more to make games—and I’m willing to accept that premise—then the cost of extras should also be raised only in a way that still respects what players are already paying. Spending more to produce more isn’t a justification to nickel-and-dime people even more. That’s what I’m worried about.
If $80 ends up replacing all the confusing, overpriced editions by delivering a single, truly complete product, then great. I’ll take that. It might still be rough, but at least it would look like the industry is trying to correct course. The concern is that we’ll just see the same old scheme repeated again and again—only now with an even bigger price tag. If costs are rising alongside development expenses, then one last time: give me the whole game.
