Extinction is out now (for a silly amount of £, $, €)

extinction-out-now-1

Gargoyle-grappling action game Extinction is out now, offering large cities infested with muscular orc-a-likes and colossal ogres. It’s a bit like Attack on Titan, except the biologically exposed anime giants are replaced by armour-wearing big boys with sharp teeth and pointy ears. There’s a story campaign about saving civilians and beating back the Ravenii, as the baddies are called, alongside an “extinction mode” in which the waves of enemies never stop. Would you like to play that? Cool. Please insert £54.99 or the equivalent in a currency of your choi– hey, where are you going?

I can’t believe they all just walked away. And I didn’t even get to show them this flashy launch trailer.

Of course, the game looks less like that, and more like this or this. We haven’t got a review of Extinction yet, because we’re bad at our jobs. But if you were to glance briefly at RPS fanzine PC Gamer (please don’t look for too long) you’d see a lukewarm opinion of its ogre-felling. There’s reportedly not much to justify the high price.

It may not help that Attack on Titan 2 got a bunch of translations three weeks ago, making it playable in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. I’m guessing fans of attaching grappling hooks to large naked bodies would probably choose the creepy anime they adore over a brighter, more traditional fantasy version. Then again, Attack on Titan 2 also £55. How expensive is it to make giants? Do their organs cost more than regular baddie organs or something?

Anyway, it’s out on Steam and will be getting its first DLC called “Jackal Invasion” in May. You can secure that with the Deluxe Edition, if you like. It’s only £65.

59 Comments

  1. BobbyDylan says:

    Swoosh.

  2. Godwhacker says:

    I’m afraid I’ve already bought my overpriced game for this quarter with Far Cry 5, they’re just going to have to wait a bit.

    Maybe it’s like watches, in that they’re charging more in the hope it’ll be seen as higher quality?

    • Godwhacker says:

      Amusingly the CRPSFZPCG Amazon referral link goes to this: link to amazon.co.uk

      Only £1.90!

    • Shuck says:

      “Maybe it’s like watches, in that they’re charging more in the hope it’ll be seen as higher quality?”
      Or maybe they’re just hoping to start adding inflation back in to game prices. After all, game prices have remained flat (that is, gone down in real-money terms) for the last 20-30 years, depending on what game prices you want to look at. (There were games, on CD, that sold for $70 even in the mid ’90s, not adjusted for inflation.) That just couldn’t keep going forever, especially given AAA dev costs and rejections of other ways of making up revenue shortfalls (e.g. various micro-transactions).

      • ogopogo says:

        The $50-60 price point goes back to when gaming PC gaming was quite niche and can’t really serve as a meaningful point of reference.

        Isn’t the simplest explanation that the prices get forced down by a huge glut of available titles? Also games from 10-20 years ago are often 95% as fun as new titles anyway.

        How about this: the number of people attempting to make a professional go as game devs has gotten so high that supply has outstripped demand, forcing prices down. On top of that half the games I’ve bought in the last decade come from more-or-less hobbyist dev teams of maybe one to dozen people. These games are often as good or *better* than titles made by 100-200 professionals.

        Demand for good games is huge, but there are so many (hundreds without even counting the crap ones) good developers out there that we are practically drowning in a sea of riches right now. I’m not blaming anyone for this situation, and it’s great as a consumer, but what do people expect? It’s getting to the point where I hear some 17 y/o say “I want to make games for a living” and it evokes a similar eye-roll to “I’m going to launch my own fashion line.” Best of luck, kids! At least the skills learned for coding provide a strong vocational backbone, thank goodness.

        • Shuck says:

          Oh, it’s already at that point. According to some surveys, the average income for an independent game developer is below the poverty line. Average income. (Because a lot of developers are essentially making no money at all.) The supply/demand equation is definitely off, just for new games, and older games have much longer tails now, which also makes that worse. It used to be that games were on shelves for a very limited time, had to sell enough to make a profit very quickly, and then were replaced with new titles (and good luck finding older games). Most games didn’t sell well enough, but a game that did could fund the development of many titles. Now a “successful” game doesn’t necessarily pay back development costs. This is doubly true for AAA development, where costs have skyrocketed (and sales have… not). We’ve seen a huge decrease in the number of AAA studios (and games), and it becomes harder and harder to support their development, outside of a dwindling number of sequels to well-established franchises (which end up getting a bigger and bigger portion of sales).
          So the danger is we end up with a lot of developers producing one or two games and then leaving the industry and a handful of AAA sequels, and not much in between that’s sustainable. AAA games that aren’t sequels will disappear if there’s no way to fund them.

  3. gabrielonuris says:

    Hah! It costs R$200,00 in my currency, you know what I can buy with that?

    A) Far Cry 3 & 5;
    B) The Evil Within, Doom and Prey;
    C) Rainbow Six Siege, The Division and Subnautica.

    Should I go on? It’s overpriced as all hell. Case closed.

    • cpt_freakout says:

      In my region it’s close to $75… that’s like 7 to 10 cool indie games/oldies for me. It’s completely insane.

  4. Chaoslord AJ says:

    Well as usual pricing is a good topic for discussion. Maybe that’s what they calculated. Maybe that’s the real value of it, who can say.
    As a consumer I’ll wait for the reviews, the GOTY and until the price is at 10€ however.

    • Urthman says:

      They wouldn’t charge that much if wasn’t the best game ever!

    • thehollowman says:

      Value is defined by the market not the seller. The Devs set the cost of the game, and they can try to say that the costs are the same as the value but just…no

    • Someoldguy says:

      Prices have barely shifted for 20 years. We have to choose: high base cost, content reserved for the pricy season pass, endless DLC, microtransactions or games with lower production costs. “None of the above” isn’t a realistic answer. Whichever floats your boat, waiting for reviews is the smart move.

      • Baines says:

        Companies have shown that “none of the above” can be a real answer.

        Big publisher game prices aren’t driven by production and distribution costs; they are driven by corporate greed. It isn’t about being profitable, but rather about maximizing profits. Companies are also often short-sighted (and/or ignorant), and end up shooting themselves in the foot due to their greed. (This isn’t just a game publisher issue. Other corporations in other fields will make the same kind of profit/greed-driven short-sighted short-term decisions.)

      • Phantom_Renegade says:

        Prices haven’t shifted because they don’t need to. Firstly, the majority of costs these days is marketing. When a game costs as much to market as it does to make, there’s your first cut.

        Secondly, games can be profitable at the current price range because the market has exploded. So costs rise, sure, but the massive amount of sales compared to the days of yore mean that even with those costs profits are still bigger then they ever were. So no, none of the above is definitely an option. Everything else is greed and incompetence.

        • Someoldguy says:

          The market has exploded? It’s expanded, certainly, but only a select few games, typically multiplayer, have seen massive growth. Unless you want games to only be made for those sectors and all others to dry up, that’s not going to work. Like non-action RPGs practically dying out for a generation, only to be resurrected after kickstarter proved there was still demand. Baldur’s Gate 1&2 sold about 2 million copies apiece back in the 90’s. Sales figures for a single player series considered successful these days like Assassins Creed are not quite double that. You can sure as shit guarantee that the production costs in terms of employees salaries and physical premises etc are vastly more than doubled in 20 years given the much bigger teams involved now. Of course there are over-hyped messes that don’t justify higher costs, but prices cannot remain static without corners being cut somewhere.

  5. woodsey says:

    This new-ish £50 (or £54.99, *spit*) price-point really is total bullshit.

    If we’re paying the same as console players then we’re actually paying £10 more (or whatever the console taxman’s cut is) than the little scoundrels.

    And naturally this is being pushed first and foremost by Ubisoft, EA, and Activision the most, so they’ve all got micro-transactions as well.

    What a bunch of fucks, honestly.

    • Splyce says:

      When does it stop? When do people stop giving them their money? The fact is the majority of gaming consumers will continue to quite literally buy into anything these companies sell,and as long as the bottom line keeps rising, it ain’t gonna stop.

      I saw it often enough with Battlefront II: “Man, I know it’s a really shitty business model, and I shouldn’t give EA money and show support for these practices, but fuck it, it looks awesome and I like lightsabers and Star Wars just put out a new movie, so I’m all in.” I hate it all so much.

      • Pheon0802 says:

        Hey I get your frustration but you gotta remember most people… dont care. I mean you got your Job do some sport go out with your peeps. And sometimes like to sit back and enjoy a game? Well you wont really care much if that game costs 50 bucks or 60 bucks. If its sth that has at least some hours to put in for a few weeks. U simply dont have time for much more than that. You wanna see some movies /netflix shows to binge even less time for games. You have kids? well less than that so you buy maybe 2 or 3 games a year and in the grand sheme for those people it doesnt matter as they dont consume games in a high enough amount that it hurts them much. They dont need to waste energy on complaining about greedy bussiness model.

    • UncleLou says:

      The cut Steam takes isn’t any lower, for all we know.

      Apart from that, I am not overly surprised .”Aaa” PC games cost as much here in Germany for a while now. Sometimes a little more.

      Obviously the pound lost a lot of its value lately, and PC games used to be surprisingly cheap in the Uk, anyhow, so it is a price increase for you, of course.

      At least the game is supposed to be a bit shit. :p

      • Premium User Badge

        Aerothorn says:

        UncleLou: the Steam cut isn’t relevant – that’s the retailer cut, and console games will have one that’s similar or higher (traditional retail takes 40%-50%). In *addition* to that, the platform holders take a royalty cut. Microsoft/Apple/Linux don’t do that, so the publisher pockets more money with computer releases than console releases.

        (Additionally, consoles require expensive certification + recertification every time you do a significant patch, whereas PCs don’t)

        • UncleLou says:

          Hm, interesting – I thought it doesn’t make a difference for a third party whether they publish on Steam or, say, PSN for the same price, they’ll always get approximately the same profit, and that there’s only a difference if you compare boxed console games to Steam?

          • woodsey says:

            Consoles are sold at a loss (Sony and Microsoft ones, at least). They make their money back on the games. So whether you’re selling it on PSN or in a shop, you’ve still got to kick up to Sony.

          • Ragnar says:

            When a game is sold, the retailer takes their cut. For digital retailers, like Steam and PSN, that’s about 30%. For brick and mortar retailers, like Best Buy and whatever the European version of that is (I’m guessing Optimum Purchase), it’s about 50%.

            That money then goes to the publisher. On a console title, the publisher has to pay a royalty to the console manufacturer of 10-15%.

            Then the publisher takes their cut, and if there’s anything left that goes to the developer (usually).

            So when you buy a $60 on Steam, ~$45 goes to the publisher. If you buy that same game on PSN, ~$35 goes to the publisher. If you buy that same game at Optimum Purchase, the publisher gets ~$30 for a PC copy and ~$20 for a console copy.

            You can see why the major publishers have launched their own digital stores. They want to get $60 a copy rather than $30-$45.

        • Baines says:

          Considering more people are starting to buy digital releases on console, the Steam cut is as relevant as the Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft cut on a console digital store.

          Digital as a whole gets taken advantage of by publishers. Given the choice of making more money versus lowering prices in line with the savings, publishers made the obvious decision to make more money.

          In this world where PC and console grow ever closer, publishers are going to keep going for the choices that are better for them, not for consumers. (Except for when the backlash is just too great, as when Microsoft tried to enact PC-style game rights management for the Xbox One even for physical purchases.)

      • Vandelay says:

        It used to be 30%, but no idea if that is still the case. This is much like any store is going to take there cut though. That isn’t an equivalent to the console makers wanting their share of the pie and the reason console games have been traditionally more expensive.

        Edit: beaten to it. But yes, I recall Steam actually being rather generous when it comes to their share and being lower then most stores. Again, this was a few years ago and things may have changed.

      • Baines says:

        I’m not sure the game is bad.

        The large number of negative reviews (currently sitting at Mostly Negative on Steam) almost all complain that the game is overpriced; that it is just too simple and repetitive to be a $60 PC game. Even a short glowing review gives it a thumbs down due to its price.

    • Shuck says:

      “so they’ve all got micro-transactions as well”
      Given the backlash, maybe they don’t. Either way, if you don’t want micro-transactions, this is going to be the cost of games (at the very least). I remember paying the equivalent of $120 for what would be now considered low-budget indie games, back in the ’90s. We’re extremely spoiled now, in terms of game prices. People understandably don’t like micro-transactions for games they’ve already “bought,” but when game dev costs have gone up by orders of magnitude and retail prices haven’t even gone up with inflation, the money has to come from somewhere. If buyers don’t want to pay the full cost of a game upfront, it’s going to come by means of exploitative “free-to-play” mechanisms, unfortunately.

      • BooleanBob says:

        The prices reflect what the market will bear. Nobody is spoiled, you don’t need to inject morality into it. If a developer were to charge half the going rate for a game and more than doubled their sales as a result, would the people who bought it be ripping them off? Even though they were making more money that way?

        The insinuation that the revenue that developers are getting from post-purchase monetisation streams only balances out the lost per-unit revenue from a static price point is also pretty disingenuous. Loot crates and the like are making insane profits for studios. Hence why they often subsidise the cost of a game not by 10 or 20 dollars, but by the whole price of the game.

        For a more eloquent read on the question of software pricing, I highly recommend this article which is as relevant today as it was when it was written 14 years ago.

        • 4Valhal says:

          Always welcome to go start your own game studio and do your own thing. Then you could control the prices of your product yourself. :)

        • Shuck says:

          Oh, we’re definitely spoiled – and I include myself in this. It’s impossible not to be. It’s not a moral issue, it’s just a fact. We’ve gone from games costing the equivalent of $120 to 25 cents (or less), thanks to pricing pressures, sales and bundles. (And those games have gotten longer, more complex and more expensive to develop, too.) It’s great for consumers – games are basically free (and not just “free to play”) right now, if you don’t want specific titles. It’s very problematic for sustainable game development, though.
          Games weren’t really all that niche, even in the early ’80s – the industry is only about four times larger than it was then, as a whole. But it’s also much more fragmented – console, PC, mobile – and the number of games available is many orders of magnitude greater. There were games on the early consoles that had sales numbers that a modern, multi-platform AAA game would be very, very happy to get. So it’s not a matter of “prices have halved but sales have doubled.” Those early console games were developed by one person over a matter of months, not hundreds of people over years, as well, so obviously costs aren’t even remotely comparable. The economics of making games has become pretty fraught, and the retail price of a AAA game failed to bring in the same revenue (relative to costs) a long time ago. Whereas once a successful AAA game could sell enough copies to fund multiple games, some of which wouldn’t break even, now it often doesn’t pay for its own development. So those extra revenue streams that people – understandably – hate so much became necessary if retail prices weren’t going to even keep up with inflation. Profits beyond game costs don’t just pay for the game – they pay for the development of other games that might be risky. If only safe games are being made, it’s only going to be sequels to the most successful franchises (which then end when sales start to flag a bit). No one can risk a AAA game failing to pay back development costs, because those costs are so enormous. Which is why there are many beloved series that will never see another game made in that franchise.

      • Phantom_Renegade says:

        The money is coming from sales. Back then, games were a hit if they sold 100k. Now, that’s nothing. Games have never been as profitable as they have been now, if anything, the price could stand to go down.

    • KDR_11k says:

      Costs don’t factor much into the price of digital goods (since the profit margin is pretty much the same at any price so it’s just a matter of price x volume), just the expectation of what people will pay. They think they can get folks to pay 55 pounds for this. Or maybe they just punched a number into their currency converter and that thing gave them a large number.

  6. kud13 says:

    Since the Canadian dollar took a hit, a “AAA” game at launch is about 75 dollars.

    I have years worth of backlog. Even when I want to support devs and new IPs, I find it hard to justify spending that much on a game.

    So, this game is very much going on the wishlist. The only full-price purchases I’m likely to make this year are Darksiders III and (if it happens), another Age of Empires II HD expansion.

  7. Excors says:

    Earlier this year I was on a train from London, and saw someone editing a PowerPoint presentation for Extinction on their laptop.

    …Now that I write it down, that anecdote is even less exciting than I thought.

    • Jernau Gurgeh says:

      Perhaps it wasn’t for the game. Perhaps it was a climatologist’s predictions for the continued demise of the planet’s flora and fauna at our hands. Or maybe the work of a mad scientist henchmen of an evil megavillain intent on wiping out humanity for his own nefarious shenanigans.

      Either way, EXCITING!!!

  8. Optimaximal says:

    But surely it’s just priced to compete with Attack on Titan 2, right?

  9. geldonyetich says:

    Lets be honest here: most of us were going to put it on our “wait until Steam sale” list anyway. Not because we figured Extinction would be bad, but because we’ve got way too many games backlogged already!

    • Jernau Gurgeh says:

      I can’t remember the last time I paid full price for a game. Maybe it was for The Witcher 3 direct from Gog, which is also the only game I have ever pre-ordered. Even then, that was only £35. That’s the extreme upper limit I would pay for any game on any system.

      But yes, wait for the sales and the long term reviews. What’s the rush in buying new games? I currently have 150 games in my backlog.

      Sometimes I actually wish games were all prohibitively expensive and there was less choice, so you could be more discerning and careful and don’t rack up such a long list of games to play… damn you Steam sales and Humble Bundles!

  10. Hoot says:

    Not in this life.

    I won’t pay that for ANY PC game. Not when I have Steam and the great God Gaben still lives making Steam sales still a thing and therefore, by proxy, the mighty Steam backlog which, for me at least, is approaching endless proportions. This abundance of as yet untouched gaming entertainment (that was had for a fraction of the cost when compared to buying every title at release) means waiting for the next sale is no big deal.

    But also, if I’m gonna buy a full price title I’ll buy it at the price it’s always been for the PC gaming master-race. £34.99 or thereabouts. It’s not that I begrudge paying full price. Quite the opposite. If a game is good enough and within a genre I enjoy I’ll drop the cash on day one. I mean my last 3 full priceroos have been Warhammer: Vermintide 2, Divinity: Original Sin 2 and NieR : Automata all of which were well worth it.

    For the next two months I’m spent up on games with BATTLETECH and Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire getting bought as soon as the pre-release reviews come in.

    I’ve noticed this trend upwards in the price of these “AAA” titles (yeah, read that in Jim Sterling’s voice, please) and it is complete bollocks. Will I nelly drop Queen Heads on anyone cheeky enough to try and charge 60 of them for a game.

  11. smonkone says:

    “Please insert £54.99 or the equivalent in a currency of your choi– hey, where are you going?”

    Not exactly, and this made me realize how unfair pricing is in other countries. Extinction is $59.99 (deluxe edition in the U.S. is $69.99) on Steam – standard pricing for games like Far Cry 5 or whatever other recent games have come out. The exchange rate (according to Mr. Google) means the UK is paying close to $78 in American dollars for the same product. I don’t see how that makes any sense. They even jumped the deluxe edition by 10 dollars/pounds on both, meaning the deluxe addition in the UK is an additional $14 instead of $10.

    So…it’s not the equivalent of anyone’s choice. People not in the U.S. are just paying more.

    • UncleLou says:

      ” People not in the U.S. are just paying more.”

      But it’s not like there has ever been anything even resembling price parity within the EU. The UK has historically always been almost ridiculously cheap for PC games, probably because the console market has traditionally been much stronger.

      I remember often paying twice as much on (and still less than people in Scandinavia) back when there were still PC retail games, and Steam continued with that. Traveling to the UK in the 90’s or 2000’s was like a giant real-world retail Steam sale, in hindsight! :)

      • smonkone says:

        I would have looked around more (just because I got curious), but it’s hard to price shop just because I get U.S. prices on Steam. I only had the UK prices for this because they were in the article.

        By comparison, when I go to a UK-based game retailer site, the UK price is converted into U.S. dollars (instead of creating what amounts to a different price point). So there have been times, depending on the exchange rate, I’ve saved money by buying games on sale through UK sites instead of U.S. ones.

    • The Amazing Alan says:

      It’s not even that simple either. In Singapore where I live extinction is currently sitting at S$49, which converts to $37.43. It seems like they’ve just arbitrarily decided to price it higher in certain countries.

  12. Mezelf says:

    is this a reverse-psychology thing? it looks like a €30 game with a F2P aesthetic. standard fantasy setting knight, standard fantasy setting ogre, standard fantasy setting setting. a trailer riddled with cliché standard fantasy setting speak. stilted animation.
    there’s nobody to give a shit about this game, and now they’ve scared away maybe half of their potential customers with that pricepoint.

    Dave Lang is a unique, funny individual, but his studio is a fucking failure.

  13. hobsons_choice says:

    Hm. Certain reputable resellers are selling keys for the game at far more reasonable price. So there’s that.

  14. Phantom_Renegade says:

    Extinction? More like Extortion. Amirite?

    I’l… uh… see myself out.

  15. BockoPower says:

    Attack on Titan 2 costs 69,99€ and on top of that has DLC (mostly outfits for now, thankfully) for the whooping 158,69€ more. And even though it has some better ideas, it’s much worse than the first game (especially the frustrating combat targeting) and has 80% the same story. I have no idea how such rubbish game gets a “Mostly Positive” score in Steam. Probably it has some of those phantom positive reviews by its devs like some other games.

    • Baines says:

      Attack on Titan 2 is getting positive reviews from fans of the anime (and possibly the manga, but the anime created more fans) largely because it is an Attack on Titan game. As long as the game runs, quality isn’t that much of an issue for the majority of series fans. Particularly for the second game in the series, as anyone who didn’t like the first game likely won’t bother buying the second to even be able to review it.

      Negative reviews might set in later, once more critical players start buying and playing it. Or Koei might be able to coast all the way to AoT3…

  16. Jazzhole says:

    Regional prcing is all fucked up.
    For the same price I could by Assassin’s Creed Origins and Far Cry 5. BOTH.
    And if Delux Edition is considered I could add a copy of Withcer 3 on top of that.
    That just doesn’t make any sense.

  17. NormanTimbers says:

    Am I the only one pissed off at the general tone of this story and the comments?

    Anyone who wasn’t born yesterday knows that within two months this will be massively discounted to something like 30 or 40 bucks. And further down the line it will be quietly given a permanent price drop. If they just released it for 40 bucks in August none of you would give one single shit.

    If this game has enough clout to catch your attention and make you mad that they want a premium price, then clearly some people will buy it. So why not get those sales and have your cheap ass wait a while eh? This is a pretty specific genre with what, one other competitor of note? It caught my attention and I hardly care for the genre- it has a nice art style and cute orcy enemies- kind of looks like orcs must die.

    But anyways- If Call of Duty was released for 99 bucks tomorrow I guarantee RPS wouldnt write a single word on it in scorn because no one gives a shit here. But a new IP from a indie studio? Oh boy, cant have them trying to make a buck. It’s shortsighted as hell. I know this game is bargain bin trash and ILL BUY IT eventually and hopefully they see good sales and make some fantastic sequel. If this is what it takes to secure their future then so be it. I want well funded games. I can think of a whole slew of games that came out buggy and rushed or light on features with the sequel coming back stronger than ever.

    • Hoot says:

      Maybe you’re a straw man for one of the developers of this game but maybe you’re not, either way, have a watch of this :- link to youtube.com

      It was insulting to charge 60 notes before it came out but now…it’s practically criminal.

      EDIT :- By the way, yes, you are the only one here upset by the tone of the article which was spot on. This isn’t about not wanting game developers to make a buck, this is about being smart enough to not pay through the nose for a gold lacquered turd.

      • NormanTimbers says:

        The insulting part I don’t get. It’s a price. Not buying something does not make me feel insulted. What you are talking about is entitlement to a lower price. Then you would feel insulted.

        The price should have nothing to do with the opinion of the game. Ive played thousands of hours in free/3 dollar games and spent 4 hours in 100 dollar games. If this game were free this article would be sunshine and flowers, kissing it’s ass and heartily recommending at least trying it. If I was rich as hell I’d buy it just to try it out for a day or two as a flavor of the week. Both of those are not an objective view of the game, just shifting risk around.

        Also, that youtuber seemed incredibly negative. He complains about difficulty, timers etc. (in a game with slowmotion aiming), that it doesnt have an anime style, and at no point even attempts to think of anything positive the game might do well. People like that think stuff is either great or shit. I play a lot of mediocre games that have provided fun times. Earth defense force, Just Cause 1, cthulu saves the world, red faction armageddon, two worlds 1&2. I don’t want to be a cynic like him.

    • 4Valhal says:

      Nah, I’m with you. RPS reporting has turned in to about 50% good content, 50% whining about stuff.

      Then you have the comments: I can buy game A, B, and C for that. Which if you’d stop to think this game will be game A, B, or C in a month or so anyway.

      Capitalism isn’t for whiners apparently. If you don’t like a price, don’t buy it. Bet half of those whining out there bought corporate triple A trash for this price – yet still complain about Ubisoft on the intarwebz.

    • Ragnar says:

      I think it’s rather more startling for those in the UK.

      In the US, it’s $60, which is the standard price for a new AAA game.

      In the UK it’s £55, where the standard AAA game is £35. The US equivalent of such a markup would be $95.

      I think you’re right to question whether a ridiculously expensive game is really news worthy, but I can see how an indie studio releasing a $95 game (particularly to poor reviews) would be startling.

  18. 4Valhal says:

    “We haven’t got a review of Extinction yet, because we’re bad at our jobs.”

    Correct.

    Let me just complain about the price of this cheeseburger before I’ve ever taken a bite of it. I’m assuming that it isn’t going to be good just because I don’t think it will be. And before I ever try it I am going to recommend that you don’t try it.

    Good job.

  19. mitrovarr says:

    Oh wow, it’s currently sitting at a <60 metacritic score on all platforms. That's actually below my threshold for playing games I actually have, to say nothing of buying anything for any price. They better tank that price immediately if they want any sales at all.

  20. Jody Macgregor says:

    CHEERY RPS fanzine, Brendan. CHEERY.