Standard Edition is lacking "Additional Story-Based Side Quest". It's ok to create special editions, where you get artbooks, soundtracks, in-game cosmetics or season passes. But exclusive quests, especially story-based, for special editions doesn't seem right to me.

Just came here to say something similar.
lmao price tag.
The real price of this digital only game is 109€?
I got every game of the series, complete, for around 30€; the first game being a really cool collector edition to boot.
All physical, so I actually own them and don't have to eat the bugs.

Even worse when such content is exclusive to those who preorder and then you cannot get it legally after release.

EDIT: This is just me remembering other games doing things like this and not saying, yet, that this game will be like that. I should have made this clear from the beginning, sorry.

Is it the case here?

Yep, especially when the game is well over a year away, and you're already told that you are basically paying for a Day-1 DLC.

It is absolutely not O.K. to have in-game cosmetics (i.e. in-game transactions) or so-called "Season Passes" in a single-player game.

It is absolutely not O.K.

That price - it's an anomaly. O_o
I'll give it a wide berth.

We cannot really know until more than a year after the game has been released, can we now.

Problems already in plain view:

1) Insane cost of the game and the cost for a few extras that frankly should be in a base game without bullsh!tting customers. Be it DLC or whatever carrots being dangled in front of a horse. PS-I don't care about standard practice by companies. It doesn't make it acceptable.

2) The game being dumped onto a PC, though it was designed to be played with a console controller. Why you may ask is this important? A= You will never get the level of control back as you would, having the game designed specifically for a PC, using keyboard and mouse. The controls are dumbed down to accommodate a control scheme that cannot work as effectively as a keyboard and mouse. It is NOT the same way of playing a game. Does it ruin the story? No, but it does make the game totally different than the 3 previous games, no matter what anyone has to say about it not being different, it is by default. Baked into the design and cannot be removed. As literally everything the player must interact with is now forever based upon a console control scheme in this title.

3) 150GB of required space. Right. This is 1 game and not even the entire game as they intend you to pay for more content after initial release. Some may or may not find this offensive. But to me, it doesn't make any sense to be this large without any option to have a lower texture package or something. Seriously. This is for most gamers around 1/4th their entire drive. Can most of us fit this? Probably. Would be want to? Probably not, when we can have literally 30 or so AAA games in the same space.

4) Name changes everyone is and was fine with for 15 years. I don't even want to get into this level of petty political nonsense. Just use the name the vast majority of fans are accustom to already.


Feel free to add anything I missed. But I'm making a blanket statement, not a debate. Formulate your own opinions and consider what everyone has to say.

Like you, I also came here to laugh.

I upvoted your post. The only thing that is not legitimate is your view toward installation size. Installation sizes (average or cutting-edge peak) are far lower than they would have been by now---and should be---had the Great Consolization of 2008** not occurred. We are actually way behind where we would be if AAA PC games had been developed over the last 15 years.

4,000GB hard drives (the best price per unit of storage) have been $70 - 80 USD for years, and are now as low as $57.99 on sale. Having 30 AAA games installed simultaneously is a luxury, not a necessity, as anyone who started gaming in the physical era knows. There's no reason that one can't have a 500GB or 1,000GB OS/Applications SSD and then as many 4,000GB HDDs as he needs to store all of his games locally.

Also, anyone thinking that a game can take up a larger percentage of a volume than ever before does not realize how much of a volume a single game could require 20 years ago. Around 2003 - 2005, games could be over 5.5GB---when gamers had 40GB - 160GB drives. Even 5.5GB is 15% of the usable capacity of a 40GB drive, and 7.5% / 3.7% of 80GB / 160GB.

I want to proactively ask: Please don't introduce the word 'laptop'. Despite business marketing there is no such thing as a "gaming laptop", and AAA games should never, ever be designed around the limitations of such devices.

** The last AAA game designed for PC hardware, PC controls, and the sensibilities and preferences of the PC market was Crysis in 2007, unless you count Crysis: Warhead and The Witcher: Enhanced Edition (And whether or not you count them you should definitely play them!).

Wasn't a debate as I clearly mentioned. If you have anything of input regarding the game instead of trying to goat me into something. Feel free to add that. But I'm not responding to much else. You found what works for you. How nice for you.

I would never dream of goating you. I don't want to make you m-a-a-a-a-d. That would be b-a-a-a-a-d.

Lol, I kid. You're the G.O.A.T.!

maybe GOTY in few years & cheaper, without bugs.. but ye it's a shame.