Make a special edition of just the taken king with the emotes and class items and whatnot, and the problem is solved. It could cost 200 bucks and I'd buy it just for the raid presumably designed by Luke.

I'll sell you all those things for less than $200! Say, $80? And I promise it won't include things you've paid for like Destiny and the expansions.

I would argue that changing the missions/bounties, weapon/vendor system, and the light level system overhaul are things we've already paid for. They already exist. If Bungie finds that they are not working, or that they should be improved, that's a thing that they should be upgrading just to make the game better and to keep people playing. New people purchasing the game benefit immediately. They're updates, not something that we pay for. I bought StarCraft II once. It's constantly being tweaked, balanced, and adjusted. That's not something I or anyone else continues to purchase.

I think you are already getting what you are arguing for. Destiny has received a lot of changes and updates to its existing systems, has gotten multiple weapon and gameplay balance passes, and has even gotten a few significant new features all through unpaid updates. Bungie has even given players who did not pay for the expansions bits of new content here and there. Going forward, I would also expect that all Destiny players will benefit from whatever changes to the weapon vendors, light levels, and UI come along with The Taken King.

Personal worth and economic worth are two different things in a market with pricing schemes that are set by publishers.

I'm not convinced they are things at all let alone different things. They are not economic terms I am familiar with in this context and I can't discern what you mean when you use them.

I'm not talking about whether you or I felt that ODST was worth every penny. I'm not talking about whether you or I feel like Destiny itself is worth $1,000 based on our time playing it. Your own motivations whenever you reply to me doesn't change the economics, but you already know that. I'm talking about a video game's price in relation to another in real economic terms.

Please point out the real economic terms in this post. ("economic*" and "Price*" do not count.)

ODST's pricing structure wasn't correct in relation to Halo 3's. I never spoke of or implied personal worth, especially when talking directly about whoever is actually setting the prices.

And big corporations have a history of "funny" pricing. I mean, Microsoft priced its Windows 98 upgrades at $89 even though it found that $49 was more than sufficient to get a profit.

I've heard of a for-profit corp. I've heard of a not-for-profit corp. I have not heard of this Only just enough to barely make a profit corp. It's quite a difficult high wire act and for literally the smallest of rewards.

Microsoft probably figured that they could get away with charging more than what ODST was truly worth charging for.

Everything is "truly worth charging for" the most that people in aggregate will pay for it. Your divine granted sense of objective value not withstanding, the value of things is absolutely a reflection of how much people value it. Your paragraph is all nonsense to me. I truly can't figure out what it means (I used the word truly there so you know i'm making important unassailable points.)

A campaign you can beat on the hardest difficulty in three hours without speedrunning? The name itself implies it's an expansion of Halo 3? But if people want their Halo, they'll pay more than an expansion's price (based in comparison to relative expansion pricing within the video game market at the time). They clearly happened to be right based on sales! Oops to the consumer, though, right?

No. Wrong. As you seem to know based on the very next sentence.

But, as you're talking about, subjectively, who knows how many people thought it was worth every penny (or more)! Good for Microsoft, I guess.

Yes. Good for MS. And good for consumers. Both got the benefit of their bargain. Both are happy.

Consumers get suckered all the time.

Wait, what? how is buying something worth every penny getting suckered? How many people are writing your post at the same time? Am I having an aphasia?

It sucks when consumers don't even question it, or just outright allow it. Other times, consumers can't do anything other than vote with their wallets (ideally), right? But again, that personal worth thing you're talking about is the subjective part that you're trying to make this about. I haven't been talking about that at all. I'm talking the actual pricing done by the corporation(s).

What you seem to be talking about, as far as I can tell is whether you, and anyone who agrees with you, think the pricing was right. Your confidence does not make something objective. Pointing to the specific items to which you have assigned value does not make this objective. Different people value things in different ways and thus ends the objective truth of this area. Explaining your way of valuing things in no way means it is correct.

Your pity for those of us poor suckers who were just too stupid about real economic terms to understand that we shouldn't have been happy with our Oops game purchase is narcissism and arrogance masquerading as concerned science. Knock it off.

I suppose my overall issue is with the price of Taken King itself. I'm not convinced that Dark Below or House of Wolves were worth $20 each (or $35 in the bundle). I get that we're potentially talking hours played, but I wouldn't be surprised if Activision was primarily looking at pricing based on amount of content. I'm not really expecting it to be worth 2/3 the price of the original version of Destiny, you know?

The principle of volume discounting would seem to suggest that the more content you buy at once, and the higher an aggregate price one pays for that content, the price per unit of content, whether that be "levels" or "hours played" or any other metric, goes down.

So Destiny launched for $60 in the standard editions and featured four planetary patrol locations, 20 story levels, five strikes, and one raid.

The expansion pass, which was Dark Below and House of Wolves combined, cost $60.

The Digital Guardian edition included the vanilla content and both expansions for $90, a discount of $10.

The Dark Below included no new patrol areas, three story missions (plus a quest chain done during patrols and missions with a one-room encounter at the end of it), one strike, and one raid. (I'm excluding PlayStation exclusives, here and elsewhere.)

House of Wolves also had no new patrols, but five story missions, one strike, and Prison of Elders instead of a new raid.

Both expansions cost the same; whether one has more content than the other probably depends on whether you like story missions or raids, and how well you like Prison of Elders. If we weight all content items equally-- patrols, story missions, strikes, and raids-- which I will admit is not really nuanced enough, but might yield some useful perspectives-- then we get this:

Vanilla Destiny: 4 patrols, 20 stories, 5 strikes, 1 raid, 6 subclasses. 36 items, $60, $1.66 per item.
Dark Below: 0 patrols, 3 stories, 1 strike, 1 raid, 0 subclasses. 5 items, $20, $4 per item.
House of Wolves 0 patrols, 5 stories, 1 strike, 0 raid, 1 prison, 0 subclasses. (PoE is "not a raid" but you have to count it somehow.). 7 items, $20, $2.85 per item.

Expansion Pass combining the two expansions: 12 items, $40, $3.33 per item.

For people who already own everything, Taken King costs the same as the Expansion Pass. If it were to maintain the same price per item as the expansion pass, it would have the same number of items. We already know it has at least one raid. I've seen a thread on reddit that claims 32 "quests" (not sure if that is 32 story missions, quest chains, overgrown bounties, or some mix of the above, or just the 28 stories we have to date, plus four new ones) and possibly two raids. There should be at least one strike everybody gets plus a Sony exclusive; perhaps more. So if The Taken King is any bigger, in terms of mission items, than the content of the expansion pass was, then the per-item price is dropping closer to what the price was in the original game.

And the per-item price for the bundles will be even lower, and has to be. I don't imagine that a new player starting World of Warcraft would have to buy the original game plus all expansions at their launch prices-- in fact, they have a free starter edition, then you pay for the latest expansion that raises the level cap. So new WoW players are usually only buying the latest expansion, and they get the base game, including all the previous content, for absolutely free. Of course they are paying a subscription fee; the best deal for a year of play seems to be two six month blocks for $13 each, $26 for a year. The base expansion costs $30 and the "deluxe" edition with in-game perks is $50. So the first year for a WoW player these days is between $26 and $76; for a Destiny player, that would be $200 and up ($90 for digital guardian, $40 for Taken King, $50 for Xbox Live.

(Live is sold as high as $60 and down as far as the low $40s, but also includes access to multiplayer for other titles you might own, so the comparison isn't entirely apt.)

Still, it has to be said that compared to WoW, the price of play for a year is higher for Destiny, and arguably contains less content.

All I could say is that the price per unit of content across the expansions is not necessarily that inconsistent between the vanilla game, the first two expansions, and the latest one. Once we know exactly how many stories and strikes it has, we'll know better-- plus one has to account for stuff like new subclasses as well. If I could those equally to the other items, then TK could have as few as 9 new items (stories, strikes, patrols) and still have a per-item price cheaper than the expansion pass.

If the reddit thread above is right about the number of "quests" and those count as items, then TK would have 32 quests, 1 raid, at least 1 strike, and 3 new subclasses, for a total of 37 items-- one more than vanilla Destiny for $20 cheaper.

The Legendary Edition, of course, then is the best deal, because it includes all items up to and including Taken King for the same price as vanilla Destiny at launch. The vanilla game plus the first two expansions is 48 items. If TK is as big as Dark Below and House of Wolves put together-- 12 items, which would be 1 raid, three subclasses, and 8 other items made up of strikes, stories, quests and patrols-- that would bring the total to 60 items for $60, a price of $1 per item!

There may be lots of ways Bungie can show respect for long-time fans, but kickbacks are not going to be among them. New players are going to get the better deals. As usual, the longer you wait, the better the prices get. And for those whom price alone is insufficient incentive, there will be perks, probably ones the rest of us can't get. I think "not everybody can have everything" is pretty much a guiding principle for Destiny in all areas of its design. Because if you can have everything, then eventually all the best players have all the same things, which means less variety, and also that you're done playing.

Essentially, Destiny 2 will launch, I assume that will be $60, yet somehow this thing is worth 2/3 of that brand new price for a game that may offer an insane amount of content (assuming it kicks last gen away). I feel like this is similar to ODST, which also had a ridiculously inflated price at launch, was justified by fans (along with the "don't buy it then" crowd), but the fact of the matter is, it wasn't worth the actual price in relation to, say, Halo 3 itself.

Quality counts for something. I would take ODST at $60 (or at $50, the actual price they charged for it) over Reach at $60 or Halo 4 at any price at all. Would I have been happier with an expansion-like $40? Sure!

But we've been there and done that, right? What I like about your post here is you got me thinking with regards to Destiny 2. You bring up a really good point there, and you're probably spot on. My only real argument is that there's the potential for a situation that one saw in Mass Effect. You may be able to transfer your character and things over, but who knows if the level system will stay the same (so as to allow new characters to experience all of the new stuff and places. For all we know, these old locations from Destiny 1 will be gone. Maybe all of a sudden we're hanging out in Old Chicago primarily for whatever reason, or the dark side of the Moon, to name a few random examples).

They can't really do what they did with Mass Effect. You can break a solo character back down to zero the way ME2 did and then make them relevel because there's nobody to compare yourself to, and nobody you need to play with. Destiny 2 will need to figure out a way to put new players into the system as well as respect earlier players' investments somehow. Given that weapons and gear have level minimums, I'm not sure there's a simple way of letting characters brought into Destiny 2 the ability to access old armor and weapons and also reset everybody's level.

I think it is more likely that Destiny 1 just gets bundled with Destiny 2, meaning new players will say "hey great, free game" and older players will once again complain about being "forced to repurchase content" when there's some new collectors/legendary/whatever edition that contains some plastic or digital gubbins that they simply must have, but can't be unbundled from the package that includes stuff they already have.

But you are probably right as far as how this is going to keep happening. Their DLC and overall pricing structure appears to be set, even if I don't think the cost is right or necessarily fair. I think Activision knows that, and I think they know that new people are going to buy it anyway, and current people who enjoy Destiny will suck it up and deal with the $40 price point regardless since they enjoy the game. But yo, thanks for discussing without obvious ultimatums.

I think it may be a bit high. In fact, what I do end up thinking quite a bit these days is that no matter how one measures it, the amount of content Bungie is now producing, compared to the size of their development teams, seems to be declining. Part of this is industry-wide and driven by higher audiovisual fidelity. Part of it, though, I can't account for. Whether you measure content in playing time, art assets, or square meters of geometry, big RPGs and MMOs like WoW, Elder Scrolls games, Elder Scrolls Online, and the upcoming Fallout 4 are simply delivering more over similar timeframes, with smaller teams. I was pretty surprised to hear Bethesda say at E3 this year that their primary team-- the team that made Fallout 3, then Skyrim, and now Fallout 4-- is about 100 people, or about 1/3 the size of Bungie. Now, graned-- they are not now, and never have, done multiplayer, which is certainly a big difference, but I'm unsure if it can completely account for the difference.

Those games always had more content, but also gameplay deficiencies compared to pure action games like Halo and Destiny. However they appear to be signaling that they understand they can't do that anymore, and that just like Destiny is an FPS with MMORPG elements, Fallout 4 is going to be an RPG with a competent and not clumsy FPS inside of it.

I'd like to see Destiny-like networking features in a Fallout or Elder Scrolls game (not the full ride MMO stuff that is in ESO). I wonder if another 200 employees would do it, and if they could do it with less, I sort of wonder whether Bungie has gotten bigger than it needs to be.

I think episodic content like this is hard to do. Valve tried to do it and mostly failed because they couldn't stick to a schedule. Bungie is sticking to the schedule, but some players are finding the installments less nourishing than they want. I think part of it is that the only way to stick to a rigorous schedule is to make content in advance and withhold it, the way TV shows used to be made before binge-watching and day-one content bombs became a thing. I think it's possible that when all is said and done, the broad story arc of Destiny may approach that of Halo 1-3. It may be a bit watered down to account for the necessity of multiple heroes, but part of the dissatisfaction now is that the product is incomplete more or less by design, and there is a premium to be paid for drip-feed content.

I guess I'm more amenable to it because I practically asked for it. I wanted a Bungie subscription service where I'd pay a bit more to get game content at a more regular pace, rather than playing 10-12 story levels 2-3 times over during a month or so, and then waiting 3 years for new content. (PVP is not my thing.)

Wait. So why are we talking about it if not in regards to a purchase decision? Honest question.

The most direct answer to your question is: Why not talk about it, purchase decision or otherwise? Just because it is most likely a given that you or myself or someone else are going to purchase something, that doesn't mean it can't be discussed.

And it is in regards to a purchasing decision. A lot of changes to Destiny have come from Bungie reading forums and adjusting. Price schemes can be adjusted if there's backlash. Sometimes, just having a discussion can be beneficial for others who have yet to make a purchasing decision, especially where price is a potential problem. I mean, all of a sudden a Luke Smith interview pops up, and peoples' future purchasing decisions become less secure. The threads alone could make or break whether or not they purchase something.

Well, I guess I just don't understand what's going on. I'm going to quit reading these threads.

I'd say that's a pretty valid concern. I'd more or less agree that the first two DLC's were overpriced at a combined total of $40... though perhaps not so much at $35 when they came as part of my Ghost Edition. On the other hand, I don't think we know enough about the size of The Taken King to really judge it's potential worth yet and what we do know already places it well above the meager size of The Dark Below and House of Wolves.

At this point we do know or can guess that The Taken King has a major new Destination (Oryx's Dreadnaught), several new Story Missions (all of which I'd expect to be of higher quality than most seen in Destiny's primary campaign), six Strikes (right now Bungie is saying it will have "a bunch" of new Strikes without specifying an exact number so I'm making one up), a new Raid, new enemy types that appear to actually have new behaviors, some major UI overhauls (seems there's going to be a whole page for tracking missions and bounties now instead of having them lumped into the Inventory page, for instance), and possibly overhauls to the Light Level system and the weapon / vendor system (in the ViDoc they say that there's cool new weapon stuff they aren't even talking about yet and we've already got a thread floating around about the possibility of removing the "pain" of the Light Level system all together).

How much should that be worth, in your estimation?

I would argue that changing the missions/bounties, weapon/vendor system, and the light level system overhaul are things we've already paid for. They already exist. If Bungie finds that they are not working, or that they should be improved, that's a thing that they should be upgrading just to make the game better and to keep people playing. New people purchasing the game benefit immediately. They're updates, not something that we pay for. I bought StarCraft II once. It's constantly being tweaked, balanced, and adjusted. That's not something I or anyone else continues to purchase.

If I'm paying for something, it should be literal new content (hence the expansion part of this). In relation to the base game, a potential future base game, and previous DLC, especially in relation to other games/DLCs/expansions, the pricing doesn't appear to be "correct". As far as estimation goes, it's all out of whack at this point because, like you said, Taken King could have a boatload of new content. That may, unfortunately and retroactively, really call into question the previous DLC price points.

But we've been there, and done that, right? What I like about your post here is you got me thinking with regards to Destiny 2. You bring up a really good point there, and you're probably spot on. My only real argument there is for the potential situation that one saw in Mass Effect. You may be able to transfer your character and things over, but who knows if the level system will stay the same (so as to allow new characters to experience all of the new stuff and places. For all we know, these old locations from Destiny 1 will be gone. Maybe all of a sudden we're hanging out in Old Chicago primarily for whatever reason, or the dark side of the Moon, to name a few random examples).

Assuming there is a Destiny 2 and not just a steady stream of DLCs. What if they just gave the last-gen people a year's warning and then shut down the last-gen servers and Destiny just stayed Destiny, always expanding and never "losing" past content? There is precedent for this kind of thing in the MMO world. EVE Online, for instance, has been running for years and years with massive content updates and balance overhauls but has never have a 2 in the same way Halo did.

Big time holy shit moment reading that just now, because I hadn't considered that. I wonder if that's what they'll do. My thought process is that they won't because it's on console and not PC. I also doubt they'd drop the 360/PS3 crowd entirely. They'd just be flat out shut off from the next part. Time will tell on this one, but that's excellent food for thought.

Wait. So why are we talking about it if not in regards to a purchase decision? Honest question.

The most direct answer to your question is: Why not talk about it, purchase decision or otherwise? Just because it is most likely a given that you or myself or someone else are going to purchase something, that doesn't mean it can't be discussed.

And it is in regards to a purchasing decision. A lot of changes to Destiny have come from Bungie reading forums and adjusting. Price schemes can be adjusted if there's backlash. Sometimes, just having a discussion can be beneficial for others who have yet to make a purchasing decision, especially where price is a potential problem. I mean, all of a sudden a Luke Smith interview pops up, and peoples' future purchasing decisions become less secure. The threads alone could make or break whether or not they purchase something.

I was not trying to be rude, it just seems like you still plan on buying it even after seeing the pricing structure for the previous year of Destiny. If you really don't think what you already played isn't worth the price you already paid, I'm not really sure what the issue is, pass on the rest of the content. It seems that from plenty of places (not just here, but Reddit, or Bungie.net) that the vast majority of people think that the price of Destiny and the original season pass was worth it. $40 is expensive for an expansion, but even if it was only twice the content of TDB or HoW it would fit into the already established pricing scheme, and from the original slide about the expansion they have planned it looks like the amount of content is going to be closer to 3-4x the amount of content in either of the other expansions, so where is the discrepancy in pricing?

Many surely felt that the pricing structure was worth it. I'm not talking about the personal worth part of this. I'm talking about the Bungie/Activision pricing point of this. From the word go here at DBO and places like Reddit, Bungie.net, IGN, etc., there have been plenty of debates about how people feel like they bought a game that wasn't complete, or not what it was marketed to be. Even as the DLC came out, people were wondering why they felt like a lot of it should have been in at launch, or like it wasn't enough. That's the subjectivity, sure.

The $20 price point was set by Activision outright before the game even came out. Who knew what type of content or how much would be included. Unfortunately, people will pre-order and buy and give their money away with no guarantees in this day and age. And the corporations continue to do this stuff because the consumers are all too willing to just hand away their money. It sucks on both ends.

So, while the pricing scheme itself has already been established, I'm questioning whether the scheme was proper to begin with. I'm also questioning whether the new $40 price point for the next expansion makes sense in relation to both the base game, or the expected $60 future price point of Destiny 2 (especially in the event that Destiny 2 blows away content expectations in relation to everything that came before by virtue of dropping last-gen consoles). This is all speculative, but based on the actual video game market pricing system, I don't think there's any reason to suspect that Destiny 2 won't be $60. I can't help but feel like they should be pricing Taken King below $40 at this point considering what's already come out and what will come in the future. Too much disparity, I think.

I feel like this is similar to ODST, which also had a ridiculously inflated price at launch, was justified by fans (along with the "don't buy it then" crowd), but the fact of the matter is, it wasn't worth the actual price in relation to, say, Halo 3 itself.

See - you get annoyed when people say "don't buy it then" to you... but you're totally okay making statements like "teh fact of the matter is, it wasn't worth the actual price". (It's irrelevant what you put that in relation to... worth is inherently a subjective thing, and facts don't enter into it.)

Personal worth and economic worth are two different things in a market with pricing schemes that are set by publishers. I'm not talking about whether you or I felt that ODST was worth every penny. I'm not talking about whether you or I feel like Destiny itself is worth $1,000 based on our time playing it. Your own motivations whenever you reply to me doesn't change the economics, but you already know that. I'm talking about a video game's price in relation to another in real economic terms. ODST's pricing structure wasn't correct in relation to Halo 3's. I never spoke of or implied personal worth, especially when talking directly about whoever is actually setting the prices.

And big corporations have a history of "funny" pricing. I mean, Microsoft priced its Windows 98 upgrades at $89 even though it found that $49 was more than sufficient to get a profit. The upgrade definitely wasn't worth the $89, but Microsoft figured that they could probably get away with going for maximum profit in a market that they pretty much dominated (granted, they were wrong about that one in the end). Btw, I'm fully aware I'm discussing monopoly right now. And why?

Microsoft probably figured that they could get away with charging more than what ODST was truly worth charging for. A campaign you can beat on the hardest difficulty in three hours without speedrunning? The name itself implies it's an expansion of Halo 3? But if people want their Halo, they'll pay more than an expansion's price (based in comparison to relative expansion pricing within the video game market at the time). They clearly happened to be right based on sales! Oops to the consumer, though, right? But, as you're talking about, subjectively, who knows how many people thought it was worth every penny (or more)! Good for Microsoft, I guess. Consumers get suckered all the time. It sucks when consumers don't even question it, or just outright allow it. Other times, consumers can't do anything other than vote with their wallets (ideally), right? But again, that personal worth thing you're talking about is the subjective part that you're trying to make this about. I haven't been talking about that at all. I'm talking the actual pricing done by the corporation(s).

I wish you could see the parallels, and adjust your arguments accordingly. (I've been wishing that for years, though, and asking for that for years, and I've never gotten a response, so...)

I can't tell if you're being purposely or accidentally ironic with "never". Either way, very ironic.

Thanks for the well thought out reply. I prefer response like these to the obvious ones of "don't buy it then" like I hadn't already figured that out. It's like discussing things on principle or value is not allowed or something. Well, unless of course it involves swag. Then everyone goes crazy.

Wait. So why are we talking about it if not in regards to a purchase decision? Honest question.

I suppose my overall issue is with the price of Taken King itself. I'm not convinced that Dark Below or House of Wolves were worth $20 each (or $35 in the bundle). I get that we're potentially talking hours played, but I wouldn't be surprised if Activision was primarily looking at pricing based on amount of content. I'm not really expecting it to be worth 2/3 the price of the original version of Destiny, you know? Essentially, Destiny 2 will launch, I assume that will be $60, yet somehow this thing is worth 2/3 of that brand new price for a game that may offer an insane amount of content (assuming it kicks last gen away). I feel like this is similar to ODST, which also had a ridiculously inflated price at launch, was justified by fans (along with the "don't buy it then" crowd), but the fact of the matter is, it wasn't worth the actual price in relation to, say, Halo 3 itself.

I'd say that's a pretty valid concern. I'd more or less agree that the first two DLC's were overpriced at a combined total of $40... though perhaps not so much at $35 when they came as part of my Ghost Edition. On the other hand, I don't think we know enough about the size of The Taken King to really judge it's potential worth yet and what we do know already places it well above the meager size of The Dark Below and House of Wolves.

At this point we do know or can guess that The Taken King has a major new Destination (Oryx's Dreadnaught), several new Story Missions (all of which I'd expect to be of higher quality than most seen in Destiny's primary campaign), six Strikes (right now Bungie is saying it will have "a bunch" of new Strikes without specifying an exact number so I'm making one up), a new Raid, new enemy types that appear to actually have new behaviors, some major UI overhauls (seems there's going to be a whole page for tracking missions and bounties now instead of having them lumped into the Inventory page, for instance), and possibly overhauls to the Light Level system and the weapon / vendor system (in the ViDoc they say that there's cool new weapon stuff they aren't even talking about yet and we've already got a thread floating around about the possibility of removing the "pain" of the Light Level system all together).

How much should that be worth, in your estimation?

But we've been there, and done that, right? What I like about your post here is you got me thinking with regards to Destiny 2. You bring up a really good point there, and you're probably spot on. My only real argument there is for the potential situation that one saw in Mass Effect. You may be able to transfer your character and things over, but who knows if the level system will stay the same (so as to allow new characters to experience all of the new stuff and places. For all we know, these old locations from Destiny 1 will be gone. Maybe all of a sudden we're hanging out in Old Chicago primarily for whatever reason, or the dark side of the Moon, to name a few random examples).

Assuming there is a Destiny 2 and not just a steady stream of DLCs. What if they just gave the last-gen people a year's warning and then shut down the last-gen servers and Destiny just stayed Destiny, always expanding and never "losing" past content? There is precedent for this kind of thing in the MMO world. EVE Online, for instance, has been running for years and years with massive content updates and balance overhauls but has never have a 2 in the same way Halo did.

I feel like this is similar to ODST, which also had a ridiculously inflated price at launch, was justified by fans (along with the "don't buy it then" crowd), but the fact of the matter is, it wasn't worth the actual price in relation to, say, Halo 3 itself.

See - you get annoyed when people say "don't buy it then" to you... but you're totally okay making statements like "teh fact of the matter is, it wasn't worth the actual price". (It's irrelevant what you put that in relation to... worth is inherently a subjective thing, and facts don't enter into it.)

I wish you could see the parallels, and adjust your arguments accordingly. (I've been wishing that for years, though, and asking for that for years, and I've never gotten a response, so...)

I refuse to believe that Taken King is somehow worth $40 alone, yet somehow the other two DLCs and the base game total to $20 in the overall $60 equation. Sorry dude.

This is, however, exactly the case. The value in the original game and the two DLCs is not necessarily inherent; it's the time you had to play them (and level up and get gear) that people who buy the whole package with the launch of TTK don't get, not to mention all the legacy gear that the game doesn't drop any more (old vanguard and faction weapons, etc).

What it seems people want is something probably nobody on the other side wants-- which is a version with all the physical swag, and the new expansion, but not the old stuff. The value of that, though, as you've just mentioned, is $20. So at most that's all you'd save, and retailers would have to stock two collector's edition with only a $20 difference between them.

Easier to just throw in the old stuff and call it a freebie, especially given that you need them to play TTK anyway.

This is also only going to keep happening. Or do you think Destiny 2 players will be unable to access all the patrol areas in Destiny 1? Do we think Destiny 2 will feature an entirely separate method of advancing characters from level 1 to level 20, without any of the story content from Destiny 1? Or do we think that all Destiny players will be broken down to level 1 again?

Thanks for the well thought out reply. I prefer response like these to the obvious ones of "don't buy it then" like I hadn't already figured that out. It's like discussing things on principle or value is not allowed or something. Well, unless of course it involves swag. Then everyone goes crazy.

I suppose my overall issue is with the price of Taken King itself. I'm not convinced that Dark Below or House of Wolves were worth $20 each (or $35 in the bundle). I get that we're potentially talking hours played, but I wouldn't be surprised if Activision was primarily looking at pricing based on amount of content. I'm not really expecting it to be worth 2/3 the price of the original version of Destiny, you know? Essentially, Destiny 2 will launch, I assume that will be $60, yet somehow this thing is worth 2/3 of that brand new price for a game that may offer an insane amount of content (assuming it kicks last gen away). I feel like this is similar to ODST, which also had a ridiculously inflated price at launch, was justified by fans (along with the "don't buy it then" crowd), but the fact of the matter is, it wasn't worth the actual price in relation to, say, Halo 3 itself.

But we've been there and done that, right? What I like about your post here is you got me thinking with regards to Destiny 2. You bring up a really good point there, and you're probably spot on. My only real argument is that there's the potential for a situation that one saw in Mass Effect. You may be able to transfer your character and things over, but who knows if the level system will stay the same (so as to allow new characters to experience all of the new stuff and places. For all we know, these old locations from Destiny 1 will be gone. Maybe all of a sudden we're hanging out in Old Chicago primarily for whatever reason, or the dark side of the Moon, to name a few random examples).

But you are probably right as far as how this is going to keep happening. Their DLC and overall pricing structure appears to be set, even if I don't think the cost is right or necessarily fair. I think Activision knows that, and I think they know that new people are going to buy it anyway, and current people who enjoy Destiny will suck it up and deal with the $40 price point regardless since they enjoy the game. But yo, thanks for discussing without obvious ultimatums.

My only beef with Taken King is Bungie's (or Activision's, whoever, I don't care which) screwing people hard on the pricing in my opinion. Oh, you don't own the game or any of the DLC yet? Well, pay $60 and you can get everything, including Taken King!

But as for you... we see that you already purchased Destiny and the DLC. You've given us at least $95 already, assuming you've been a day one purchaser. How's $40 more sound for Taken King? I guess what we're saying is, go fuck yourself.

In Halo 3's heydey, I had purchased all the available DLC at the time.

Then ODST was announced, and with it, a disc containing all the maps I had already paid for.

I don't recall being mad when the original $40 price went to $60.

... and then back down to $50 which was where it finally settled.

I refuse to believe that Taken King is somehow worth $40 alone, yet somehow the other two DLCs and the base game total to $20 in the overall $60 equation. Sorry dude.

This is, however, exactly the case. The value in the original game and the two DLCs is not necessarily inherent; it's the time you had to play them (and level up and get gear) that people who buy the whole package with the launch of TTK don't get, not to mention all the legacy gear that the game doesn't drop any more (old vanguard and faction weapons, etc).

What it seems people want is something probably nobody on the other side wants-- which is a version with all the physical swag, and the new expansion, but not the old stuff. The value of that, though, as you've just mentioned, is $20. So at most that's all you'd save, and retailers would have to stock two collector's edition with only a $20 difference between them.

Easier to just throw in the old stuff and call it a freebie, especially given that you need them to play TTK anyway.

This is also only going to keep happening. Or do you think Destiny 2 players will be unable to access all the patrol areas in Destiny 1? Do we think Destiny 2 will feature an entirely separate method of advancing characters from level 1 to level 20, without any of the story content from Destiny 1? Or do we think that all Destiny players will be broken down to level 1 again?

I refuse to believe that Taken King is somehow worth $40 alone, yet somehow the other two DLCs and the base game total to $20 in the overall $60 equation. Sorry dude.

Then don't buy it.

I really don't see this as that big of a deal. The Collector's Edition, sure that's a big deal because the digital one costs the same as the physical without the physical loot, and includes rewards you can't get any other way so you have to buy it if you want "everything". But the pricing of The Taken King makes perfect sense. Destiny RIGHT NOW is $27 on Amazon, even with both expansions for $35, that's barely over $60 for the base game and the expansions. This is no different than companies coming out with a "Game of the Year" edition of the game. We got a year with the game (and I personally put more than 700 hours into the game), that's why we paid more. If I didn't think it was worth the ~$100 I already paid I certainly wouldn't buy The Taken King for $40, but since I do, I don't begrudge them enticing new people to buy the game with a lower price of entry.

I refuse to believe that Taken King is somehow worth $40 alone, yet somehow the other two DLCs and the base game total to $20 in the overall $60 equation. Sorry dude.