As soon as it was released, the pricing policy of Sony for the Ghost of Tsushima: Director’s Cut falls directly on its feet, as players feel ripped off and the title is getting review bombed on Metacritic.
Ghost Of Tsushima: Director’s Cut is getting review bombed
Shortly after the announcement, it was reported about the somewhat unfair pricing policy of the Ghost of Tsushima: Director’s Cut, which, above all, is asking buyers of the original version to pay more than ever. At that time, it was pointed out that the PS4 version of the Director’s Cut costs $59.99, while the PS5 version costs $69.99.
However, if you already have the PS4 version, it will be mathematically really expensive. Because here the upgrade to the Director’s Cut costs $19.99, which seems to be the estimated value for the additional content for Sony. PlayStation 5 users pay $29.99 for exactly the same upgrade, i.e. $10 more, which is also due when switching from the Director’s Cut on PS4 to the PS5 version. Even then there is not a free upgrade path.
Currently, there are over 250 user reviews, most of which complain about the excessive price. One finds this particularly unjustified, since the length of the DLC is only 5 to 6 hours.
Sony is mainly paying for the technical, but barely noticeable, upgrades of the PS5, although on the one hand these were implemented one way or the other, and on the other hand, for most publishers are free. There is even talk of a technical downgrade.
One user on Metacritic wrote, “It is annoying that they charged 30 USD for this expansion considering how old is it, they recycled this to charge us full price for it with a 5 hour DLC and there are technically no graphical improvements.”
Another one said, “I wish it was a Remastered version. So at least there was a better graphic for it. Maybe even better Artificial intelligence and less bugs. But this “Director’s cut” doesn’t worth to re-buy. The Iki Island is Okay. But just if you’re upgrading the game. Not for full price.”
It remains to be seen whether Sony takes the criticism to heart or gives in retrospectively because what is being tried here is anything but “for the players.”