Listings for the Far Cry 6 Game of the Year Edition have appeared for PC, PlayStation, and Xbox, but at a hefty price of $119.99 / £99.99. Owners of the previous version can upgrade for $59.99 via an upgrade pass. The GOTY edition includes all prior content but will also receive a new coming soon expansion called “Lost Between Worlds”. Those who purchase the PS4 or Xbox One versions can upgrade to the PS5 and Xbox X|S versions, respectively, for free.
Description
Get the definitive Far Cry® 6 experience with the Game of the Year Edition, which includes the base game, all Season Pass content, all game updates, the Ultimate Pack, and the new expansion, Lost Between Worlds (coming soon).
Play as Dani Rojas as you fight alongside a modern-day guerrilla revolution. Explore Yara, the most ambitious Far Cry open world to date, and enjoy the most variety ever found in the Far Cry franchise – all playable solo or in co-op!
– Enjoy all free game updates, including a new Difficulty mode, Ammo Switch, Individual Loadouts, and more!
– Get all Far Cry 6 Season Pass content, including all three DLCs and Far Cry® 3 Blood Dragon Classic Edition.
– Finally, get the new expansion, Lost Between Worlds!
Source: VGC
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →I'm not sure I would play this game even if it was free. $120? Go eff yourself, Ubisoft.
Here's some extra irony sauce. Humble Bundle has the gold edition with all the DLC for $39
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.humblebundle.com/store/far-cry-6-gold-edition[/URL]
I tried playing this during the free weekend a few months ago and I barely made it through the intro chapter, it's just boring and the characters are obnoxious. I don't think Ubisoft can make a good game anymore, everything they put out feels like a reskin/mod of every other game they put out and they are all painfully average. Not bad at all, just boringly average.
WTF is even this? Why would you expect people to pay double price for a one year old mediocre game?
I feel the same way. I really haven't enjoyed a Far Cry game since Far Cry and Far Cry 2 were out.
Yeah, that totally describes UbiStupid actions lately.
I dunno a gold edition for 30 bucks or so doesn't seem bad.
I'd disagree. The original Far Cry is so bad it is barely playable. I played it for th efirst time about 4 or 5 years ago having missed the series the first time around, and it was so bad I had to force myself to finish it. Terrible linear shooter, awful character development, and absolutely groanworthy voice acting. I guess what sold the game first time around were the stellar graphics, but time has not been kind to those graphics, and once you take that out of the equation there is nothing else good left.
Far Cry 2 is where the series got a little bit more interesting. I was pretty impressed with it. I kept having to remind myself that Far Cry 2 was made in 2008, because it both looked pretty decent and played with game dynamics that felt more modern.
3 or 4 are probably the highlights of the series. I liked 4 better, but 3 is a second for me. I know many people who enjoyed 3 more though. For me 4 was a rich cultural environment which I enjoyed. The bad guy was a little bit unrealistic, but I enjoyed the game anyway. 3 to me was a litle bit too much of "white kid tourists" for me.
I also enjoyed Far Cry primal. Not as much as 2, 3 or 4, but it was still interesting how they mixed it up a bit.
5 wasn't bad, but the whole "take base, rinse and repeat" model started to get a bit old several games in. I know a lot of prepper types recognized themselves too much in the game and were offended, but I thought it was fine, and totally playable and enjoyable. The cult was very well put together and all of the cults music really tied it together and gave the game a pretty good overall feel.
New Dawn was awful. After the excellent immersive world design of 4 and 5, New Dawn was boring and forgettable.
After that I was saying they really have to mix it up, because the same old formula dropped in a different part of the world isn't going to work a 7th or 8th time or however many times it has been.
I find 6 enjoyable, but I feel like they dumbed it down a bit. A lot of the inventory, weapons and upgrades feel more like a dumb mobile game. It's also way too easy even on the hardest setting. Unlike others, I don't find anything wrong with the characters. Giancarlo Esposito is brilliant as always and makes for a very believable evil dictator. And those who got their knickers in a twist just because the game contains a trans character are a little much.
It's not my favorite in the series, but it has still been enjoyable. I agree that $120 is a bit much, unless that expansion is like a whole new game. And even then, you are paying for two new games, when one of them is a year old...
Overall, my biggest complaints with Far Cry 6 are:
1.) The "supremos" improvized weapons are silly, and unrealistic, and as such immersion breaking, especially every time you have to see the stupid techno backpack.
2.) Forced 3rd person view in camps. It drives me nuts. Its like a weird out of body experience that is jarring and breaks immersion.
3.) It's just too easy even on the hardest difficulty level
4.) Knowing all the available equipment, armor and weapons in advance takes part of the mystique out of finding them, and makes it feel more like a mobile game than a AAA PC title.
5.) Upgrades don't do enough, and resources for upgrades are too plentiful. I got weapons that feel as good as it is going to get and maxed them out with upgrades only a few hours into the game, which takes part of the joy of finding better equipment as you go out of the equation. Similarly armor/clothing doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
That's the most concentrated nonsense I've read all week, and it is the last day of the week. Far Cry is still by far the best part of the series, towering over all others. When the demo originally came out I must have finished it a hundred times, before the final game was released. You could do the mission so many ways that it was impossible to get bored with.
Calling Far Cry a linear shooter is the worst misrepresentation of a game I have ever witnessed. There were some linear internal maps in the late game, but most of the external maps were completely open, and you were free to infiltrate and attack them any way you wanted. It was the first game I could call a tactical shooter where I experienced true player freedom to choose between different approaches to dealing with a problem.
I don't have the faintest idea what character development you are talking about, the game has none of that, the story is completely irrelevant nonsense, there are three 10 second long cut-scenes in the whole game, that doesn't really do anything. It's not a game you play for the captivating story or characters, it is a tactical shooter, and that's it.
Same for the voice acting, there is barely any in game, apart from getting objectives over the radio. Which I remember liking at the time.
Far Cry 2 is a buggy misguided mess on the other hand, it's game mechanics were deliberately made to be annoying, killing any kind of enjoyment I could've had with the game. It was anti-realism, the game. With restricted maps that offered no real alternatives, you were being funneled through narrow unavoidable chokepoints, which wasted the open map design, rendering it pointless. At least from what I can tell from the short time I was able to play the game, before it decided it was no longer going to run and crash during the intro every time, no matter what.
3 was a decent game, the precursor for ubisoft's modern day seamless open word design. I enjoyed it, but it was a far cry from far cry. The main character was the most annoying pos I have ever had the misfortune of playing as, not to mention the Houdini levels of miraculous escapes, that just kept repeating, No amount of suspension of disbelief could make it acceptable. And then there was the absolutely atrocious ending, that felt more like a kick in the balls than a satisfying conclusion to all the torture inflicted upon you by the piss poor story thus far.
I never really played four, it seemed like it was supposed to be a DLC for 3, instead of a stand alone game. It didn't bring anything new, and I hated the level design, it was made like a videogame instead of a believable landscape. Not to mention that the game ran like ass on my computer despite not looking any better than FC3. Which kind of sealed its fate.
Skip for me. I'm not interested in bows and arrows.
I find it curious that you found the take base mechanic a problem in FC5, when it was the exact same in FC3 and FC4. 5 at least offered different kinds of activities, and even flying. As a game it was better than FC3 and 4, but it was overshadowed by Ghost Recon Wildlands for me, which did literally everything better already. More realistic map, more realistic weapons, more realistic driving and flying model, based story as opposed to FC5's magical nonsense.
At least there is something we can agree on. But not because of the world design, but the introduction of enemy tiers, and weapon tiers, which made it more like assassin's creed. An RPG instead of a proper shooter. And the asinine amounts of grind necessary to upgrade your base to progress in the story. I opted out, and used cheats to upgrade the base, no game is going to force me to do grind I don't enjoy.
There was a trans character? That's news to me. The problem with FC6 was every "good" character was acting like gender studies students from a Cali university. Plus the completely unrealistic amount of female leaders and soldiers even on the regime's side. What little male characters were in the game were either inept soy boys, or idiotic dudebros. Basically the world as an SJW imagines it. It made the game a joke, completely unbelievable, with zero chance of being immersed in the story.
Which only left the gameplay to stand on it's own to make the game exceptional like Far Cry one. But it failed. The side activities became boring and repetitive very quickly, you did one of each and you were done. Plus even on the hardest difficulty the game was super easy, so you couldn't even have fun with the challenge. Playing Far Cry on the hardest difficulty meant pissing blood in the late game. FC6, only got easier towards the end, even the largest encounters were underwhelming. The only reason I died in it occasionally, is because I ran into enemy bases with zero care, and most of the time could just waltz right to my objective without trouble. The biggest danger to your health in the game were the absolutely useless supremos, which you couldn't even take off. When the trump insert villain of the game called you backpack, I laughed because the writers must have thought it is so insulting , but I completely agreed with it, fuck those backpacks, fuck the forced 3rd person view in camps, and fuck their agenda.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I would rank the first Far Cry as one of the worst games I've ever had the misfortune of playing.
I only forced myself to finish it because I wanted to get on to the "sequels" and I didn't know at the time that all of them stood on their own story wise.
Sure now it may be tough to play but it was released 18 years ago. I'm not saying it's the best game ever, but IMO it's the best in the series.
You can hate far cry all you want, but calling it a linear shooter is not something to disagree about, it's just factually wrong.
Ok man look you can't stand it when someone disagrees with you. We get it... a few of us in these forums are like that.
I think I had Farcry 2 as a freebie when I bought a video card years ago, couldn't get into it.
That said - $120 for a video game - Jesus H. WTF.
Except that's not the case and he is correct, the original Far Cry was not a linear shooter.
While most of what Zarathustra says is borderline nonsense, in this case it's just dumb and no 3D game holds up 14 years later unless maybe the graphics were already dated the day it was launched.