Pugstorm's new game is going to be just 20 bucks. (It's being published by Chucklefish so I'll still be pirating it, but it's nice that they're still keeoing it indie)
this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
394 points (98.5% liked)
Games
38427 readers
1644 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Honest question. What's wrong with Chucklefish as a publisher?
They are run by some if the worst bigots and transphobes. Who also exploited their "workforce" of volunteers. Just some all around shitsacks, and they don't deserve any of my money.
I still have so many games I've picked up on Steam sales that I'll happily wait for those $80 games to go on sale while going through my back catalogue
Bruh it's 2025 and I'm still on a spin cycle of mostly 10 years old or more games
yes, because the real problem is too much choice.
fuckin finbro bullshit.
I remember paying $10 for an Atari game. I know it's not a great comparison, but I got hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay out of Qbert. Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?
It's funny I mention Atari. They had so many games to play. the choices you had were bonkers. best part was you could take your carts to a friends house and trade or share.
can't do that today since most games are digital downloads that need 32gb day-0 updates.
perhaps the problem isn't the gamers, but instead it's the greedy corporate interests that are poisoning the game industry requesting $80 single owner games.
I don't disagree with you, but there's no way you have thousands of hours in Qbert. Even hundreds is impressive.
I was a poor farm kid and winters were long.
I was still playing our Atari 2600 when the PS2 launched.
That really dramatically takes the steam out of your argument though.
If the same conditions for you existed today, any modern game would blow qbert out of the water, and indeed you would put thousands of hours into it.
Also, Atari games were $20 when they were new not 10. So with inflation it's about the same as an $80 game today.
Daaamn haha. Fair enough.
The other thing is that there was simply fewer games back then so you either continue to play the good games you own or you don't play games. I loved Ocarina of Time, but I'm not going to pretend it was God's gift to mankind just because I played it tons in my youth. I played it tons in my youth because it was one of the best games that I owned, and even then I had plenty more options than I'm sure this person had on the Atari for good games
$10 in q-bert days is like 50-60 now :)
Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?
Satisfactory, Dyson Sphere project, Factorio, Minecraft, Dreamlight Valley
Arcade games were great because it's what we had. Sit a kid in front a Q-Bert now and try to get 1000 hours out of it.
Stuff is getting too big, there's too much emphasis on making it pretty to sell it rather than making it fun, but I don't know that we could go back to arcade games. I fear our nostalgia is a half-dose of Stockholm's syndrome.
$50-60 based on what? Adjusted for inflation in 1982, it's more like $33 and distribution costs are way lower than back then. Truth is you just need to find a compelling gameplay loop but companies don't like taking risks- not every game needs to be a massive endeavor like skyrim. Look at games like slay the spire and see how a cheap game can be compelling without having to be a AAA behemoth. And at that note, is there even anything wrong if a game only takes your attention for a hundred hours? I don't see the need to extend the player's attention with poor side quest grinding. These things add unnecessary cost
The $10 games were trash in 1982. You're going to spend 30 on something like Q-bert https://www.polygon.com/2014/6/4/5779048/atari-et-ads-commercials-videos-1982
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
in 2025 Money, that's $99, assuming you got it used I gave you 50-60
is there even anything wrong if a game only takes your attention for a hundred hours
I don't think so, but you're the one who mentioned it :)
but I got hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay out of Qbert. Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?
Wow, shift goalposts much? You said "$10 in qbert days" which was the 80s and now it's not $10 it's $30. You can just admit you got it wrong and it was never $10 (though I do think prices right now are actually well aligned at $60 because of the far lower costs in distribution and marketing). Also I'm NOT the OP who played thousands of hours on qbert. Great job quoting someone else.
certainly wont purchase a 80$ game with mid-tier playability.
I'm over the massive, over-produced games. I looked at the price of the new Indiana Jones game (AUD119), and even though I loved Machine Games' previous work, I noped out. These days, I'm mostly reverting to simple arcade games more akin to the early era of gaming I grew up on. Shotgun Cop Man, from the people that made My Friend Pedro, just came out. It was $13. Finished it in one sitting, but I'll probably play it multiple times. Much better investment.
Indie games and small publisher titles are my bread and butter. They keep the spirit and innovation that I grew up with alive.
I live in LATAM. I bought civ v once and never stopped playing it since
I don't know who's all this people who can buy games every launch, but they must be so incredibly privileged
y'all keep saying this but playing 1 round of Valorant will make you realise pretty quick how easily people drop $80+ on a game.
I know a guy who only buys games as last resort but bought all the gooner skins in Rivals.
Not buying it. GTAV was the least played for me in the series besides the first 2 games. I thought it's story was a major downgrade compared to Vice City through GTAIV. I feel like GTAV was a pullback from any bit of endearing human spirit to leaning heavily into wacky self-aware sarcasm. Not that the series wasn't that. Just that 5 to me was an edgy non-clever series parody. It's not that different than Far Cry. Empty commentary. Just mocking everything. Felt more affection in the 3 series and 4
Regardless since GTAIV, we've had a gluttony of open world games. Even the battle royale games I think fill in a niche for social multiplayer that's wacky and real world pop culture referential. GTAVI and it's RP community support I think will be what sends it past or below GTAV success. High unit sales expectations but I'm more tepid than most. Maybe it'll be even more effective at whale hunting
view more: next ›