this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
113 points (96.7% liked)

PC Gaming

8250 readers
475 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Did you know that Coffee Stain Studios, the publisher behind the beloved pro-consumer Deep Rock Galactic, belongs to Embracer Group? I'm sure this mentality will lead to nothing bad happening to the monetization of this game in the long run.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

Many ganes are 80€ in Europe, some even in digital format, they can fuck right off

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago

At this point I see anything above $40 as a red flag. Free games or $60 games and I'm almost guaranteed to be treated as the product instead of the other way around.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Who cares? There's 10's of thousands of high quality gaming hours across every genre already created. You don't need anything they are currently making, certainly not for years

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

I think the AAA industry is really struggling with this.

Also, improved graphical fidelity isn't really a big selling point like it was in the 2000's AAA days.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I haven't seen a single developer that thinks the current price of a game is high enough. They always cite how much it costs to make the game as the reason why they should be more expensive to buy.

And yet... Hollywood spends about the same to make a blockbuster film and movie tickets aren't $70 nor do people in the film industry say they should be higher.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

They always cite how much it costs to make the game as the reason why they should be more expensive to buy.

They’re not wrong, but the audience just isn't swallowing higher upfront prices. The only way they’re squeezing more out is with DLC, battle passes, mtx etc. which only work in specific types of games that have already saturated the market. It’s kind of an impossible situation atm.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also...like...who needs an ultra realistic videogame? Cel shading and other techniques usually age better anyways. I want games to be fun first and foremost. Eye candy is just candy without substance.

Some games like Elite Dangerous benefit from ultra realistic, but I'd hardly call that a mass market game, it's more for simming.

The Coors Light of shooters could probably be cel shaded and be just as fun in 2024 as the next release 9-12 months later. And they could save a lot of overhead costs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

The Coors Light of shooters could probably be cel shaded and be just as fun in 2024 as the next release 9-12 months later. And they could save a lot of overhead costs.

Heck, take these two screenshots as an example:

The first is XIII (Gamecube), the second is Metal of Honor: Rising Sun (PS2). Both were released in 2003. I'd definitely say XIII holds up better visually.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

Price it $499 and I'll still wait until it's on sale for less than $10.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

“Hey dude, did you try this new game?” Nope. I don’t have a six figure salary.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago

And I'm mulling over never buying any of their games.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think I bought Shadow of the Beast for almost that much in 1988 or 89. Of course, it came with a t-shirt and cool Roger Dean poster, which added some to the cost.

Point being, games certainly were this expensive for a long time, and I'd agree with them being that expensive again, but for the money going to vulture capitalists who'll soak me via DLC on top of that. And I won't get a Roger Dean poster, even.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

The more something costs the more I expect from it. Baldur's Gate 3, was $60 on release. If you want that or more from me, my personal expectation is your game is if the same quality or better.

I'm not even going to wait for a sale. Because by the time a decent sale comes around an indie developer has made a better game for cheaper, and I've already bought it, and I'm playing it. Your old, overpriced game means nothing to me. There is no shortage of entertainment and the hype for these games often dies so fast you're really not missing out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I always stick to the $1 per hour rule

I don’t want to invest 30+ hours into a game

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Basically buy any game that Tim Cain and/or Brian Fargo were involved with, and you're set.

They are older so they don't rely on expensive hardware, they are usually replayable, they've usually won a lot of awards, and they are usually very cheap.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Controversial take but having the industry fixed at $60 only will increasingly encourage predatory models as inflation continues. Price should be reflective of the quality and content of a product, not a fixed standard.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'd agree with you if studios producing actual high-quality games (like Elden Ring or Baldur's Gate 3) were hurting for money, but they don't appear to be. So what is the justification for the higher price? All I see is more money being shoveled towards investors, or used to buy (and bleed out/close) smaller studios.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

I think if a studio had more money they could improve the conditions for their emplyees. But of course the executives are just going to pocket it

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

One half of my mind wishes developers did make more money because these games are so much more effort than the games that were the same price decades ago, but the other half knows that devs don't see a dime of that hiked price.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Corpo prick says "I'm considering ~~milking~~ making more money after fucking over thousands of employees, IPs and fans".

Consumers say "So what else is fucking new? See you in the discount bin".

World continues to melt into the over-manufactured cesspit the corpo pricks force it to be.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago

Maybe your company should embrace extinction

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago

Cassette Beasts was 13 bucks on Steam the other day. Sales happen 24/7 this guy is huffing his own farts.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

This headline doubles as a punchline. Neat.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

I've played plenty of games that would be worth 100+ easily. The problem for a studio pricing something at that though is they need some way to sell me on the game. A demo, or like, first party Nintendo quality reputation. Something. No way I pay that as a default for a piece of shit, which most things released are.

load more comments
view more: next ›