this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
116 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

10620 readers
757 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, within reason.
  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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 108 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I mean, let them try? I, for one, basically stopped buying new games (with the occasional exception for an indie dev). By the time the worst bugs are fixed, it'll be on sale for 50% off anyway.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, I don't see any reason to buy (or pre buy!) any game at all. At launch you're paying double for a beta version basically. Like you said, wait for the actual game to be released a few months later at a good price.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yup. If it says $60 or more that's just beta pricing.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hey, Pokemon never goes down in price and is that much!

...Wait that just supports your argument

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Did Game Freak ever bother fixing the performance issues of Scarlet/Violet?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Sounds about right...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Good call mentioning pre-orders as well. I never did it back in the age of physical media, but there was at least a reason for it then. Now the only reason to do it is to get some bonus skins or other garbage with your buggy game.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago

My backlog contains way too many games, and most of the games I really want day 1 are produced by indie devs.

Embracer won't see me buying a game at full price, $70 or more.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 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] 15 points 10 months ago

Who do they think they are? An AAAA publisher? Only Ubisoft has that dubious claim.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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] 12 points 10 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] 11 points 10 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] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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] 3 points 10 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I always stick to the $1 per hour rule

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 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] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Do it. If people want to pay high prices for brand new video games, let them pay it. I'll just do what I've always done; wait for a sale.

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

Bitch please. I ain't buyin nothin till it's on sale 60% off on steam.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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] 7 points 10 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 10 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 10 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] 6 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

This headline doubles as a punchline. Neat.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.