Comment on [deleted]
yote_zip@pawb.social 1 year ago
I know this is the ‘patient gamers’ community, but I genuinely don’t see any other way to play games nowadays. Why would I spend $60-70 on a game that barely works and has more content coming later? I don’t see how the gaming industry even survives when it keeps reinforcing the idea that we shouldn’t buy games at launch. Is $20 just the regular sustainable price for games to a game company, and the people spending $60-70 are the overpaying suckers?
I don’t see how the gaming industry even survives when it keeps reinforcing the idea that we shouldn’t buy games at launch.
Because there are more than enough people paying full price for the game before it even comes out. It’s not like people who pay $20 a year or two later are the majority of sales.
Because most games do work at launch and the initial sales are what drives development and more games. If it fails at launch, it didn't matter how many folks buy it at $20, it's not getting a sequel.
And what do you even mean by "sustainable" in this context? Obviously it's sustainable at the other price as well, otherwise they'd stop doing it. I mean, let's be glad most developers aren't like Nintendo at least.
rotmulaaginskyrim@programming.dev 1 year ago
I was thinking about it the other day and have similar thoughts / questions. In the age of gamepass / lots of indie titles / backward compatibility, I don’t see how a high priced game with bugs and/or incompleteness is still viable.
I was able to wait on Hogwarts Legacy and Jedi survivor, while I played Gris, Bramble, and Batman Arkham Knight.