Comment

Comment on Players Have Too Many Options to Spend $80 on a Video Game

$50-60 based on what? Adjusted for inflation in 1982, it’s more like $33. 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

source

Sort:hotnew top

rumba@lemmy.zip ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
The $10 games were trash in 1982. You’re going to spend 30 on something like Q-bert polygon.com/…/atari-et-ads-commercials-videos-198…

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?

source
- wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source