Exactly. AAA is supposed to be pushing the standard forward and compete for my attention by making a better product.
If i can get an equally good or better game for less money i will obviously go for that.
Comment on AAA Dominance Is Eroding: 56% of PC Gaming Revenue Now Goes to Games Outside the Top 20
BillCheddar@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
I’d pay the $70 or even $100 for a AAA title…if it released complete, relatively bug-free, and didn’t try to soak me with microtransactions and subscriptions.
But that’s not what’s they’re selling.
SanitationStation@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
OldQWERTYbastard@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
This is whats wrong with gaming.
idiots being too eager to throw ever increasing amounts of money at companies, to get what they used to get for 50, with zero self awareness that they are the cancer thats killing everything.
early_riser@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Counterpoint: games were more expensive in the past, sometimes even before adjusting for inflation. Goldeneye was $70 new.
The problem is that back then you bought a complete game to play forever. Now you buy an unfinished mess that despite costing as much, makes it abundantly clear that the game isn’t yours through DRM and in your face micro transactions.
jj4211@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
To provide a relatively decent source: …musetechnical.com/…/1997-Sears-Christmas-Book
Around page 286. So 1997 christmas season, Starfox and Goldeneye going for $80… FFVII for $60…
N64 had the challenge that every single game was a circuitboard, so that inflated costs. Nowadays the price is for just the right to download a copy.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
i mean, its also sears, premium store premium pricing.
I bought FFVII on launch day from Best Buy for 49.99.