There shouldn’t be an arbitrary “line in the sand” for games. Just like there shouldn’t be for any other product. Because products are not all the same. Some games might take an hour to beat and others have endless replayability and it shouldn’t be expected that these all cost the same.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 20 hours ago
No, there most definitely should, there should be a line or set point for everything. A point from which onward one no longer accepts any further abuse.
Yes sure we can have discussion on where that line stands with gaming, but there most definitely should be one and that should be upheld or else we do get current climate of AAA games riddled with mtx, psychological manipulation, getting more expensive yearly, no longer any long term guarantees either, while gameplay, story and performance quality dropping as well.
Without a set point or line, corporations wil keep on pushing the boundaries every single year as we keep allowing it.
artyom@piefed.social 19 hours ago
A higher price does not mean abuse. It very well could just mean its a higher quality game with more content.
How does a low price stop that from happening? If anything it’s the opposite.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 19 hours ago
I wouldn’t really use 60$ as a low price, but that’s beside the point.
Your missing the trees for the forest. It’s not the low price, but setting a line which one does not cross.
Not having that line and constantly accepting every subsequent new mechanic to extract more profit from us has resulted in the current state of AAA gaming industry.
As i said we can discuss where that line runs, 60$ is just my own personal line, but that line, not specifically price, should exist and should not be crossed.
architect@thelemmy.club 12 hours ago
The line is shitty unfinished fucking games that force you to download the entire game when you already have the discs and nickle and dime on dlc. That lines been crossed these developers actively laugh at you now.
Quit. Fucking. Buying. Them.
artyom@piefed.social 17 hours ago
You’re talking about capping game prices at a relatively “low” price, and I think you knew what I meant.
I’m not missing anything. I’m saying setting a line makes no sense because not every game has the same amount of content.
The gaming industry pricing has been virtually unchanged since inception. If anything, it’s because consumers refuse to pay more that games suck now, because publishers rely on DLCs and relentlessly harassing consumers to buy mtx.
I don’t draw a line anywhere. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you. As I said, it’s entirely dependent on the content of the game.
If they launch Control Resonant for $100 I would pay it because it’s my favorite franchise of all time and I’ve gotten hundreds of hours of enjoyment out of it.
architect@thelemmy.club 12 hours ago
I’d pay $150 for a great finished game. They don’t make that anymore, and you can’t make anything good and sell it for $60. So I’m not sure what you people want?! You want these companies to spend 3 billion making a game, making it perfect, and charging only $60 for it. Insane. No wonder why gamers get treated like entitled complainers.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 11 hours ago
Dude, really. Therer are uncountable numbers of good indy games way below 60. So it is possible to produce good games sven below that price point.
What i want is AAA games to stop implementing predatory tactics to squeeze out as much cash from consumers as possible while making games even more expensive. Once they do that we can start discussing price again.