On the flip side, back in the day, a lot of people bought a lot of crappy games based on nothing more than what the cover art on the box showed. The only source of info was video game magazines, and that applied only to new releases and only certain games.

Now upon release you can look up dozens of detailed reviews, even video reviews. You can watch full play through a on YouTube. You can ask for opinions in social media.

The amount of information you have to figure out if this game is for you is insane compared to before.

[–] Funwayguy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Depends really. Nowadays publishers push out fake CGI marketing trailers and paid reviews to premptively muddy those information sources long before release. Same goes for social media (not that they were ever reliably accurate or objective anyway). There are even promises of DLC roadmaps that never materialise such as the OW2 story mode.

By the time actual independent reviewers have their embargoes lifted, the preorder sales window has closed and it wouldn't make much difference to those who already sunk money into the game. Those waiting in vain for DLC and patches are merely sacrificing their refund window.

[–] phario@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That’s true. I understand.

I’m also not a fan of the DLC and change to video game design based on such payouts.

But even then, even with fake reviews, young gamers are completely spoiled with information compared to the black hole that existed in the 80s and 90s. I’m not sure how people argue otherwise.

The fact that I can go on my phone, jump on YouTube, and watch a play through is incredible. When I was young, I had to make decisions based on what the box art looked like ffs.