Yeah I really hate how gamer culture has changed. It’s non stop bitching. Yeah there can be bugs in games, it happens. Lmao you telling me there were no bugs in the games I bought on disk twenty years ago and there was no infrastructure to digitally update them? I’ve got boxes of old pc games that I can use to prove this is just something that happens.

People act like there are nothing but bad releases anymore but 23/24 have had phenomenal titles. I’d say this is a great time for the industry as long as you’re not stupid enough to buy micro transactions and $150 collectors editions Lmao

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Twenty years ago games didn't cost over £100 sometimes and weren't full of micro transactions to suck more money out of you

[–] shiroininja@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I’ve never paid full price for a game. Not in a very long time. And I don’t buy transactions. 🤷

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Depends on the game for me, if it's indie I'll pay full price, helped by the fact indie games tend to be cheaper

[–] shiroininja@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Yeah I guess I should revise my statement. I haven’t paid the full 60-70 price for AAA game in a very long time.

Indie games seem to be priced more fairly, most of the ones I’ve bought tend to be 20-25 dollars.

And I’ve never bought any kind of special edition, unless it’s an older game and it comes with all the dlc bundled, like oblivion GOTY edition or something.

But I’m also a /r/patientgamer so I don’t really see a reason to buy something just because it’s new and shiny, unless it’s some kind of multiplayer. But most of them have become such a quick burn where the player base drops after a year when the hype train moves to the next stop, I don’t really see the point in buying them

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

What game has released for 100 pounds? In the States I can't remember anything over $70, unless you're looking for special collector's editions. Which is more than just a game and not really a fair comparison.

And also games absolutely used to be more expensive. On the N64, Killer Instinct and Turok both released at $80 in the US nearly 20 years ago. That's about $155 today. Virtua Racing was $100 in 1994- that's $210 dollars today.

Gaming's very roots are micro transactions: arcades. They were designed to suck quarters out of children's pockets. Then with home consoles it was the rental market: games like the Lion King and Battle Toads are famous for being reasonable experiences for the first couple of levels, then adding a ridiculous difficulty increase to prevent people from beating it in a single weekend and trying to get them to rent the game for longer.

What we call DLC today used to be called an expansion, and was seen as a consumer-friendly cost savings mechanism. The studio got to save money by re-using a lot of development from the base game, and that savings was passed along to the consumers who already purchased the base game. No one complained about the Roller Coaster Tycoon expansions.

That doesn't excuse micro transactions, but to say that wasn't happening 20 years ago is just plain wrong. Plus this post is specifically talking about Bethesda games like Skyrim and Fallout 4. Skyrim definitively does not have micro transactions, and Fallout 4 I would argue does not, though I'll admit some of the smaller and cheaper DLC's are blurring the line.

And that's if you buy everything at full price on launch day. People who wait a month or two can often get a decent 10-20% off these days. If you wait a year or two you can get DLC's included for the same price. Right now Fallout 4 with all of the DLC is on sale for $10 on steam. Skyrim has different versions that have gone on sale for $5 at points, and is routinely under $20. So at this point I consider the launch prices to be adding in a heavy premium for impatience.