this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
145 points (98.7% liked)

Games

32168 readers
1321 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I'd argue that part of the problem is, gamer culture has approached everything in the industry from a vein of negativity. "Don't buy this", "Pirate this", "XPublisher is damn evil". Certainly many of those accusations and rejections are valid, but there is now far, far more attention on what sucks than what's good. A developer puts out an awesome singleplayer game they spent 7 years making, and we'll give them $60 but...not much more than that. We'll probably even complain if, due to high budgets, it comes out at $70. Meanwhile, the rest of the world that's curious about entertainment doesn't care much about 30 "Don't" rules and just buys whatever seems interesting when they're bored - because they got their paycheck and want something.

It's reasonable a developer is always finding new ways they can pay their staff. I'd even say many singleplayer games we love were NOT the money-makers we wish they were. Granted, quite often now those $60 are going into paying into shareholders and executive bonuses, and I think that's another valid thing to be negative towards, but once again: If this was an important point to gamers, we could champion studios that grant paid time off and lower their CEO bonuses.

And I'll even go one further: If a common thread is "Studios ask too much of our money for the full game"...we could even turn our attention to minimum wage laws. We certainly should be.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 12 hours ago

I think the takeaway here is that these things are not important to gamers. a few of us complain about it online, but clearly we are outnumbered in the market.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

BG3 received a lot of possitivity for releasing a massive game for half the price of starfield. But it seems apparent that negative reactions are stronger than possitive ones for most of us.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

bg3? baldurs gate 3? that was 70 bucks and not on game pass on release so it was way more expensive than starfield

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Dude where I live BG3 is $40 and starfield 75 ($100 with the 'expansion')(steam). At least on pc. What's your situation?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

BG3 has been 70 dollars since release, unless i missed a sale. meanwhile starfield was on game pass on release which is like 20 bucks a month, so if you play starfield for 1 month then cancel you had essentially paid just 20 dollars for it. im on xbox though, not steam, so that may be why ours are so different

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Damn that's quite the difference, those where the standard prices on pc, not sale. $70 is a lot.