4 ms·

I would have no problem with that if you paid a sum and got the full game. However the situation we have today is that you pay $60 for what is essentially 10% o

I would have no problem with that if you paid a sum and got the full game. However the situation we have today is that you pay $60 for what is essentially 10% of the actual game and is constantly milked for the rest of it. The scenario you're presented is how this situation worked in the past, but today the industry has changed into something else entirely.

phendrenad2 4y ago
Okay, which of the top 10 best-selling games of 2022 are 10% of an actual game? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1285658/top-ranked-video-games-sales-annual/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1285658/top-ranked-video...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
llanowarelves 4y ago
Yeah I get the frustrations gamers have around buggy "we'll patch it later" releases, And sure some level of things like lootboxes can become predatory (I don't believe they are in an of themselves: they are like crane games for toys). Especially for kids, when dollars are like 10x-100x more expensive compared to a working adult. But DLC->IAP/ads->live service is tempting to de-risk. Sure some behemoth publishers get greedy with it and shove it in games that have no business having those features in there. I just don't see those in and of itself as greedy. To be fair to the other side of the argument, Hollywood has a similar problem, and have kept prices flat. Though big budget things have to be de-risked in the form of predictable-earning superhero movies (which can be used to fund riskier projects, but don't have to be). I just don't like games becoming too much like Hollywood, dependent on huge brands and celebrities to guarantee enough sales. The budgets and expected quality moat are already approaching it