3 ms·

> It's hard to find a product that hasn't gotten worse or more expensive, even adjusted for inflation. Hmm. I think it's just as easy to find products that hav

> It's hard to find a product that hasn't gotten worse or more expensive, even adjusted for inflation. Hmm. I think it's just as easy to find products that haven't gotten worse or more expensive as it is to find ones that have. For every mars bar, there's a video game.

tosti 2mo ago
Video games of yore were actual games you could buy and play with friends. You had a physical copy and never had to renew a subscription, watch ads, or pay anything extra to unlock content. Most games didn't even have a separate launcher. Just run it and play. Updates, when they existed, were small. And no lootboxes, no gambling. They had hidden maps or levels, so it actually was fun to play the same game repeatedly. I can't fathom why you'd pick video games as your example ffs.
- smolder 2mo ago
  The smart tv formula gets applied everywhere. Make it cheaper by making more money through annoying/spying on customers.
- oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
  > Video games of yore were actual games you could buy and play with friends. You had a physical copy and never had to renew a subscription, watch ads, or pay anything extra to unlock content. Most games didn't even have a separate launcher. Just run it and play. Updates, when they existed, were small. That describes at least 90% of the games I play today. I should have gone with any electrical item, tbh; that would probably have flown here without any dissent. But video games that are nowadays almost always one or two orders of magnitude 'better value' while being approximately half the price they were back in the nineties are still a legitimate example, I think.
- anticrymactic 2mo ago
  > Video games of yore were actual games you could buy and play with friends. While this is _true_, it's hardly a good-faith interpretation. The original Mario Bros was around $40 on release. Mostly sold as a bundle with the NES itself around $100. That's $350 in today's money. Oddly around the same as the switch 1 on release ($299) + BOTW ($60) Compare the "value" of NES + Mario Bros with Switch 1 + Breath of the Wild. Yes Nintendo can take one of those away from you, that's despicable, but the "product" has shrunk in no way.
  - tosti 2mo ago
    Cherry picking isn't good faith.
georgemcbay 2mo ago
> For every mars bar, there's a video game. The economics of software (including video games) are entirely different than candy bars or burgers as the marginal cost of each "unit" is effectively zero.
- oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
  Fair enough; pretend I said "a computer" instead.
  - georgemcbay 2mo ago
    > Fair enough; pretend I said "a computer" instead. That's a better example, though the "continually better, faster & cheaper" days for computers (and consumer electronics broadly) have recently been heavily disrupted by the current AI rush. Guess we'll find out how temporary or permanent this is.
xingped 2mo ago
I think the implication is specifically for physical products. Video games aren't standardized sizes or materials and you don't somehow download 20% less content today than you did downloading the same game 5 or 10 years ago. (Ignoring some obvious outliers like games/content pulled due to licensing expirations - which are really stupid.)
- bluefirebrand 2mo ago
  > Video games aren't standardized sizes or materials and you don't somehow download 20% less content today than you did downloading the same game 5 or 10 years ago 20 years ago you bought a disk and the entire game was on there. 10 years ago you bought a disk and you have a massive day 1 patch to get the rest of the game. Today you buy a physical box with no actual disk in it, only a download code! I'm exaggerating a little bit about today's situation but not by much...
  - xingped 2mo ago
    That's not the same and that's what I'm trying to point out. A Mars bar is still a Mars bar. If you're paying more and/or getting less than you did X number of years ago, that is a simple apples to apples comparison. Since games are all, by nature, different, any comparison is apples to oranges. You can talk about specific features such as the existence of battle passes, microtransactions, loot boxes, etc., but every game's implementation is different. If I pay $10 for a game and play it for 400hrs and pay $40 for another game and only play it for 50hrs, is one necessarily worse or better than the other by that metric? For example, I've played Outer Wilds significantly less than many other games that I've enjoyed far less, but I would still rank Outer Wilds as one of my all-time top favorite games. However that's very subjective to my experience. Others would disagree. The point is, video games is a very bad point of comparison here and very obviously not the kind of product the OP is referring to.
    - wolvoleo 2mo ago
      A mars bar is probably not the same thing it was in 1986 either. Recipes get tweaked constantly to reduce ingredient cost (and usually marked with "new and improved recipe!!" Lol
AshamedBadger56 2mo ago
Video games are honestly a pretty bad example. 10-20 years ago, you'd buy your video game, and it was a complete item, that you owned and could play for as long as you didn't damage it. Once you were done with it, you could lend it to friends, or sell it and recoup a decent chunk of money for the next game you wanted. Now with everything digital only, you don't even own your games, your ability to play it is at the whims of mega-corporations. You can't resell it to recoup money, or lend it to a friend. Most games start on day 1 as essentially a beta, with tons of huge updates required to get them in a decent state, loot boxes, microtransactions, live service games taking over the entire market share, RAMmagedden driving up console prices post-launch, etc etc etc etc. They are definitely prettier now and have fancy lighting effects though.
- oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
  > Video games are honestly a pretty bad example. 10-20 years ago, you'd buy your video game, and it was a complete item, that you owned and could play for as long as you didn't damage it. Once you were done with it, you could lend it to friends, or sell it and recoup a decent chunk of money for the next game you wanted. As I said to another commenter, that applies to many of the games I buy today. OK, not quite all since I do buy some titles digitally, but that is my choice. > They are definitely prettier now and have fancy lighting effects though. And are much better in terms of accessibility, quality-of-life in general, scope, etc.
- joegibbs 2mo ago
  There are a ton more games now, you could easily get one with similar graphics/gameplay to a 2006 game for much cheaper.
  - account42 2mo ago
    No you can't. Big studios don't make games with 2006 graphics and indies don't make the games you could get in 2006 except for the smaller scale ones. Of course games are a cop out when discussing inflation in the first place because they have zero marginal cost to produce and the market has massively expanded - if their prices had kept up with inflation something would be VERY wrong.
Xirdus 2mo ago
Subjectively, video games did get both worse and more expensive over the last 20 years. But putting that aside, the ratio isn't 1:1. I'd expect the ratio to be at least 20:1 - you can name at most 1 thing that got better/cheaper for every 20 things that got worse/more expensive.
- oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
  I'd like to see your evidence for video games getting more expensive. Even if they were like-for-like (I'll make a case that the average video game is a far better product now than it was in the 90s), they are approximately the same absolute price today that they were 30-40 years ago, without adjusting for inflation.
  - bluefirebrand 2mo ago
    > they are approximately the same absolute price today that they were 30-40 years ago, without adjusting for inflation. You used to get a lot of stuff in a game box that wasn't just the game though. Manuals were often very detailed, arguably works of art in their own right. Also the cost of producing and shipping games is way lower online than it was for physical copies. Companies all used to have to develop their own engines and tooling to build games, that cost is mostly just gone with Unity and Unreal now. Last and definitely not least, there's way more competition in the gaming industry now, and that tends to drive prices down.
  - cogman10 2mo ago
    > Even if they were like-for-like That's the thing, the style of game release of the 90s is all but dead. Sure you can still find indy studios releasing in a 90s style, but you can't find the big players doing that. Now a lot of the big name games have switched to either a freemium model or a pay to play model. You don't simply buy a game like Overwatch, you have to get a battle pass to keep playing. And you don't ultimately own overwatch, once blizzard is done with it, the game is over and you can no longer play it. Then there's the fact that to be competitive, these games often sell items and loot boxes. If you want to not always die, you end up needing to buy these perks. That is a worst experience designed to milk money out of players as much as possible, more than what you'd be paying adjusted for inflation. The entire genre of FPS is like this now. Unless you play the old games, you basically cannot get the old experience of setting up a server, maybe letting it be open to the public, and just playing a game with friends. Instead is a bunch of random dumb shit that you have to deal with.
adamrezich 2mo ago
What alternate reality are you living in where the video games industry isn't a charred husk of what it was, just over a decade and a half ago? What's it like to live in a world where competent AAA studios are still plentiful, and the legacy studios successfully passed down knowledge and ethos to new hires, so as to avoid becoming skinsuit versions of their past selves? How is it, living in a world where several AAA blockbuster games are still being released annually, with none of them being remakes of decade-plus-old titles? Is there any wisdom in how your reality's AAA video game industry kept the stride they built up to in the 2000s, into the 2010s, that you could share with us, so we can hopefully rebuild the smoldering crater of a AAA video game industry we have in our reality?
- oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
  > What alternate reality are you living in where the video games industry isn't a charred husk of what it was, a decade and a half ago? A world that contains Breath of the Wild, Blue Prince, Balatro, Mario Kart World, (you get the point—there are lots of good games).
  - adamrezich 2mo ago
    Two of those are Nintendo first-party games—and one of them was released nine years ago. Is “the AAA video game industry” just Nintendo, to you?
    - oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
      Nine years ago, precisely because you said: > a decade and a half ago? For me personally, the AAA game industry is entirely Nintendo, yes. Half the games I mentioned are cross-platform, though; I know they're not 'AAA', but I don't think this discussion needs to be limited purely to AAAs. And, as I mentioned, there are plenty more games that I could have included.
      - adamrezich 2mo ago
        > For me personally, the AAA game industry is entirely Nintendo, yes. There's nothing wrong with being a fan of one company, but pretending that going from a world where there were many high-quality AAA video games released each year from many different studios to what we have today, just because Nintendo is doing alright and you like Nintendo—when the topic at hand is specifically “the video games industry” as a whole—is simply asinine. AAA studios were once the force driving technology and game design forward, regularly starting fresh new IPs that would go on to become cherished by fans. That simply does not happen anymore. What was the last fresh new Nintendo IP that went on to become a beloved recurring success—Splatoon (eleven years ago)? Nintendo deserves plenty of credit for actively working against stagnation more than literally everyone else, but they are completely peerless in this regard. Everyone else ended up falling into a death spiral of churning out remakes and/or being absorbed into Microsoft and then stagnating until death. There is no longer a vibrant industry full of technical innovation and a genuine eye toward craftsmanship, quality, and generally making new fun things to play. The indie game scene picked up some of the slack on the innovation front, to great success, yet almost none of the successful indie studios (off the top of my head, Facepunch is the only exception I can think of) have transmuted said success into building a studio with a culture focused on exploring the frontier of the medium. Hell, half of the big indie successes these days make their millions in Early Access, predicated upon the implied promise that their Early Access success will permit them to substantially build out the game beyond their Early Access offering, only to completely and utterly fail to do so in the end. Anyone who thinks the video games industry is in a good place in 2026 is completely delusional and/or simply ignoring relatively recent history and pretending that things have always been as dire as they are today. Also Mario Kart World was eighty bucks at launch dude (I had to look it up to be sure, but, yeah—I totally paid eighty US dollars for that game), and it's still selling for eighty bucks today, so, your entire position in this discussion is completely invalid on its face.
fl4regun 2mo ago
TV's for one, have become insanely cheap. You can get 4k TVs for like, nothing, especially after inflation adjustments from the 2010s. Bigger panels, brighter screens, too bad we started shoving stupid and annoying OSes and Ads in them.
- bluescrn 2mo ago
  TV quality isn't what it used to be, though. Got a fairly expensive LG OLED and after 5 years it's developing clusters of dead pixels down one edge. And even if the hardware doesn't fail/degrade, the software is often enshittified (ads pushed to smart TVs)
  - servo_sausage 2mo ago
    OLEDs are an odd example... Their warranties are generally just as good, and the lifespan due to burn in is still improving.
insane_dreamer 2mo ago
show me a modern video game that is better than Myst or Riven (in the same genre) I even prefer the original CS over most of today's FPS games.
- ChickeNES 2mo ago
  I'd rather play Candy Crush than Myst, Myst was boring as fuck.
  - em-bee 2mo ago
    i loved myst online, the multiplayer version. it's still going actually. game preferences vary.
    - ChickeNES 2mo ago
      > game preferences vary. True! But for me Myst was one of those super-hyped-up titles that failed to live up to its reputation. And I'm not a youngun, I started on NES/SNES! I'm not convinced GP isn't relying more on nostalgia than a real sampling of current titles.
      - insane_dreamer 2mo ago
        fair point -- graybeard here (without the beard :)) I did stop gaming ~15 years ago, but I have tried to find good games for my (now teenage) kids, so I have tried to research new games even if I haven't played them myself. I haven't found anything on the level of Myst/Riven/Exile. You know what else they don't make anymore? Good split/screen coop games, like Splinter Cell. Everything is online multiplayer, but no more being able to sit on a couch and play together (other than Nintendo games, racing games). Same for good ol' LAN games. And sure, it's convenient to just game from home, but there's nothing like everyone lugging their boxes over to your place and setting them up on the dining room table for a pizza-fueled all nighter :)
  - insane_dreamer 2mo ago
    ok, that's just mean :)
bluescrn 2mo ago
Retro gaming is rising in popularity for good reasons. And it's not purely nostalgia. A lot of people aren't enjoying modern games (with modern monetization)
- account42 2mo ago
  It's not just monetization. Modern games are a mass market product with all the fun parts shaved off.

tosti 2mo ago

Video games of yore were actual games you could buy and play with friends. You had a physical copy and never had to renew a subscription, watch ads, or pay anything extra to unlock content. Most games didn't even have a separate launcher. Just run it and play. Updates, when they existed, were small. And no lootboxes, no gambling. They had hidden maps or levels, so it actually was fun to play the same game repeatedly. I can't fathom why you'd pick video games as your example ffs.

smolder 2mo ago
The smart tv formula gets applied everywhere. Make it cheaper by making more money through annoying/spying on customers.
oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
> Video games of yore were actual games you could buy and play with friends. You had a physical copy and never had to renew a subscription, watch ads, or pay anything extra to unlock content. Most games didn't even have a separate launcher. Just run it and play. Updates, when they existed, were small. That describes at least 90% of the games I play today. I should have gone with any electrical item, tbh; that would probably have flown here without any dissent. But video games that are nowadays almost always one or two orders of magnitude 'better value' while being approximately half the price they were back in the nineties are still a legitimate example, I think.
anticrymactic 2mo ago
> Video games of yore were actual games you could buy and play with friends. While this is _true_, it's hardly a good-faith interpretation. The original Mario Bros was around $40 on release. Mostly sold as a bundle with the NES itself around $100. That's $350 in today's money. Oddly around the same as the switch 1 on release ($299) + BOTW ($60) Compare the "value" of NES + Mario Bros with Switch 1 + Breath of the Wild. Yes Nintendo can take one of those away from you, that's despicable, but the "product" has shrunk in no way.
- tosti 2mo ago
  Cherry picking isn't good faith.

georgemcbay 2mo ago

> For every mars bar, there's a video game. The economics of software (including video games) are entirely different than candy bars or burgers as the marginal cost of each "unit" is effectively zero.

oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
Fair enough; pretend I said "a computer" instead.
- georgemcbay 2mo ago
  > Fair enough; pretend I said "a computer" instead. That's a better example, though the "continually better, faster & cheaper" days for computers (and consumer electronics broadly) have recently been heavily disrupted by the current AI rush. Guess we'll find out how temporary or permanent this is.

xingped 2mo ago

I think the implication is specifically for physical products. Video games aren't standardized sizes or materials and you don't somehow download 20% less content today than you did downloading the same game 5 or 10 years ago. (Ignoring some obvious outliers like games/content pulled due to licensing expirations - which are really stupid.)

bluefirebrand 2mo ago
> Video games aren't standardized sizes or materials and you don't somehow download 20% less content today than you did downloading the same game 5 or 10 years ago 20 years ago you bought a disk and the entire game was on there. 10 years ago you bought a disk and you have a massive day 1 patch to get the rest of the game. Today you buy a physical box with no actual disk in it, only a download code! I'm exaggerating a little bit about today's situation but not by much...
- xingped 2mo ago
  That's not the same and that's what I'm trying to point out. A Mars bar is still a Mars bar. If you're paying more and/or getting less than you did X number of years ago, that is a simple apples to apples comparison. Since games are all, by nature, different, any comparison is apples to oranges. You can talk about specific features such as the existence of battle passes, microtransactions, loot boxes, etc., but every game's implementation is different. If I pay $10 for a game and play it for 400hrs and pay $40 for another game and only play it for 50hrs, is one necessarily worse or better than the other by that metric? For example, I've played Outer Wilds significantly less than many other games that I've enjoyed far less, but I would still rank Outer Wilds as one of my all-time top favorite games. However that's very subjective to my experience. Others would disagree. The point is, video games is a very bad point of comparison here and very obviously not the kind of product the OP is referring to.
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    A mars bar is probably not the same thing it was in 1986 either. Recipes get tweaked constantly to reduce ingredient cost (and usually marked with "new and improved recipe!!" Lol

AshamedBadger56 2mo ago

Video games are honestly a pretty bad example. 10-20 years ago, you'd buy your video game, and it was a complete item, that you owned and could play for as long as you didn't damage it. Once you were done with it, you could lend it to friends, or sell it and recoup a decent chunk of money for the next game you wanted. Now with everything digital only, you don't even own your games, your ability to play it is at the whims of mega-corporations. You can't resell it to recoup money, or lend it to a friend. Most games start on day 1 as essentially a beta, with tons of huge updates required to get them in a decent state, loot boxes, microtransactions, live service games taking over the entire market share, RAMmagedden driving up console prices post-launch, etc etc etc etc. They are definitely prettier now and have fancy lighting effects though.

oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
> Video games are honestly a pretty bad example. 10-20 years ago, you'd buy your video game, and it was a complete item, that you owned and could play for as long as you didn't damage it. Once you were done with it, you could lend it to friends, or sell it and recoup a decent chunk of money for the next game you wanted. As I said to another commenter, that applies to many of the games I buy today. OK, not quite all since I do buy some titles digitally, but that is my choice. > They are definitely prettier now and have fancy lighting effects though. And are much better in terms of accessibility, quality-of-life in general, scope, etc.
joegibbs 2mo ago
There are a ton more games now, you could easily get one with similar graphics/gameplay to a 2006 game for much cheaper.
- account42 2mo ago
  No you can't. Big studios don't make games with 2006 graphics and indies don't make the games you could get in 2006 except for the smaller scale ones. Of course games are a cop out when discussing inflation in the first place because they have zero marginal cost to produce and the market has massively expanded - if their prices had kept up with inflation something would be VERY wrong.

Xirdus 2mo ago

Subjectively, video games did get both worse and more expensive over the last 20 years. But putting that aside, the ratio isn't 1:1. I'd expect the ratio to be at least 20:1 - you can name at most 1 thing that got better/cheaper for every 20 things that got worse/more expensive.

oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
I'd like to see your evidence for video games getting more expensive. Even if they were like-for-like (I'll make a case that the average video game is a far better product now than it was in the 90s), they are approximately the same absolute price today that they were 30-40 years ago, without adjusting for inflation.
- bluefirebrand 2mo ago
  > they are approximately the same absolute price today that they were 30-40 years ago, without adjusting for inflation. You used to get a lot of stuff in a game box that wasn't just the game though. Manuals were often very detailed, arguably works of art in their own right. Also the cost of producing and shipping games is way lower online than it was for physical copies. Companies all used to have to develop their own engines and tooling to build games, that cost is mostly just gone with Unity and Unreal now. Last and definitely not least, there's way more competition in the gaming industry now, and that tends to drive prices down.
- cogman10 2mo ago
  > Even if they were like-for-like That's the thing, the style of game release of the 90s is all but dead. Sure you can still find indy studios releasing in a 90s style, but you can't find the big players doing that. Now a lot of the big name games have switched to either a freemium model or a pay to play model. You don't simply buy a game like Overwatch, you have to get a battle pass to keep playing. And you don't ultimately own overwatch, once blizzard is done with it, the game is over and you can no longer play it. Then there's the fact that to be competitive, these games often sell items and loot boxes. If you want to not always die, you end up needing to buy these perks. That is a worst experience designed to milk money out of players as much as possible, more than what you'd be paying adjusted for inflation. The entire genre of FPS is like this now. Unless you play the old games, you basically cannot get the old experience of setting up a server, maybe letting it be open to the public, and just playing a game with friends. Instead is a bunch of random dumb shit that you have to deal with.

adamrezich 2mo ago

What alternate reality are you living in where the video games industry isn't a charred husk of what it was, just over a decade and a half ago? What's it like to live in a world where competent AAA studios are still plentiful, and the legacy studios successfully passed down knowledge and ethos to new hires, so as to avoid becoming skinsuit versions of their past selves? How is it, living in a world where several AAA blockbuster games are still being released annually, with none of them being remakes of decade-plus-old titles? Is there any wisdom in how your reality's AAA video game industry kept the stride they built up to in the 2000s, into the 2010s, that you could share with us, so we can hopefully rebuild the smoldering crater of a AAA video game industry we have in our reality?

oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
> What alternate reality are you living in where the video games industry isn't a charred husk of what it was, a decade and a half ago? A world that contains Breath of the Wild, Blue Prince, Balatro, Mario Kart World, (you get the point—there are lots of good games).
- adamrezich 2mo ago
  Two of those are Nintendo first-party games—and one of them was released nine years ago. Is “the AAA video game industry” just Nintendo, to you?
  - oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
    Nine years ago, precisely because you said: > a decade and a half ago? For me personally, the AAA game industry is entirely Nintendo, yes. Half the games I mentioned are cross-platform, though; I know they're not 'AAA', but I don't think this discussion needs to be limited purely to AAAs. And, as I mentioned, there are plenty more games that I could have included.
    - adamrezich 2mo ago
      > For me personally, the AAA game industry is entirely Nintendo, yes. There's nothing wrong with being a fan of one company, but pretending that going from a world where there were many high-quality AAA video games released each year from many different studios to what we have today, just because Nintendo is doing alright and you like Nintendo—when the topic at hand is specifically “the video games industry” as a whole—is simply asinine. AAA studios were once the force driving technology and game design forward, regularly starting fresh new IPs that would go on to become cherished by fans. That simply does not happen anymore. What was the last fresh new Nintendo IP that went on to become a beloved recurring success—Splatoon (eleven years ago)? Nintendo deserves plenty of credit for actively working against stagnation more than literally everyone else, but they are completely peerless in this regard. Everyone else ended up falling into a death spiral of churning out remakes and/or being absorbed into Microsoft and then stagnating until death. There is no longer a vibrant industry full of technical innovation and a genuine eye toward craftsmanship, quality, and generally making new fun things to play. The indie game scene picked up some of the slack on the innovation front, to great success, yet almost none of the successful indie studios (off the top of my head, Facepunch is the only exception I can think of) have transmuted said success into building a studio with a culture focused on exploring the frontier of the medium. Hell, half of the big indie successes these days make their millions in Early Access, predicated upon the implied promise that their Early Access success will permit them to substantially build out the game beyond their Early Access offering, only to completely and utterly fail to do so in the end. Anyone who thinks the video games industry is in a good place in 2026 is completely delusional and/or simply ignoring relatively recent history and pretending that things have always been as dire as they are today. Also Mario Kart World was eighty bucks at launch dude (I had to look it up to be sure, but, yeah—I totally paid eighty US dollars for that game), and it's still selling for eighty bucks today, so, your entire position in this discussion is completely invalid on its face.

fl4regun 2mo ago

TV's for one, have become insanely cheap. You can get 4k TVs for like, nothing, especially after inflation adjustments from the 2010s. Bigger panels, brighter screens, too bad we started shoving stupid and annoying OSes and Ads in them.

bluescrn 2mo ago
TV quality isn't what it used to be, though. Got a fairly expensive LG OLED and after 5 years it's developing clusters of dead pixels down one edge. And even if the hardware doesn't fail/degrade, the software is often enshittified (ads pushed to smart TVs)
- servo_sausage 2mo ago
  OLEDs are an odd example... Their warranties are generally just as good, and the lifespan due to burn in is still improving.

insane_dreamer 2mo ago

show me a modern video game that is better than Myst or Riven (in the same genre) I even prefer the original CS over most of today's FPS games.

ChickeNES 2mo ago
I'd rather play Candy Crush than Myst, Myst was boring as fuck.
- em-bee 2mo ago
  i loved myst online, the multiplayer version. it's still going actually. game preferences vary.
  - ChickeNES 2mo ago
    > game preferences vary. True! But for me Myst was one of those super-hyped-up titles that failed to live up to its reputation. And I'm not a youngun, I started on NES/SNES! I'm not convinced GP isn't relying more on nostalgia than a real sampling of current titles.
    - insane_dreamer 2mo ago
      fair point -- graybeard here (without the beard :)) I did stop gaming ~15 years ago, but I have tried to find good games for my (now teenage) kids, so I have tried to research new games even if I haven't played them myself. I haven't found anything on the level of Myst/Riven/Exile. You know what else they don't make anymore? Good split/screen coop games, like Splinter Cell. Everything is online multiplayer, but no more being able to sit on a couch and play together (other than Nintendo games, racing games). Same for good ol' LAN games. And sure, it's convenient to just game from home, but there's nothing like everyone lugging their boxes over to your place and setting them up on the dining room table for a pizza-fueled all nighter :)
- insane_dreamer 2mo ago
  ok, that's just mean :)

bluescrn 2mo ago

Retro gaming is rising in popularity for good reasons. And it's not purely nostalgia. A lot of people aren't enjoying modern games (with modern monetization)

account42 2mo ago
It's not just monetization. Modern games are a mass market product with all the fun parts shaved off.