Video Game Chat Thread - Pre-Alpha Experimental Version

[EmpGulcasa]

If you are like me you get to a point where you have enough of a backlog that you arent buying something unless its at an extreme deep discount and even then probably only if you want to play it immediately.

Then you have stubborn stuff that just wont seem to drop beyond a certain price point. It's almost 3 years, will Armored Core 6 ever drop below 29.99?

Want to talk stubborn? Rimworld has like never gone on more than a very, very slight sale and that game is 13 years old.

 

[I Know 孤独のせい]

I feel like indie meme games that were big a few years ago still shouldn't be $10.

It's become quite common to devalue your game just to keep up with the aggressive pricing that's commonplace today. I don't really want to blame publishers/developers especially in the indie sphere if they want or need to maintain a certain price. But at the same time a lot of games seem to be frozen in place within a certain price range. So it is a bit strange.

If you are like me you get to a point where you have enough of a backlog that you arent buying something unless its at an extreme deep discount and even then probably only if you want to play it immediately.

Then you have stubborn stuff that just wont seem to drop beyond a certain price point. It's almost 3 years, will Armored Core 6 ever drop below 29.99?

I also in general stared to only consider games that have been on the market for at least 1–2 years. Patches and DLC will come out, and the price will also often drop so no point in buying it unless as you said I want to play it immediately. But stubborn seems to be the new way of doing things in terms of pricing.

They're not lackluster, you've just already bought all of the games you were interested in.

To be fair I have quite the substantial amount of games on Steam, but my Wishlist is also massive. Especially indies take up a lot of entries, there is always something interesting coming out. So you are right to some degree but not entirely. Not to mention that Steam and most third party resellers and publishers/developers were much more willing do to deeper discounts years ago.

I think he means how they're not as good as they used to be.

Yes and I don't only mean the mythical early 2010s were Steam and co were basically begging you to buy stuff with how cheap it was.

Want to talk stubborn? Rimworld has like never gone on more than a very, very slight sale and that game is 13 years old.

Fanatical is the best way to go about Rimworld even though it is certainly not the biggest discount. Epic games had a steep discount couple of years ago. But I think this is maybe similar to Factorio where the price won't budge too much or at all. Which for an indie game is okay I think especially since those two are massive time sinks, so dollar per hour is great.

 

[broners]

For anyone who likes fighting games, there is currently an Arc System Works bundle that's a very good value at $20.

 

[indigoisviolet]

Foundation is one of those over-ambitious games to the point of wrecking its own premise. It's also one of those games you dearly wish to be better than it is.

On the surface, the game is a chill medieval town-building sim, and if you play on creative mode, sure, it's fun enough. Yet in order to introduce elements of challenge to proceedings the game unwittingly railroads the player into building one way and only one way. Once you work out you will be sorely punished if you deviate even slightly from the expected order of things, there isn't a game per se.

To fix the game as is, you'd have to strip out all of the interlinking rigidity and start again with how the stats interact with each other, this time compartmentalizing player goals so they stand alone and can be tackled as we please. And for fucks sake, stop putting progression/tech trees into games that don't need them.

Should have gone all-in on the "just build a pretty little screensaver town and watch the sheep run away from the shepherds". It's possibly worth a torrent for the coherent aesthetics alone, but you'll encounter the limitations it imposes trying to be a game very quickly. Oh, and it's not you, the Tavern mechanics are just bad, fair warning.

 

[Preacher ✝]

I understand the controversy over a video game price increase to ~$100 in respect to the bad quality of most modern AAA games, that run poorly and are filled with woke shit.

I do not understand it as a matter of principle. If a modern game were made that didn't run like ass and promote faggotry then why would $100 be unfair to charge? $100 isn't all that much money anymore, and a good video game will give you hundreds if not thousands of hours of entertainment. If tickets for movies can increase, substantially, over the last 30 years why is the cost of video games expected to stay around $50-60?

In other words, its one thing to say that most modern video games aren't worth $100, but another thing to say it's wrong to charge $100 for a video game in general. The former I agree with, the latter I do not understand.

 

[BubbaRobot887]

They lost a license agreement with StudioCanal. Correct, you never owned them.

https://www.gadgetreview.com/playstation-is-deleting-551-movies-from-customers-accounts

Then the button you use to complete the transaction should say lease or Rent, not Buy.

This is why I buy discs for my movies,, my digital movie collection is nothing but codes that came with discs.

When it comes to games the few modern games I have that I was forced to buy digitally I always have a copy with the copy protection and online features ripped out so when the publisher decides that I can't play what I paid for they are out of luck.

If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

 

[BubbaRobot887]

I understand the controversy over a video game price increase to ~$100 in respect to the bad quality of most modern AAA games, that run poorly and are filled with woke shit.

I do not understand it as a matter of principle. If a modern game were made that didn't run like ass and promote faggotry then why would $100 be unfair to charge? $100 isn't all that much money anymore, and a good video game will give you hundreds if not thousands of hours of entertainment. If tickets for movies can increase, substantially, over the last 30 years why is the cost of video games expected to stay around $50-60?

In other words, its one thing to say that most modern video games aren't worth $100, but another thing to say it's wrong to charge $100 for a video game in general. The former I agree with, the latter I do not understand.

Here is the thing, back in the day the $70 to $100 games cost more to put out, they either needed more ram chips or discs and if a game was cheaper to make that savings was passed on to you and some games(PS2 that only used a CD instead of a DvD for instance)would launch at the $30 to $40 price point and all games came on a disc and you could play them even if the company making them went out of business. Now they want $100 for the game no matter what it is, the game is just a digital download, in most cases you can't play it if the internet goes down, you have to buy a season pass for $20 on top of that, some games you have to pay a monthly fee to use all features(The new Halo game requires a Xbox subscription to play couch co-op on Playstation 5), and the publisher says you are only leasing the game and if they go out of business or just decide they don't like you, then you lose the game.

Case in point, three years ago I had a PS4, I was paying yearly for Sony's online service. One day I found a mistake had been made and they had double charged me, so I contacted them, it took forever for me to talk to a real person and that person told me there was nothing that could be done. Fortunately I had paid with Paypal, so I did a charge back with them, I only got the money back for the one subscription, I had still paid for the upcoming year. Next time I turned on my PS4 I was told that I had violated their terms of service and my account was banned and none of the over two dozen digital titles I had bought would launch. Two days of calls and chats latter and I was informed that the charge back was a violation of the terms of service and my account was banned for life and thus I could never play the around $1000 worth of games I had on my Ps4 again.

It isn't paying $100 for games people are upset by, it's paying $100 when you don't own anything and can lose the game for any reason. We live in a world where your digital ownership can be yanked away because someone at the publisher doesn't like what you posted on X. $100 is an insane amount of money to pay for something you don't own.

 

[Jace on ice]

Got Wasteland 3 for $4 time to miss 90% of my shots due to XCOM rng.

 

[EmpGulcasa]

I understand the controversy over a video game price increase to ~$100 in respect to the bad quality of most modern AAA games, that run poorly and are filled with woke shit.

I do not understand it as a matter of principle. If a modern game were made that didn't run like ass and promote faggotry then why would $100 be unfair to charge? $100 isn't all that much money anymore, and a good video game will give you hundreds if not thousands of hours of entertainment. If tickets for movies can increase, substantially, over the last 30 years why is the cost of video games expected to stay around $50-60?

In other words, its one thing to say that most modern video games aren't worth $100, but another thing to say it's wrong to charge $100 for a video game in general. The former I agree with, the latter I do not understand.

I'm envious if $100 dollars isn't that much money to you. You have to keep in mind that it's not just games getting more expensive, it's everything. How do I justify paying 40 more dollars for a single game when I'm also paying more for rent, gas, groceries, etc. and my pay hasn't risen to compensate?

EDIT: The above poster also makes very good points in that when I bought a PS2 game for $60 dollars it was mine forever. Now I can lose access to a game I paid almost twice that much for because of the whims of a publisher. I have zero guilt in pirating games in tyool 2026. I will spend money on games that are multiplayer focused that I want to play with friends, MMORPGs, or if it's from a franchise/developer I want to see succeed (despite recent hiccups in quality I am usually always going to buy the new Super Robot Wars or Yakuza game or anything that might convince Konami to give the Suikoden franchise some live, and CDProjekt Red has personally earned my trust wiht how fantastic I found Witcher 3 and CP2077 to be).

Otherwise I will either pirate it first and maybe pay down the road if it earns the money, or I will just not play it.

 

[Preacher ✝]

It isn't paying $100 for games people are upset by, it's paying $100 when you don't own anything and can lose the game for any reason.

All of that falls into the low quality nature of most modern games. If a game didnt have any of those problems would you agree $100 isnt unfair?

I'm envious if $100 dollars isn't that much money to you. You have to keep in mind that it's not just games getting more expensive, it's everything. How do I justify paying 40 more dollars for a single game when I'm also paying more for rent, gas, groceries, etc. and my pay hasn't risen to compensate?

I just think about it in terms of equivalent value. You can spend $100 or more on a date night at a fancy restaurant, a nice bottle of single malt scotch, approximately two tanks of gas, a single month of good Internet, etc.

Meanwhile if a game was good and didn't have the problems that plague the industry today, $100 shouldn't be considered unreasonable. It's not like the cost of making games hasn't gone up too, and a higher base price means less need for other forms of monetization.

 

[BubbaRobot887]

All of that falls into the low quality nature of most modern games. If a game didnt have any of those problems would you agree $100 isnt unfair?

I just think about it in terms of equivalent value. You can spend $100 or more on a date night at a fancy restaurant, a nice bottle of single malt scotch, approximately two tanks of gas, a single month of good Internet, etc.

Meanwhile if a game was good and didn't have the problems that plague the industry today, $100 shouldn't be considered unreasonable. It's not like the cost of making games hasn't gone up too, and a higher base price means less need for other forms of monetization.

I would have to have iron clad ownership of the game in either the form of a disc or a download that would always lanuch while offline to see $100 as a fair price, but I did pay $90 for my collector's edition of Mass Effect 3 in 2012, but that came in a box and still launches today.

 

[Preacher ✝]

a download that would always lanuch while offline

thats how the games I've gotten off GoG work.

I did pay $90 for my collector's edition of Mass Effect 3 in 2012, but that came in a box and still launches today.

yea but Mass Effect sucks

 

[Questions are a Burden]

All of that falls into the low quality nature of most modern games. If a game didnt have any of those problems would you agree $100 isnt unfair?

I just think about it in terms of equivalent value. You can spend $100 or more on a date night at a fancy restaurant, a nice bottle of single malt scotch, approximately two tanks of gas, a single month of good Internet, etc.

Meanwhile if a game was good and didn't have the problems that plague the industry today, $100 shouldn't be considered unreasonable. It's not like the cost of making games hasn't gone up too, and a higher base price means less need for other forms of monetization.

Which are generally included, regardless. Also, if a company chooses to waste hundreds of millions on making games, that's their retarded decision. Maybe they should stop doing it.

 

[Tap Water Enjoyer]

I understand the controversy over a video game price increase to ~$100 in respect to the bad quality of most modern AAA games, that run poorly and are filled with woke shit.

I do not understand it as a matter of principle. If a modern game were made that didn't run like ass and promote faggotry then why would $100 be unfair to charge? $100 isn't all that much money anymore, and a good video game will give you hundreds if not thousands of hours of entertainment. If tickets for movies can increase, substantially, over the last 30 years why is the cost of video games expected to stay around $50-60?

In other words, its one thing to say that most modern video games aren't worth $100, but another thing to say it's wrong to charge $100 for a video game in general. The former I agree with, the latter I do not understand.

Slippery slope is the easiest answer, you either say no or get fucked more and more as time goes on. DLC was also justified like this. And we went from not accepting any form of DLC, to now viewing it as normal. Same with P2W in games (where corpos successfully astroturfed terms like "pay to progress"), day 1 DLC, digital "ownership" and so on. There's also this argument where people claim developing games is so much more expensive now, which let's say is true. But why should the customer suffer, because the corpos are too greedy to make a proper budget with reasonable expectations? Maybe they just shouldn't hire retards like Alkimia Interactive who spent 7 years to port an old game 1:1 to UE5? And stop funding trash like african hair tech development? Or cut down on diversity hires?

 

[DeadwastePrime]

what game is in the yellow for you

 

[Two Frogs]

If they can revoke the license at any time, I should be able to revoke my payment similarly. Buying things digitally is frankly stupid.

 

[BubbaRobot887]

Which are generally included, regardless. Also, if a company chooses to waste hundreds of millions on making games, that's their retarded decision. Maybe they should stop doing it.

Yeah, for one thing they could stop going after 4k graphics when games like Fable, Mass Effect, The Last of Us, and Gears of war from 20 years ago still look great.

They could also hire real voice actors who do a better job and work for a faction of the cost of the Hollywood hacks they keep using.

We didn't tell them to spend $300 million + on a single game so it is not our job to pay for it.

 

[Two Frogs]

Yeah, for one thing they could stop going after 4k graphics when games like Fable, Mass Effect, The Last of Us, and Gears of war from 20 years ago still look great.

Katamari Damacy is an incredibly visually appealing video game about silly shit and it has a timeless quality because of that. Video games don't need to be photorealistic to be good. They just have to be fun. I have never had less fun in these hallway-into-hallway ass "every blade of hair is rendered" tap X repeatedly to win games in my life. I'm so sick of clicking heads and running forwards. I did that for like 15 years already. Leon Kennedy looking like a photorealistic himbo doesn't fix that.

 

[EmpGulcasa]

Wyświetl załącznik 9204155
what game is in the yellow for you

Suikoden 2