Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

60 comments
  • I haven't seen a single developer that thinks the current price of a game is high enough. They always cite how much it costs to make the game as the reason why they should be more expensive to buy.

    And yet... Hollywood spends about the same to make a blockbuster film and movie tickets aren't $70 nor do people in the film industry say they should be higher.

    • Also...like...who needs an ultra realistic videogame? Cel shading and other techniques usually age better anyways. I want games to be fun first and foremost. Eye candy is just candy without substance.

      Some games like Elite Dangerous benefit from ultra realistic, but I'd hardly call that a mass market game, it's more for simming.

      The Coors Light of shooters could probably be cel shaded and be just as fun in 2024 as the next release 9-12 months later. And they could save a lot of overhead costs.

      • The Coors Light of shooters could probably be cel shaded and be just as fun in 2024 as the next release 9-12 months later. And they could save a lot of overhead costs.

        Heck, take these two screenshots as an example:

        The first is XIII (Gamecube), the second is Metal of Honor: Rising Sun (PS2). Both were released in 2003. I'd definitely say XIII holds up better visually.

    • They always cite how much it costs to make the game as the reason why they should be more expensive to buy.

      They’re not wrong, but the audience just isn't swallowing higher upfront prices. The only way they’re squeezing more out is with DLC, battle passes, mtx etc. which only work in specific types of games that have already saturated the market. It’s kind of an impossible situation atm.

You've viewed 60 comments.