But what if I don't like the consequences of my actions?
  • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    I wouldn’t really use 60$ as a low price, but that’s beside the point.

    You’re talking about capping game prices at a relatively “low” price, and I think you knew what I meant.

    Your missing the trees for the forest. It’s not the low price, but setting a line which one does not cross.

    I’m not missing anything. I’m saying setting a line makes no sense because not every game has the same amount of content.

    Not having that line and constantly accepting every subsequent new mechanic to extract more profit from us has resulted in the current state of AAA gaming industry.

    The gaming industry pricing has been virtually unchanged since inception. If anything, it’s because consumers refuse to pay more that games suck now, because publishers rely on DLCs and relentlessly harassing consumers to buy mtx.

    Though where would you draw the line?

    I don’t draw a line anywhere. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you. As I said, it’s entirely dependent on the content of the game.

    If they launch Control Resonant for $100 I would pay it because it’s my favorite franchise of all time and I’ve gotten hundreds of hours of enjoyment out of it.

    • Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.orgEnglish
      11·
      2 months ago

      And that’s why the journalist who rote the article is actually right.

      We do deserve the AAA gaming market in it’s current state, because we all think we’re somehow special and our unique case can be an exception.

      Like the first person in the chain put it. We as consumers are getting fisted.

      And we deserve it, because we still keep on buying said goods, no matter what.