We can’t make less money! I promised Susan a new yacht^[Obviously with two heliports, olympic swimming pool, on-board beer brewery, bowling alley, crew of 20, escort yacht for utilities - just the bare necessities, nothing fancy.] for her name day!
Meanwhile I’m still enjoying Schedule I, which is made by a single dev and has “low quality” graphics by choice. We don’t need AAA games left and right; we need good, fun ones with strong foundations. Games that don’t demand paid DLC, or season passes, or fucking Shark Cards.
I truly understand that Rockstar is under a lot of pressure as the creator/publisher of GTA. But not every company/developer needs to be like them.
And also knock it off with the fucking microtransactions and shit. I wouldn’t mind games costing something appropriate for inflation if we were getting complete, high quality games without the expectation that we spend even more money afterwards. As it stands, they’re complaining about the low cost of games while also milking players for every penny they can on top of the purchase price. Fuck these guys.
Precisely this. If Baldur’s Gate 3 was 100$, I still would have bought it in a heartbeat because I know that the developers are never gonna ask for any more of my money.
I would say gta is one of the only few games I would pay that much for and I know I’ll get my moneys worth, but I’m not interested in gta online. I wish we could get story dlc like we did with gta 4
They did both, and it could fund the next 5 GTA games for 500 years and still turn a profit if they never took another cent. Whatever this “journalism” is, delete it, block it, and forget about it. They are the enemy.
i picked your comment specifically for this reply.
i am so happy that you found a game that you love withe a great dev and a supportive community.
but i still can’t figure out why this game is so big.
i know, i know. and i feel like a dad trying to figure out why all these kids love the minecraft on their nintendos these days.
you might think i want you to explain or convince me. but i’m just happy knowing you love a game i’ll never understand the way you do. that’s actually really fucking cool.
Do you mean Stardew Valley or Haunted Chocolatier?
Stardew Valley is a combination of a creativity toy, a dating simulator, a soap opera and a security blanket. You’re actually able to return to a humble artisanal life, make absolute bank doing it, and beat the giant megacorp should you choose do to so. A decreasing number of places offer that kind of hopeful feeling in reality.
Haunted Chocolatier? I don’t know, didn’t really see the appeal when it was explained to me.
people are gonna hate me, but i never got into Star Wars. however - and i can’t explain why - Spaceballs was my favourite movie as a kid. i recoded it off CityTV on Beta.
The initial appeal for me was that I enjoyed harvest moon, except for how the old tech made the experience of playing it suck so bad, I couldn't replay it. It was annoying doing any of the basic tasks like switching tools iirc. so there was a huge opening in the market for a new harvest moon that wasn't annoying to play. And where you were allowed to be gay.
So the initial buzz came from that, imo. the people who wanted a new harvest moon game were like 'wow, finally!' and then word of mouth did its thing. these days, nostalgia for it specifically drives people back to play, along with extensive modding and occasional free updates keeping things fresh.
i think other people can explain better why the harvest moon formula itself is so appealing, but i just think it's interesting how an indie game can get so popular by just being like "what if i made this big corporation game people want a new entry from, but fixed the stuff in it that sucks?'
i don’t know anything about harvest moon, but you said something that stood out for me.
i thought it was neat that you could flirt with anyone in that game, but that’s as far as i got with that. i assume, though, that you can pursue relationships with anyone and that it’s totally not an issue at all. that’s the impression i got, and i thought that was pretty cool. didn’t come off as anything political when i saw it at the time, though, i just figured it was the inevitable evolution of characters in fiction. i miss my old naivity.
iirc, there was one old harvest moon game where you played as a woman and you could marry a guy OR live forever with your female bestie. i don't remember if that one made it to the english speaking world.
stardew valley really upped the game when the guy who made it decided it'd be no big deal if you wanted to pursue a same sex relationship in it. now it feels like a standard of the genre to let you do that, and it really wasn't always like that. other games did it, too, but it still felt exceptional back then.
(but, yeah, the gay thing was a big deal for me personally, especially at the time sdv came out. i don't know if it was generally a big deal for most players, but that's definitely a reason for it to catch a certain sort of player's eye back when it was first becoming popular.)
i thought there was something special about just making it that way and not making a point of it. it’s just the way it is. that’s just really cool to me.
Chiming in with why I love SV: While the game itself is a new thing (well 9 years old at this point), it really feels like a product of an earlier time. And not just the graphics, music, gameplay, and plot. It lacks all the dark pattern mechanics and monetization that’s nearly inescapable in modern games. It just feels good to play, but always feels good to put down.
I just find the game endlessly charming. Every time I pick it up it reminds me of my childhood playing SNES.
Lmao who would believe that gta 6 is not going to make an absolute bank? They could give it away for free and still make more money that they could spend.
I don’t even wanna know how much money they made or make with shark cards. Because of the dumbasses who buy that, they know exactly what people are willing to spend.
What a bold-faced clearly obvious motherfucking lie.
Rockstar has released only 2 full games in the past 13 years because everything they’ve done since then has been funded by microtransactions. The price of entry is negligible to them when whales pay for multiple copies of the game every fuckin month.
if rockstar really wanted to win over all gamers, even the ones not planning to play gta, they announce base gta 6 at 50. and then have the 'early/access-10 min early-uber shark complete edition with a unique purple skin at 100 or whatever the fuck they think the whole things worth.
I mean. Yeah. When Goldeneye came out for the N64 it was like $90 and that was in nintiesbux. We got real used to standardized pricing when discs came around but it’s true that you can’t have it both ways. Now, there’s a reasonable argument to be had over whether Mario Kart World and GTA6 are both gonna be worth >$80. I bought Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey for whatever they retailed for. Was that $70? I can’t remember. But I had more fun and put more hours that year into Hollow Knight, which cost me $15 and kept dumping free DLC for like a year or so afterward. The price was great. The DLC was free. But it also didn’t cost like $2bln or whatever dumbass cost they’re saying GTA6 cost to make.
I didn’t ask them to make it that stupid big and expensive. But some fans did. They’re in that Smash Bros situation where they aren’t allowed not to top the previous entry in terms of scope. So it is what it is.
Should all games be $80-90? Of course not. Should games that cost a billion or more to develop and promise hundreds or thousands of hours of gameplay cost $80-90? I think it’s embarrassing and immature to suggest otherwise. Even if you just go back to 2006 and the $60 standard, and adjust that for inflation, you end up at $95. So this isn’t really an argument any serious person should be having when we talk about whether the most expensive game ever made should cost functionally less than its Xbox 360 forerunner.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne