Yeah, man, I still have games with gamebreaking bugs. Those were the days, when every other Spectrum game you got was not actually completable but they just cranked up the difficulty so nobody could beat level one and wouldn't notice.
Nah, just kidding, I loved buying Street Fighter 2 three times at full price to get all the characters and rebalances. We all loved it. I mean, you barely ever needed to buy more than three expansions to get the full game, not everything was like The Sims. My full physical copy of Diablo 2 fits perfectly inside its board game-sized box.
But seriously, though, do buy DRM-free copies of games whenever you can. GOG could use a pick-me-up to prove that it's a viable model, patches or no patches.
I think most of the games that would be in this position aren't willing or able to do that. It's not like there's a ton of income on stale half-released games with no active development, but people should be aware that's what they're looking at anyway.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say there at the bottom. I think that's a better fit if you assign it by mode, especially in fighting games, where the ranked/unranked/lobby difference is well established, but at least it should be in the back pocket for a F2P fighting game to avoid this scenario.
It wouldn't be, necessarily. A bunch of games (survival games, in particular) still give you that choice. It's cheap, reliable and doesn't need a ton of people playing your game.
The problem is then you can't do matchmaking, you need a server browser, which is a lot clunkier. And it does get harder to avoid cheating and so on. The experience is also dependent on how close the server is from you, and if it's just some guy's computer the server goes away when they're not playing.
For fighting games specifically, where "room matches" are still a thing in most games, I do see it becoming an option as a separate mode. And man, if you're doing something like Multiversus I do think you should consider having it ready to go as a fallback, because this is a bad look and hurts future games that may want to give this a shot.
Well, that's the problem of GaaS. It used to be games cost however much to make and you were recouping expenses after. These days games cost money to run, on account of all the centralized backend and dedicated server cost to keep everything locked down and enable matchmaking and microtransactions.
The bizarre thing is this zombie state where pieces of the game work, but only if you bought stuff ahead of time. The idea of F2P fighting games makes some sense on the surface, but with the way audiences work in the genre it may not be feasible because... who the hell is going to buy into a fighting game that poofs into the ether the moment someone else gets a Mai Shiranui DLC again?
Looking at you, 2XKO. I played Rising Thunder. I remember.
And the natural conclusion of that is why have the up front charge at all. You do the 2XKO thing or the Multiversus thing and just let people play and charge for the characters. Of course that may mean being online for purchase authentication, right?
I don't like where that goes.
I think SF in particular is pretty sure it can pull a decent chunk of cash up front and not impact sales too much, so that's better for them, since they're monetizing all the casual players, but sitll. It's a dynamic that's in play and I don't like it.
You already spend more than 100 for Street Fighter and always have. The full roster for SF6 is currently 100/110 bucks. Not counting MTX and extra cosmetics.
Sure, you didn't pay it all at once, but that's no different than me buying SF2 and then Super SF2 the following year, each for seventy-ish bucks.
Sorta kinda. We moved to 69.99 for major releases a while ago. Late 2000s in some territories, later in others.
In the US it was 59.99 for the CD era, but it was higher before when cart costs were a massive chunk of the retail price. I bought games that launched at 100 (or its local equivalent) in the 90s, particularly on SNES and N64.
But it's true that prices have been super stable while moving from expensive carts to cheap CDs and then trivially expensive digital releases. Now there's no way to cut costs on distribution (you're already subsidizing storage, it's just down to bandwidth, which is paid by the retailer anyway). So now inflation is catching up, since none of the money is going to making boxes, stamping CDs or shipping games in trucks. Now when inflation hits there's no longer a way to hide the pricing impact, so it goes to sticker price.
And people are so used to that stability that they immediately rage on the Internet, if this thread is anything to go by, so the only answer is to hide more of the cost in MTX and dump the sticker price altogether.
Kinda argued against myself there. The real answer isn't prices will "evenutally" go up, it's that they will go down to zero and traditional gaming will become mobile gaming. That's probably more likely.
For one thing, I'm not American, baseline game prices here took a similar hike during the PS4 era, so I'd be curious to see if or when US game prices adjust and whether that comes with a local price bump. Although looking at recent releases maybe they already did.
For another, it is kind of insane how much lower the baseline price of what used to be called "retail packaged goods" games has gotten, adjusted for inlfation. As I write this, Civ 7 is the best selling full price game on Steam, going for 69,99USD. That's 48-ish USD in 2010 money, the Internet tells me. The previous release to even get close to the best sellers list at that price (and it sold pretty terribly, as far as I can tell, at least on Steam), was Indiana Jones, for the same price. Everything else is much, much, much cheaper, with the list being dominated by games anywhere between free to play and thirty bucks.
That's two conflicting pushes. Games are dirt cheap now. You can't even sell them at the sticker price that was normal in the 2010s anymore, and even if you did, that's 30% less inflation-adjusted money than before. The average game developer salary has gone from high 90K to 115K in 2025 in that period as, again, the Internet tells me.
So basically GTA or no, I don't see how you get anything BUT GTA sequels and Call of Dutys going forward. It's MTX-fests or nothing. It's pretty messed up, IMO. I like splashy, good-looking AAA games and would take them any day over, say, a Marvel Rivals. But spoiler alert, Marvel Rivals is going to make all the money and you'll be lucky if you ever see a Ratchet sequel again, let alone a third party big single player game.
Good call. Vita emulation still sucks, the device proper is very nice and there are some good games stuck in there. Less these days, when a bunch of them got up-ports to PC and whatnot, but still.
For the life of me I don't understand why there's so little interest in Vita preservation. I get that it wasn't as well liked as the PSP, and all the custom features are tricky while also having the hassle of all the PSN integration you get on modern console emus, but... still, you know?