Do you think you end up with a more realistic development timeline by remaking things you’ve already made? Your comment can end up downvoted for calling one of the most common industry practices, for very practical reasons, “cutting corners”.
tl;dw A debt trap that’s such a bad deal that you’d be better off financing it with a payday loan. They lie about their terms and their PC specs. They advertise no contracts but absolutely have contracts, and the terms are awful.
Do asset flips even happen anymore? I feel like they were a problem that Stephanie Sterling brought to light a decade ago when Steam opened its floodgates to anyone who wanted to sell a game, but it seems to me as though standard market forces made them nonviable in just a few years’ time.
Awesome! That first one can be a lot of combat, but it is good combat, and Pillars 2 is, in my opinion, just a better game in every way that the first game feels lacking.
It didn’t even require a boycott for me. I think plenty of people like the repetitive stuff, so they play it all without thinking about the microtransactions. I was never once tempted to pay for them, so my feelings about the game represent what the game is like without paying for them, and it was a poor experience. So rather than a boycott, it’s just not buying games that I don’t like.
Correct. They make games that are dozens of hours long and filled with repetitive content, and if you skip the content you don’t want to do, you tend to be under leveled for the stuff you do want to do, and they’ll sell you boosters to hit that level instead.
You charge the highest price you can for the people who don’t want to wait, then drop the price once you’ve run out of those customers. The temporary price of a sale creates a sense of urgency that it won’t be this cheap again for a while, and positive word of mouth from the sale customers drives more sales for a little while once it returns to full price.
Starfield wasn’t worth $70 to me, but I bought it on sale for $45 a few months later.