Yeah so today there’s more of a spectrum. Back in the 80s and 90s there were far fewer choices.
I get what you mean though, just wanted to point out it’s more complicated to judge older games by new standards. Eg. if Zelda were a new franchise it might just be a fully open world from the get go.
I know some people upgrading Pixels every year because with trade in and sales they only need to pay like $200. I don’t think Sony will take an existing PS5 though…
I mean aren’t those just issues that any business venture has to deal with? I don’t think the game type matters per se. It’s more a problem of poor business decision making. I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally wrong with chasing trends and they certainly had the right budget. $100m+ is hardly chump change but taking 8 years really put them quite behind.
That’s only true if you’re selling steam keys. Eg you are using Valve’s infrastructure. And they don’t even require the 30% cut in this case. If you sold the game using another infrastructure then you can price it how you want.
Ah yes it is rather poorly optimized. Before it I was playing Against the Storm which doesn’t have such high requirements.
Also Mount and Blade provides some amazing single player experiences that are hard to find elsewhere. Get into a battle with hundreds of units, command a cavalry charge in first person while you personally lead a flank from the other side.
I almost exclusively play single player games and honestly Elden Ring has been a huge time sink. There’s just something about mastering it that is satisfying. It has online features but they’re not required.