776
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
776 points (97.9% liked)
Games
32366 readers
1195 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
what really bugs me are fighting games with dlc characters. i know fighting games arent as profitable, but twenty years ago you could unlock every character by actually playing the game. locking content behind paywalls are a slap to poor gamers. that's on top of a $60 price tag
Fighting games started in coin operated arcade cabinets that were intentionally designed to be such a pain in the ass to beat that people would dump heaps of money into them just to keep playing. Same deal with games that were released in the days that youd rent them for a week. The difficulty was set so high that it was very unlikely that you could beat the game in that week so you would end up renting them another week or two.
The gaming industry has been filled with greedy fuck policies from the beginning and the only thing that has changed is how they are greedy fucks.
Yeah, I noticed this with mortal Kombat on snes. Every time I played the single player campaign, I'd win one fairly easily, then I'd lose to the next guy. Then I'd use a continue and beat that guy fairly easily and lose to the next one. Repeat until I run out of continues, with the occasional upset of the pattern (extra win or loss).
Also true of timed arcade games like Gauntlet. Unless you were very good, you'd have to keep putting quarters in when the time ran out.
20 years ago, they sold every Street Fighter three times with more characters in each new iteration. Microtransactions suck, but simple DLC is a less shitty than what used to be normal.
What? You didn't like buying SUPER Street Fighter II TURBO Championship Edition?
I actually did, because once I bought it they couldn't shut down the dlc servers on me when they released the next one.
This was more a way for them to keep people putting in quarters at the arcades and selling machines to arcade ops.
It translated to some home games, but wasn't the focus of putting out all these new versions. It made some sense at the time.
Yep
Street Fighter II: The World Warrior - (1991)
Street Fighter II': Champion Edition - (1992)
Street Fighter II': Hyper Fighting - (1992)
Super Street Fighter II: The New Challengers - (1993)
Super Street Fighter II Turbo - (1994)
All $40-60 games at the time.
You are mistaken about the price. Street Fighter II: The World Warrior had a retail price of $69.99 at launch.
They did milk the fuck out of that, I'll grant you.
But at the same time you couldn't take them online and end up playing somebody who'd got the latest one and have to fight new characters you'd have no access to.
$70 is the new $60 because fuck you that's why
You're going to be really unhappy when you discover the concept of inflation
Oh stop, games have been the same price for decades, it’s not surprising they’re seeing a small price increase after so long in stagnation.
In good companies this is passed along to the actual devs making our games, which is something we should all support
Yeah, not a penny of the extra $10 is being passed along
This has been disproven and was called out at the time of the increase. Games cost less to develop now than ever. Microtransactions and recurrent subscription transaction1s like battlepasses mean a shit game gets to live longer than it would deserve. People have careers in the field and languages common to the industry - this isn't a "new and groundbreaking" industry - its one of the largest on the planet.
Studios are absolutely not passing any of that $10 to lower level staff. It was to see if the market would bear it, and no other reason - and corporate defenders came out of the woodwork to pretend BILLION dollar corporations need more money. If videogames were too expensive to make, they'd not be spending so much, now would they?
First time I'm hearing that, got a link?
It's interesting actually. There are both games with insane budgets that cost more that than triple A games in years past and incredible tooling and assets available for very modest amounts of money + incredibly powerful computers very little. It's possible for some games to be made for less than ever before AND some to be made for more.
“Small” price increase? Are your toilet paper squares $10 bills or something?
Has the distribution gone up though? If the quantity of games being sold has increased the companies are making just as much even though games are "cheaper."
Imo. That's the big argument in this debate that doesn't get discussed. The reach has increased so prices could come down as more units are sold and the company would get the same amount of money.