• Troy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        If it’s a game I’m going to get hundreds, or sometimes thousands of hours from, then I’ll pay more. If you look at price per hour spent on entertainment, it’s hard to compare. However, you often have to wade through a bunch of shitty overpriced games to find those gems.

        Okay, back to EU4 now ;)

        • Omega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m kind of in a different boat with this. I’m paying for quality, not quantity. Especially since I don’t have as much free time as I did 20 years ago.

          So if I can play through a phenomenal story within a couple months over a 20 hour game (which usually takes me 30 hours) at the height of the hype when people are still talking about it, I love it. Give me efficient storytelling.

          In fact, if it’s something longer, it kind makes me rethink it whether I want to pay full price. Why rush?

          • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            I am the same. Game could take 60 hours to complete, and 50 of them are dogshit. Then it’s not a fun game. It’s all about the overall quality of the entire experience.

            I would gladly pay $100 for Subnautica 2 if they could pull off another amazing adventure. Would do the same for another Larian studio game.

      • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I will only do this for games I know I will like, from studios I want to support.

        I literally will wait until a sale ends to buy a game made by Yoko Taro or FromSoftware at full price.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sits back in porch chair, Back in my day you could get a fully complete console game wið online multiplayer and all ð bells and whistles, for just ÞIRTY DOLLARS

        • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          hell yeah, þorn and eð user in the wild!

          alþough I stand by the opinion þat þe voiced-voicless distinction between þorn and eð is someþing superimposed onto English later on, as eð and þorn were used interchangeably for a time and it was more a question of time period raþer þan voicedness

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            I mean ð distinction is well and truly ðere now, so a spelling reform ðat tries to reinstate a spelling convention from a period when it wasn’t is really just slapping a coat of paint on the same kinds of historical spelling issues ðat English still has.

            To me bringing ðem back isn’t a matter of restoring old spelling, it’s a matter of using what once was to make something ðat works for the here and now.

            • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              My point is more þat we don’t really need þe distinction, a lot of other phonemes are ambiguous in English, and þey’ve not coexisted for a long time historically. Early English mostly used eð, middle English mostly þorn. Not faulting you for using boþ at all, I þink þat’s also valid

        • Don_alForno@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Moderate Inflation (around the 2% target) is necessary for the current economical system to function. It incentivizes people to either invest or spend their money instead of sitting on it.

          • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Games have been around 60 dollars for over 30 years now. Not sure what you’re on about. If they had gone up 10 bucks with each console generation they would be like 150 at this point.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        To me, $70 is a reasonable price based on what bread costs now, but the minimum wage needs to like, triple.

        The focus on freemium games and whales may even be driven by America’s wealth gap.

  • .Donuts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What a world we live in, where cheaper games are seen as less quality because the theory of capitalism has conditioned us to believe higher quality = higher price.

  • HeyJoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    New franchise needs to build a following first. The lower price point will get more people to try it. I’m sold already, but there’s a ton of people who have no idea what this game is still and won’t until it releases. I hope it’s as good as it looks, and I hope it succeeds and leads to more.