An example would be say the mortal kombat games, you used to be able to have all the characters or Unlock them. But now you gotta pay up to 100% the game if you want everything.

What rustles your jimmies lads?

Thank you!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Aremel@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

$100 games. I know I'm the minority in this as I have the income for it, but I subscribe to the "buy once, cry once" mentality where I'd rather pay a large up-front cost for something and just have it be mine with all the bells and whistles it comes with. I detest this nickle and dime bullshit modern gaming has become.

Which is why I've also given up on "AAA" games from corporate publishers and stick to indie games from indie developers. I'm sure even if the AAA publishers started charging $100 for games, they'd still nickle and dime you just because they can.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That’s definitely a fair opinion - just unfortunate that enough people wouldn’t agree, or wouldn’t be able to afford $100 games, that that will probably never happen.

The other issue is that developers these days keep working on games after their release - often using information gained related to launch reception.

One other thing I think people forget about older games is that they made a lot of sequels. They have the assets for a mid-sized game and a lot of unused ideas, so to put out more content they remix what they have in new ways for a shorter development cycle. That kind of thing now becomes more suitable for an expansion pack; but whichever way it’s sold, the timeline for its release would never have made it to the first game’s production deadline.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

There are a lot of benefits to the sequel model in some circumstances. You get to have every permutation of a game and its versions rather than overwriting previous versions of a game that arguably might be better for their own reasons.