The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Penny Arcade - Comic - Spooky Season
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
**Penny Arcade - Comic - Spooky Season **
Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary.
+3
Posts
Well, for at least another couple of years.
Would this game sell if the "complete" game was $99.99 retail? No, it wouldn't. You'd would complain, review bomb them for having the audacity to charge $99.99, then wait for it to go on sale for 80% off on Steam before you buy it.
Then you'd get back online and complain about why such an amazing game bombed out.
Oh, and also demand regular updates and maintenance to the game, then go back and re-review bomb it because the devs "abandoned" the game.
Plenty of studios put out games for less, with updates or the option to play entirely offline, without resorting to stupid monetization. Supergiant, Owlcat, FromSoftware, Larian, Harebrained, the list goes on.
Why would it retail for a hundred bucks? That's insane.
First, People buy 80$ games everyday. And when people are unwilling to buy full price triple A game on release, it's generally because the studio have a history of releasing unfinished/bugged games at full price. at which point it's hardly a absurd decision to wait before buying.
When a good game release in a actually finished state, people buys it and even buy the dlcs when that comes later.
Second, as for the person who will just say "i'll wait for this game to go a sales" before buying it then that someone isn't going to spend on the game in that form either, they're going to say "i'll wait for the final version/edition of the game to release, and buy that version when it go on sale", so it doesn't change anything on the game makers part.
Studios switching to other forms of monetisations is not a issue of people not buying games. It's the suits and shareholders seeing that fornite made a lot of money as a live service game and saying "This means everything should always be a live service game and will make more money like that" regardless if that makes sense with the game they're doing.
(And just to be clear i don't say that as a jab at Fortnite specifically or anyone who plays fortnite. I used it as example because it is a prominent one. Also to be clear, i was talking in the general sense, i haven't played this silent hill game so i have no idea how much sense it makes for this one specifically).
There are probably plenty of good games that didn’t make enough money, but not sure if that’s because the creators were too generous about the price, or they spent too much developing the game, or they were just unlucky that the game didn’t go viral enough for everyone to buy it
I don’t really have an answer, besides “spend money on the kind of games you want people to make”