Have you heard of the saying "Can't see the forest for all the trees in the way." Perhaps you should think on it.
Roguey is the absolute slavish disciple of using nitnoy facts in order to lie through his teeth.
This is giving him way too much agency.
Roguey has severe brain damage, maybe from Tylenol, and understands nothing despite being filled with smug superiority over what he thinks is his homespun Forrest Gump wisdom.
Have you heard of the saying "Can't see the forest for all the trees in the way." Perhaps you should think on it.
Roguey is the absolute slavish disciple of using nitnoy facts in order to lie through his teeth.
This is giving him way too much agency.
Roguey has severe brain damage, maybe from Tylenol, and understands nothing despite being filled with smug superiority over what he thinks is his homespun Forrest Gump wisdom.
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.
Roguey is the absolute slavish disciple of using nitnoy facts in order to lie through his teeth.
This is giving him way too much agency.
Roguey has severe brain damage, maybe from Tylenol, and understands nothing despite being filled with smug superiority over what he thinks is his homespun Forrest Gump wisdom.
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.
Having thought it over, I think what I want to say is that I'm not saying Roguey isn't malicious; I'm saying he isn't really a human being with free will making decisions. You don't worry about whether a cornered wild animal is motivated by stupidity or malice. Technically, it's both.
Roguey has severe brain damage, maybe from Tylenol, and understands nothing despite being filled with smug superiority over what he thinks is his homespun Forrest Gump wisdom.
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.
Having thought it over, I think what I want to say is that I'm not saying Roguey isn't malicious; I'm saying he isn't really a human being with free will making decisions. You don't worry about whether a cornered wild animal is motivated by stupidity or malice. Technically, it's both.
This ties to Thor's post yesterday about Free Will vs Predeterminism:
Then again, everything is God's plan and I think "time" is a flat circle, anyway. So while we do have free will, i.e. we can decide to a degree to whether we follow God's laws it's all kinda predetermined, anyway and everything already has been played out if ykwim.
All my games were from the bargain bin and I generally remember the prices for it all.
Hexen was $10
Mega Man X was $22
Doom II with master levels expansion was $20
Got the Command and Conquer Red Alert Domination pack for like $50
I got StarCraft with a $20 off price match at CompUSA and they still honored their $20 mail-in rebate, so I got it for net $10 after it was only out for like a month.
I was only allowed to buy games $30 and under but I begged my way to getting Diablo II on release. The standard price was $50 for PC games for quite a while.
Profit margins from the box purchase model has become too thin unless you are a really tight ship like Falcom, but you cannot pull that experience and business setup out of thin air. Most games will not be a black swan hit like Minecraft or BG3. Microtransactions are an inevietability for modern gaming. That's why VNs are dead and the surviving deads went to mobile.
truke, average game is barely making anything now, market is flooded
Somehow I don't think the people who want to pay once for a game are willing to pay the price that will be asked…
Consoles games back then largely relied on expensive cartridges, that's why the prices were so retardedly high. The silver-lining to that is that devs actually tried harder to justify you having to pay $90 for a single game. Nowadays everything is digital, there is ZERO manufacturing cost or distribution logistics and whatnot, so there is no reason why games need to be more than $50-$60. I'd even argue modern slop isn't worth 'that' anymore.
Profit margins from the box purchase model has become too thin unless you are a really tight ship like Falcom, but you cannot pull that experience and business setup out of thin air. Most games will not be a black swan hit like Minecraft or BG3. Microtransactions are an inevietability for modern gaming. That's why VNs are dead and the surviving deads went to mobile.
truke, average game is barely making anything now, market is flooded
Somehow I don't think the people who want to pay once for a game are willing to pay the price that will be asked…
Consoles games back then largely relied on expensive cartridges, that's why the prices were so retardedly high. The silver-lining to that is that devs actually tried harder to justify you having to pay $90 for a single game. Nowadays everything is digital, there is ZERO manufacturing cost or distribution logistics and whatnot, so there is no reason why games need to be more than $50-$60. I'd even argue modern slop isn't worth 'that' anymore.
Selection_024.webp
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
truke, average game is barely making anything now, market is flooded
Somehow I don't think the people who want to pay once for a game are willing to pay the price that will be asked…
Consoles games back then largely relied on expensive cartridges, that's why the prices were so retardedly high. The silver-lining to that is that devs actually tried harder to justify you having to pay $90 for a single game. Nowadays everything is digital, there is ZERO manufacturing cost or distribution logistics and whatnot, so there is no reason why games need to be more than $50-$60. I'd even argue modern slop isn't worth 'that' anymore.
Inflation is one thing, people willing to 'pay' a price is another. Inflation is pretty much a non-argument when it comes to video games anyway, because it's a MASSIVE industry. Far bigger now than it was when the SNES was relevant. For every single person that bought Earthbound at $90 or whatever, ten people would buy a decent AAA game today at $50. Corpos have been extremely profitable in the recent past just selling straight-up single player experiences for $50-$60. The issue is greed and jewry, not inflation.
Consoles games back then largely relied on expensive cartridges, that's why the prices were so retardedly high. The silver-lining to that is that devs actually tried harder to justify you having to pay $90 for a single game. Nowadays everything is digital, there is ZERO manufacturing cost or distribution logistics and whatnot, so there is no reason why games need to be more than $50-$60. I'd even argue modern slop isn't worth 'that' anymore.
Inflation is one thing, people willing to 'pay' a price is another. Inflation is pretty much a non-argument when it comes to video games anyway, because it's a MASSIVE industry. Far bigger now than it was when the SNES was relevant. For every single person that bought Earthbound at $90 or whatever, ten people would buy a decent AAA game today at $50. Corpos have been extremely profitable in the recent past just selling straight-up single player experiences for $50-$60. The issue is greed and jewry, not inflation.
Yes, and the fact that most people aren't willing to pay $120 for a game is why you get day 1 DLC
GamePass basically exists as a form of gamedev welfare at this point to keep the industry alive, large amounts of gamedevs would be unemployed tomorrow if microsoft cut it
Inflation is one thing, people willing to 'pay' a price is another. Inflation is pretty much a non-argument when it comes to video games anyway, because it's a MASSIVE industry. Far bigger now than it was when the SNES was relevant. For every single person that bought Earthbound at $90 or whatever, ten people would buy a decent AAA game today at $50. Corpos have been extremely profitable in the recent past just selling straight-up single player experiences for $50-$60. The issue is greed and jewry, not inflation.
Yes, and the fact that most people aren't willing to pay $120 for a game is why you get day 1 DLC
That's just corpo propaganda, bud. A video game selling a half a million copies was considered a great success in the 90s, now your average AAA release still sells around 5 million or 'more'. They're getting the sales, they're getting the profits, it's just greed.
That's just corpo propaganda, bud. A video game selling a half a million copies was considered a great success in the 90s, now your average AAA release still sells around 5 million or 'more'. They're getting the sales, they're getting the profits, it's just greed.
How much do you think these games take to make?
The average game makes almost nothing, btw.
Last edited by rusty_shackleford on October 15th, 2025, 19:01, edited 1 time in total.
That's just corpo propaganda, bud. A video game selling a half a million copies was considered a great success in the 90s, now your average AAA release still sells around 5 million or 'more'. They're getting the sales, they're getting the profits, it's just greed.
How much do you think these games take to make?
The average game makes almost nothing, btw.
It's a budget problem, not a game pricing problem. You can't go on multiple 24 hour shopping sprees at Rolex and Louis Vuitton and expect other people to pay for everything. I remember when the $100 Million cost of Red Dead Redemption was considered the peak, now that's actually 'low' for modern games. Obviously this isn't remotely sustainable.
RDR selling 5 million copies at $60 would be triple their budget, a 'very' healthy profit to say the least, and it sold far in excess of that. Costs need to come down, competence needs to go up. Failing that, you shouldn't be charging me $120 or $70 + a dozen DLCs to make up for your retardation.
That's just corpo propaganda, bud. A video game selling a half a million copies was considered a great success in the 90s, now your average AAA release still sells around 5 million or 'more'. They're getting the sales, they're getting the profits, it's just greed.
How much do you think these games take to make?
The average game makes almost nothing, btw.
It's a budget problem, not a game pricing problem. You can't go on multiple 24 hour shopping sprees at Rolex and Louis Vuitton and expect other people to pay for everything. I remember when the $100 Million cost of Red Dead Redemption was considered the peak, now that's actually 'low' for modern games. Obviously this isn't remotely sustainable.
RDR selling 5 million copies at $60 would be triple their budget, a 'very' healthy profit to say the least, and it sold far in excess of that. Costs need to come down, competence needs to go up. Failing that, you shouldn't be charging me $120 or $70 + a dozen DLCs to make up for your retardation.
They're just going to keep squeezing you harder, actually.
How much do you think these games take to make?
The average game makes almost nothing, btw.
It's a budget problem, not a game pricing problem. You can't go on multiple 24 hour shopping sprees at Rolex and Louis Vuitton and expect other people to pay for everything. I remember when the $100 Million cost of Red Dead Redemption was considered the peak, now that's actually 'low' for modern games. Obviously this isn't remotely sustainable.
RDR selling 5 million copies at $60 would be triple their budget, a 'very' healthy profit to say the least, and it sold far in excess of that. Costs need to come down, competence needs to go up. Failing that, you shouldn't be charging me $120 or $70 + a dozen DLCs to make up for your retardation.
They're just going to keep squeezing you harder, actually.
And that's why the industry is in free-fall. Not even Game SlopPass could save it.
That's just corpo propaganda, bud. A video game selling a half a million copies was considered a great success in the 90s, now your average AAA release still sells around 5 million or 'more'. They're getting the sales, they're getting the profits, it's just greed.
How much do you think these games take to make?
The average game makes almost nothing, btw.
Also, Steam and GoG both rake 30% off the top, so a price of $100 is to the devs what a price of $70 would have been in direct distribution.
Multiplying middlemen is one of the fastest ways to destroy an industry.
(And in this case that's a good thing because the video game industry deserves to be destroyed, by the way.)
Last edited by Stack of Turtles on October 15th, 2025, 19:47, edited 1 time in total.
Roguey has severe brain damage, maybe from Tylenol, and understands nothing despite being filled with smug superiority over what he thinks is his homespun Forrest Gump wisdom.
From my perspective, "publishers tell devs to cut content so that they can sell it as an extra" is the Forrest Gump wisdom.
Roguey has severe brain damage, maybe from Tylenol, and understands nothing despite being filled with smug superiority over what he thinks is his homespun Forrest Gump wisdom.
From my perspective, "publishers tell devs to cut content so that they can sell it as an extra" is the Forrest Gump wisdom.
Not what I'm talking about (I don't care about that argument at all) but this is a great example of how you persistently miss the point of everything because you can only see what you're looking directly at with those blinders on.
Not what I'm talking about (I don't care about that argument at all) but this is a great example of how you persistently miss the point of everything because you can only see what you're looking directly at with those blinders on.
*people were having a discussion*
*Turtles comes into that discussion*
*says he wasn't talking about the discussion*
Is there anyone out there who really wants to play The Outer Worlds 2 and Ninja Gaiden 4 on their phone?
1. I don't even know what the latest xbox console is named so I always have to look, goodjob idiots
2. Xbox series XS has no exclusive games, not a single one. Even less than PS5.
Not what I'm talking about (I don't care about that argument at all) but this is a great example of how you persistently miss the point of everything because you can only see what you're looking directly at with those blinders on.
*people were having a discussion*
*Turtles comes into that discussion*
*says he wasn't talking about the discussion*
Now, instead of fake and gay government virtual money numbers, we look at the wages over the same period of time as related to purchasing power.
...
Line goes down.
You may as well not bother replying to my posts if it's to argue anything except concrete facts or your personal opinion. I still probably won't see it.
Reject your retarded-wing political programming and learn to think.
If you can.
Now, instead of fake and gay government virtual money numbers, we look at the wages over the same period of time as related to purchasing power.
...
Line goes down.
I actually like how early software renderers would 'curve' near the edges
I only ever saw that one do it, and it was apparently a math bug in their engine they couldn't easily diagnose.
They finally fixed it for the sequel a couple of years later.
Last edited by Rand on October 16th, 2025, 03:11, edited 1 time in total.
You may as well not bother replying to my posts if it's to argue anything except concrete facts or your personal opinion. I still probably won't see it.
Reject your retarded-wing political programming and learn to think.
If you can.
