安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
I paid $70 for Strider on the Genesis in like 1992. That was the list price.
You do realize common sense is just "intuitive reasoning based on lived experience, social norms, and personal bias" right? Which means people with different experiences and from different social backgrounds , weill have differences in what they consider common sense.
In some places it's common sense that women should drive cars.
COmmon sense is always going to be inferior to informed, unbiased, reasoning. Or you know thinkinging.
And you'll still either have the old stuff or be automatically upgraded to the new stuff. Sometimes both.
At least thats been the pattern we've seen. But do contunue with your usual baseless fear mongering.
Pretty much and there's always gonna be gamers who find ways around it. I mean DOsbox is a perfect example of that. It arguably runs dos games better than actual dos.
Heck i don't think the developers even fathomed that people would still be playing their games 10 years later much less what OSes would be like 20 years in the future.
That doesn't work for every game type or consumer. I pretty much avoid games with MTX as a rule. So do many others. AbAnd keep in mind raising the base price to 70 and 80. They just added more tiers to the price stepping.
The only reason core game prices are going up is greed-flation. Pure and simple.
Your entire argument, is based off a Free to Play game, that relies on MTX. Now tell me, if that game failed and few bought anything, what do you think their income would be, hmm?
Ya...
So a "No True Scottsman" fallacy then...
The companies complaining most about wanting to raise core game prices are the same companies that already raised game prices by tacking on every form of microtransaction they could think of, and you are naive as hell if you think they are going to remove any of that just because they raised core prices.
This move is simply motivated by greed, nothing more. You can't post record "PROFITS" then pretend that you are raising prices because you are struggling to break even.
The argument they are attempting to make is while the price may have not gone up directly for games until recently, developers have still charged full price and put in microtransanctions similar to Genshin.
This is where the argument of them being static falls flat.
It also doesn't take into account the size of the market. Back in the 80s and 90s gaming was very niche. The market has expanded 100x since then which is why there wasn't really a need to inflate the price of the games.
It gets worse when the higher price is not equating to a higher quality product. Many of the $70 releases so far have been abysmal quality that is on par with beta versions of games.
It isn't that fact that game prices have just increased. It's the fact that they have increased while keeping predatory microstransactions, staying the same or dropping in quality, and done under the guise of "it helps support the industry".
The last one being a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ slap in the face considering the industry has seen nothing but profit growth since the early 2000s.
As said. Not every gamer l;ikes being constantly nickel and dimed. Or being the content for someone else. Simple as. I mean lets be frank. When has the addition of MTX to any PC game been met with : "YAAAAAY! JUST WHAT WE WANTED!"
If I'm paying the same prices for Indie games at $15-$25, higher end indies for $30-$35, and AAA games are still generally $50-$60 as they were back then; you can see where the claim is immensely flawed, hence why I note they're basically the same 2 decades later.
Microtransactions are also not present in all games, and may be in any game as-desired. Popular games such as RUST have cosmetic items which give zero advantage, it's just a source of income & the game goes on sale often. It helps an ever-updating game afford the updates.
Going to "greed" each time just seems like personal bias. It's only obvious greed if the base game is overly expensive compared to the identical game type & quality unless the amount of content is much larger than the others with a much larger debt (cost) incurred to develop.
Note that adding on microtransactions usually doesn't go with a raised price.