• 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.

          • Corigan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            While I agree with the mind set, I don’t feel the industry is set up to allow consumers to make such informed decisions.

            We have review embargos (hey just don’t preorder bro), paid for reviews, blatant lies or mis representation in ads. Demos are few and far in-between. It’s hard to want to pay for more than 60 these days given the constant anti consumer practices that happen in the gaming industry. Why would I pay you more when you clearly don’t respect your customers (most publishers)

            I’m at the point where I don’t buy a game until it is on sale and has a ton of reviews. I have such a huge backlog, it doesn’t bother me to not play the latest thing.

            • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I do the same, follow my patient gamer philosophy.

              Until that time I can play guitar and likely have more fun repeatedly failing to learn a new rift. It’s sad that sucking at a guitar is more fun than most modern games.

    • 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
          3
          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
            2
            ·
            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