• buh [she/her]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    212 years ago

    I’m just pirating it ahead of time to make sure my PC can run it

    gotta make sure every part until the end works properly btw

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        82 years ago

        Yeah as long as you don’t play more than 2 hrs, Is that long enought to really benchmark it? I’ve been hearing it takes a few hours at least to really get into the open areas

        • Drew Belloc
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          It was just a joke, for most games is hard to know if they are good or not in just 2 hours, in some jrpgs you are still in the tutorial in that point, at least is really usefull if the game is not running well or at all

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Naw fam I’ll pay $10 to play it for a month on Gamepass and either beat it in that time or lose interest and never go back. And cancel gamepass on October 5th

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    82 years ago

    The expensive part for me is, that I need a new machine to run it. My good old GTX 1060 doesn’t cut it anymore. No crack can help me with that. (Unless the crack manages to optimize the engine.)

    Well, I cross my fingers for a GeForce Now release of Starfield. Otherwise it will have to wait a bit.

  • shiteyes2 [any]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    92 years ago

    Somehow not even bothering to play games became even more satisfying than pirating them. They’re not getting my money OR my time haha! Edgy

  • Owl
    link
    fedilink
    132 years ago

    The issue is with the size of the game (120gb + patches later) and with the other (graphics card, cpu and ram) requirements.

  • Vuraniute
    link
    fedilink
    232 years ago

    The real cost isn’t the game. It’s the new computer you’ll need to play it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    142 years ago

    Apparently it’s bundled in with AMDs new cards. I’ve been itching for an upgrade for a while now, and I could finally get away from Nvidia

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    282 years ago

    Eh. By the time I have hardware that can actually play Starfield, it’ll be a GoG giveaway.

  • DreamButt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    372 years ago

    Maybe I’m just old but $70 base is too much for any game let alone one from a studio with known issues

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      I always found it kinda funny how gamers rage about the poor quality of games, but bugs with Bethesda is almost an expectation

      • Corroded
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        Do you really get that vibe? I feel like a lot of people refer to Bethesda games as a buggy mess. There’s the whole Bugthesda thing.

        I think all the mods designed to improve performance have helped the reputation a bit but I still wouldn’t play Fallout New Vegas on a PS3 due to the bugs.

        • DreamButt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          I see both. For some reason there are still a lot of people who like their games despite the bugs and will defend them very vocally. I understand liking what you like (even if I strongly disagree) but it never makes sense to say an obvious issue isn’t an issue

          • Corroded
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            A lot of the time I think they are overlooking the bugs and focusing on the game as a whole. Kind of with the mentality that once you get past the buggy husk you get the tasty kernels inside.

            Fallout 3 (through Steam) was unplayable without mods for a while because Games For Windows Live was used as DRM and was shutdown years ago but if you checked the Steam reviews a significant amount of people omitted this or were fine with the game (mostly) working once you got over that hurdle.

            Personally I didn’t think this was unacceptable considering the GOG version worked fine but it goes to show the mentality people have.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      312 years ago

      Games have been the same price for over thirty years, they’ve not changed with inflation and production costs have skyrocketed. To an extent the increased market has helped keep costs down for the consumer but it’s not unreasonable to see prices shift upwards.

      • R0cket_M00se
        link
        fedilink
        English
        472 years ago

        What about the cost of disc media that’s absolutely disappeared? That was a huge chunk of the overhead. Logistics to get the copies to all the stores, etc.

        Now it’s just electricity and servers to download from.

        Do you ever notice that no one ever talks about all the advancements that saved money? Of course not, cause then they’d never be able to justify continually hiking the prices up.

          • R0cket_M00se
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            There’s no way in hell that paying steam is more expensive than buying dics, putting your game on those discs, putting those discs in cases, and then paying to ship those cases all over the world.

            Know how I know? Because businesses do whatever is the most profitable, and clearly digital distro is cheaper since we’ve been pushing for it since it was invented.

        • Corroded
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          Lots of games today force some sort of online element (ex. Cloud saves, workshop content, multiplayer, etc.) I wonder how much that costs them to maintain. I can’t imagine it’s that significant if they are dealing with multiple single player games.

          • R0cket_M00se
            link
            fedilink
            English
            52 years ago

            Probably not as much as the money they derive from the live service model.

            Businesses do what makes them the most money.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          14
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I am genuinely not trying to sound like a studio apologist, because there are myriad reasons to be upset with them, but y’all need to think these arguments through a little better. I haven’t pulled up any numbers, but are we really going to pretend that the cost of producing a game in 1990 is even remotely comparable to that of a modern day AAA game? The fact that video game costs have remained relatively steady and even decreased in some cases for decades should be astonishing.

          Pick a different argument.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            9
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Pick a non-strawman argument and then we can have a discussion. They had different methods of creating games yes, but were they easier back then than they are now? I don’t think so, they had people inventing the fucking wheel of what could be possible and we still had a consistent price tag with a FEATURE COMPLETE package. They didn’t have as many workers as they did because all of the programming went to those individual developers to figure out. The amount of work is more intricately spread out in these bigger studios, but the passion and creativeness was more alive back in the early days. None of it was automated with fully polished dev tools and externally hired language teams.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              42 years ago

              How are you missing that you are literally comparing a team of 5 programmers and artists to games made by 500+ people?

              I mean seriously you can read, that alone should be enough.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              The only strawman argument here is yours. Most people wouldn’t play a game released today if it looked like Pong and had the same gameplay features. Also, there are a lot more wheels to invent today.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                I’m not just talking about Pong, and that is another good example of a strawman argument ironically.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        92 years ago

        Yeah my parents were paying $60 for NES games for me… Which is why I had like 3 NES games. The only reason game aren’t $180 now is competition… And reproducibility vs size of market… And physical media is cheap or non-existent. Ok there are a few reasons, but still…

    • Pyr
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      Eh, to me I usually just convert it to $ per hour of enjoyment. Will I get 10 hours of enjoyment? 100? 1000?

      If it’s a great game and I think I’ll get 1000 hours out of it, even if it’s $70 that’s like $0.07 per hour.

      Compare that to paying $30 to go see a 1.5 hour movie at the theater and you’re doing pretty darn good I think. Even if you only get 10 hours out of it thats $7 an hour for entertainment vs the $20 an hour for a movie.

      • DreamButt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        I’ve paid 15 dollars to play risk of rain 2 for 500 hours. I gurantee you there is no triple A studio in the world that would get that many hours out of me nor would their game be even double that price

  • Ghostalmedia
    link
    fedilink
    English
    482 years ago

    Meanwhile, I’m just happy to see quality content on GamePass again.