• hydration9806
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Genuine question, why is $100 too much for a quality game? Completely agreed on the micro transactions though

    • nyctre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Hm… how much is too much, then? If 70% higher than the industry standard isn’t too nuch

      • hydration9806
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Wow people really didn’t like my question!

        To respond to yours though, I’d say it depends on how much content there is! If a game can easily take 1000 hours with no degradation of enjoyment, I would pay $100 for it

        Edit to add: I realize this didnt exactly address your question, but I’m not sure what percentage since it heavily depends on the quality and quantity of content

        • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          For me personally, I find it really easy to add “hours” to a game’s runtime, and I’d sooner pay more for a higher quality experience and a shorter runtime. I’ve spent about a fifth of that 1000 mark in both Baldur’s Gate 3 and Elden Ring, and they’d have been worth $100 to me. Indiana Jones was worth every bit of the $70 I paid, and it took me under 20 hours.

    • accideath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Exactly. $100 is a lot of money, however games are cheaper than ever these days (adjusted for inflation) and $100 for no micro transactions sounds fair.

      On the other hand, I wouldn’t buy it at that price either. I‘d wait for a sale…