yes, because the real problem is too much choice.

fuckin finbro bullshit.

I remember paying $10 for an Atari game. I know it's not a great comparison, but I got hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay out of Qbert. Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?

It's funny I mention Atari. They had so many games to play. the choices you had were bonkers. best part was you could take your carts to a friends house and trade or share.

can't do that today since most games are digital downloads that need 32gb day-0 updates.

perhaps the problem isn't the gamers, but instead it's the greedy corporate interests that are poisoning the game industry requesting $80 single owner games.

For the GTA delay, if it is so they can release a less bug filled finished product instead of the usual AAA strategy as of late of throwing whatever out and maybe kinda patching it later on, then good on them for doing it how it should be done. I probably won't buy it either way since I haven't cared for the tone of any of the GTA games since San Andreas personally, but for the people that will it is a good thing.

As for the price of games in general. I'm not opposed to theoretically paying $80, or even more, for a game I deem worth that kind of money. Never have been. The issue is 99% of the time the games in question aren't worth that kind of money. As an example, I am a Hitman fan. Over the course of the varies releases since 2016 to what is now just called Hitman: World of Assassination, I have spent well over $100 for maps and content. And I don't regret it because the end result is a huge game that I have gotten untold hours of enjoyment out of over the last ~9 years.

The AAA players have simply started to price themselves out of their own market, and smaller players have started to fill the void they left behind.

y'all keep saying this but playing 1 round of Valorant will make you realise pretty quick how easily people drop $80+ on a game.

I've said this elsewhere before but video games are a commodity and an impulse buy. Very few people view the next video game as an essential purchase for themselves. So sure people can have them and haha about how much the cost of developing a video game has gone up till they're blue in the face but that is not going to change how the consumer will feel at the register buying the game. If the person at the register does not feel that the price is justified they're not going to pay it they're going to wait for a sale, borrow it from a friend if they can get access to physical media, or pirate it.

Not buying it. GTAV was the least played for me in the series besides the first 2 games. I thought it's story was a major downgrade compared to Vice City through GTAIV. I feel like GTAV was a pullback from any bit of endearing human spirit to leaning heavily into wacky self-aware sarcasm. Not that the series wasn't that. Just that 5 to me was an edgy non-clever series parody. It's not that different than Far Cry. Empty commentary. Just mocking everything. Felt more affection in the 3 series and 4

Regardless since GTAIV, we've had a gluttony of open world games. Even the battle royale games I think fill in a niche for social multiplayer that's wacky and real world pop culture referential. GTAVI and it's RP community support I think will be what sends it past or below GTAV success. High unit sales expectations but I'm more tepid than most. Maybe it'll be even more effective at whale hunting

Pugstorm's new game is going to be just 20 bucks. (It's being published by Chucklefish so I'll still be pirating it, but it's nice that they're still keeoing it indie)