this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
182 points (96.0% liked)

Gaming

3874 readers
156 users here now

The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community

For news, discussions and memes!


Community Rules

This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:

You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.

What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:


If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Last week Steam and other major storefronts crashed, reports the Guardian, including Nintendo's eShop, PlayStation Store and Microsoft Store.

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 102 points 1 week ago (5 children)

When will they ever understand this mysterious formula?

Make a good fucking game, don't pull any bullshit. Price it appropriately and people will buy it.

JUST MAKE A GOOD FUCKING PRODUCT AND STOP TRYING TO WEASEL FUCK US.

[–] Underwaterbob@sh.itjust.works 16 points 6 days ago

They won't because the bullshit is profitable. Yeah, Baldur's Gate 3, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, and Hollow Knight: Silksong are all fantastic games and sold very well, but their numbers don't even come close to something like Grand Theft Auto or Fortnite. The bullshit will continue as long as "gamers" keep foisting money at it.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It's not that they don't understand it. It's that they literally can't afford to adopt it.

Corporate ownership, combined with being publicly traded or privately investor funded, means that you have to increase shareholder value. Stock dividends aren't enough. So, they use the only play that they know: scale the company up.

Problem is: you can scale art, but scaling software is very hard. Book publishers and record labels figured this out ages ago: keep adding more artists and more products. Meanwhile, AAA game studios keep stacking bodies onto existing IPs, making fewer yet bigger software products instead. Meanwhile, they keep getting bodied by small upstarts like Team Cherry, because they have a better effort:payout ratio. If everyone just ran their game companies like Penguin Random House instead of Microsoft, they'd be in better shape.

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

what does "weasel fuck" mean?

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Like a rat fuck but a bit bigger, with a cuter face.

[–] teft@piefed.social 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Hey, don't body shame. Some weasels are smaller than rats. As an example of a smaller weasel here is a picture of a least weasel:

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Daaaamn. Too adorable!

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

i thought of it as a verb, that means something like "to fuck something or someone by squirming in and out"* lol

[–] uninvitedguest@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 days ago

The same way one kisses a piss

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

The only reason you don't have trillions of upvotes, is because the fediverse doesn't have trillions of users.

[–] teft@piefed.social 76 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Capitalists hate the free market.

[–] nous@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What are you talking about? Capitalists love the free market. It lets them do any underhanded tactic they want to crush competition and form monopolies. Capitalists have always been the ones pushing for a free market. The 'free' is free from regulations. That is not something good for consumers.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Definition wise thats not a "free market" its a market thats regulated in their favor. Its totally correct to say that todays self proclaimed "capitalists" hate free market capitalism, because they could never compete if they didnt constantly get tax payer money shoved up their asses and laws passed that prevents competitors from taking any of their marketshare.

[–] slate@sh.itjust.works 55 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Atari released a similar game on the same day as Silksong (Adventure of Samsara) and it had only 12 concurrent players on Steam.

Oops 😬

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 16 points 1 week ago
[–] you_are_dust@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I think that game is getting more coverage because it did release on the same day as silk song. I didn't even know Atari was working on this and now I've heard about it in several articles.

[–] shani66@ani.social 2 points 6 days ago

It very much was a ploy. No day one hype at all, but maybe there will be a larger market over time because of the coverage.

[–] DaedalousIlios@pawb.social 44 points 1 week ago

Silk issue.

[–] Godort@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Honestly, I would've paid $60 for this game and still would be happy with it at that price point. The game is incredibly good, if a bit punishing.

The fact that it was only $20 means that this game is an incredible value prospect, and will likely reach a much larger audience as a result.

TC was in a lucky position because their first game was also incredibly popular and sold well enough that budget was probably never a concern, and not all devs have that luxury, but indie games are supposed to be like this. They're supposed to be made for the enjoyment of the artform with lower scopes and lower budgets. They aren't supposed to compete with the AAA space.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In the age of $70+ AAA games with additional costs, not everyone celebrated the consumer friendly price. Some independent game developers have expressed concern that their games may not sell as well compared to Silksong and cannot afford to charge less.

Where did this line come from? I see no mention of that quote in any of the links from the /. post, and it doesn't help that the quote doesn't cite a specific developer, either.

[–] sudo_shinespark@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Good. Fuck those competitors. I haven’t played a Nintendo game in years that was worth $60. I think Silksong might actually be worth that amount

[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

In the age of $70+ AAA games with additional costs, not everyone celebrated the consumer friendly price. Some independent game developers have expressed concern that their games may not sell as well compared to Silksong and cannot afford to charge less.

Maybe they would sell more copies if consumers didn't feel like they are being overcharged. I understand it sucks to compete against a game like this, but it feels wrong to decide to up the price just to get more money out of the people who do want to support you.

Also getting upset at a company that doesn't conform to the industry pricing makes you look greedy.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago

Tbf, not all indie devs have the luxury of having a huge budget cushion from a previously highly successful game. People need to eat and have a roof over their heads, and $20 is pretty wild when you consider it took TC over 6 years to make the game. It's just unrealistic to expect every game be $20 or less.

And it may be a wildly unpopular opinion, but I truly think Silksong isn't worth more than $20-30. It's not a massive game and the mechanics, story, and world aren't that deep. It felt like a Hollow Knight expansion (which is what it was originally intended to be, per the devs themselves) vs a true sequel.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Dear devs: git gud.