this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
173 points (94.8% liked)

Games

39391 readers
1466 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Binky 102 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That’s such bullshit. GTA5 has been a money printing machine. They would have been profitable if the cost started and stayed at $20.

[–] DannyBoy@sh.itjust.works 58 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can't find the numbers online but they probably could've given GTA5 away for free and made a profit.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They did give it away for free and make a profit

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They did both, and it could fund the next 5 GTA games for 500 years and still turn a profit if they never took another cent. Whatever this "journalism" is, delete it, block it, and forget about it. They are the enemy.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 10 points 1 month ago

They would have profited making GTA:O free to play, right from the get go.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NONE_dc@lemmy.world 76 points 1 month ago (3 children)

People expect games that are ever more ambitious

Nono, people expect Good games, that doesn't have anything to do with ambition.

[–] TwinTitans@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Exactly. Look at Nintendo. A fun game doesn’t mean you have to have bleeding edge visuals.

[–] imecth@fedia.io 28 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Yes look at Nintendo, shitty visuals and high prices.

[–] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 6 points 1 month ago

And crappy framerate. No sales and a predatory dlc system

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Dear internet person, this whole discussion is being triggered because Nintendo, of all people, decided $100 was an acceptable price for a video game. They are the asshats who opened the flood gates for the corporate zombies to waltz in.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 6 points 1 month ago

People praise expedition 33, that game might as well be an xbox 360 game and it people would still absolutely love it.

[–] BmeBenji@lemm.ee 64 points 1 month ago

What a bold-faced clearly obvious motherfucking lie.

Rockstar has released only 2 full games in the past 13 years because everything they’ve done since then has been funded by microtransactions. The price of entry is negligible to them when whales pay for multiple copies of the game every fuckin month.

[–] otacon239@lemmy.world 63 points 1 month ago

Absolutely no way Take-Two can afford anything less than $5B in profit every year. The stock market was a mistake.

[–] VirgilMastercard@reddthat.com 54 points 1 month ago (4 children)

He says that like big budget studios are barely scraping by. Piss off. AAA games are massively profitable. What he really means is that endless growth is the most important thing for investors/shareholders and that we should all just shut up and accept it.

They could get the regular £50 from me for the game, but their greed means they'll get £0. I'll just pirate it (if/when it releases on PC). And I'm sure there will be a lot of people with the same mindset.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Some AAA games are massively profitable. If you want to see which ones weren't, look at the studios that got shut down or went through massive layoffs in the past few years. But if they're not selling that many copies at $60, the thought that seemingly never crosses their minds is to stop spending $200M on a single project that's make or break for the studio.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 45 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

If you really want me to pay $100 for a game, you gotta raise the bar to the fuckin stratosphere compared to what we're getting now.

And get me a damn raise.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 28 points 1 month ago (3 children)

And also knock it off with the fucking microtransactions and shit. I wouldn't mind games costing something appropriate for inflation if we were getting complete, high quality games without the expectation that we spend even more money afterwards. As it stands, they're complaining about the low cost of games while also milking players for every penny they can on top of the purchase price. Fuck these guys.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 7 points 1 month ago

Sorry, best we can do is microtransactions, fear of missing out and AI slop. That'll be $90.

load more comments (2 replies)

I would say gta is one of the only few games I would pay that much for and I know I’ll get my moneys worth, but I’m not interested in gta online. I wish we could get story dlc like we did with gta 4

[–] creamlike504@jlai.lu 41 points 1 month ago

Shame on Harvey Randall for platforming executive bullshit:

The problem, he puts it, is inflation. Which is an unerringly boring but also correct answer: "We live in contrasting times, where inflation is real and significant, but people expect games that are ever more ambitious and therefore expensive to develop to cost the same. It’s an impossible equation."

They're not responding to the expectations of the people; they're responding to the expectations of their investors.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)

GTA 6 is just going to be client app to a universe of micro transactions. They should probably just give it away free.

[–] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 8 points 1 month ago

I don't even wanna know how much money they made or make with shark cards. Because of the dumbasses who buy that, they know exactly what people are willing to spend.

[–] notgivingmynametoamachine@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (11 children)

Maybe stop spending nigh decades and nigh billions of dollars designing these enormous catch all games that are supposed to appeal to everyone?

I Don't want to spend 90 dollars on a game that has 400 different things to do, 200 of which I enjoy.

I'd rather give Sandfall 50 bucks for a lovingly crafted, focused game that's actually, you know, good.

[–] goodeye8@fedia.io 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I've been saying it for the last decade, there's no real "games are too expensive to make" problem. There's only studios choosing the "go big or go home" death spiral where they inflate the budget and need a hit to stay afloat. But then after every hit the budget grows even bigger requiring an even bigger hit until eventually they're going to flop and the studio goes under. They could just not do that and have a sustainable business. And I get that it's not only the game developers fault. Part of the blame falls on the publishers who most likely force budgets to balloon so they could make more money (if the game is a success). But when I say they could just not do that I mean both the developer and publisher. Both of them should be smarter than that.

But clearly even with all the major flops it has been a successful strategy, because they've been at it since at least mid 2000s. It's only in the recent years where it's really starting to strain all the AAA publishers as the budgets have grown too big even for them. These price increases are an outcome of this budget ballooning. They're feeling their bottom line taking a hit so they increase the price to mitigate the risk.

Personally I said fuck them, let it crash and let's get more studios like Sandfall, who made an exceptional games for a reasonable price.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

on top of all that; big money, be it profits or revenue, attracts parasites that start ruining the company from the inside. One can feel it on many games that developers wanted to do good but were prevented from doing so because of executives and middle management.

Not only that, they produced a game with no major flaws with a tiny (comparable to these mega studios) team AND NO COMPROMISES.

“Man, this game is great but the music is meh” - not at Sandfall.

“Wow, I love the combat but the graphics are dated” - nope, every model is so lovingly crafted they added haircuts and outfits as secret loot

“The combat is the only weak point in this gorgeous, story driven game” not on expedition 33 it ain’t!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We can't make less money! I promised Susan a new yacht^[Obviously with two heliports, olympic swimming pool, on-board beer brewery, bowling alley, crew of 20, escort yacht for utilities - just the bare necessities, nothing fancy.] for her name day!

[–] NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago

Meanwhile I'm still enjoying Schedule I, which is made by a single dev and has "low quality" graphics by choice. We don't need AAA games left and right; we need good, fun ones with strong foundations. Games that don't demand paid DLC, or season passes, or fucking Shark Cards.

I truly understand that Rockstar is under a lot of pressure as the creator/publisher of GTA. But not every company/developer needs to be like them.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

Heard the same crap when they moved from 60 to 70 just a few years back.

Heard how video game development is too expensive while publishers posted record profits.

Heard all about how the same 50 dollar game "back in the day"would cost hundreds now, disregarding how gaming was so much more niche back then too.

Heard the same crap about how these "full price games" would lessen the need for egregious microtransaction

This will again, do nothing to lessen any of that, just push more record profits as gamers won't be able to resist rewarding the gaming industry for their bad behavior.

[–] LostWanderer@lemmynsfw.com 17 points 1 month ago

ROFL the more games go $80 to 90 dollars for a base game version, the more I wait for sales. 70 dollars was bad enough in my opinion, but this greed fueled jump is going to put off more potential buyers than it will bring in. It's my genuine hope that this blows up in their face and will force them to price games reasonably again. Perhaps if the money they made in sales wasn't mostly funneled into their overpaid CEOs and shareholders, perhaps they'd have more money to cover development costs and keep game prices stable. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

According to SEC filings, Take Two Interactive studio made 2.241 Billion USD profit in 2024.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CallateCoyote@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Yeah? I’ll buy it when it’s on sale for $35 and they’ll profit, so it’s all good. Patience is a virtue and all that.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

They'll charge whatever they think people will pay, and I'm pretty confident that many millions of people will fork over the $80 - $90 at launch. Prices come down when people stop buying.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Look, the CEOs already have the fifth cheapest yacht chef available on their payroll, what are they supposed to do? Source the caviar themselves?

[–] molten@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Look. I think all AAA companies should do $120 base price for all games. Piracy would have such a boom. Better platforms. many more seeders and good reviews and more freaks hell bent on cracking DRM.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

spoilersadfsafsafsdfsd

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

And it's an impossible equation for most Americans to pay more. Especially if things continue to downward spiral.

Where's my eye patch?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

As of a year ago, GTA 5 had made over $9,000,000,000.

That's a billion with a B.

Mostly off micro transactions to children.

They don't need to charge $90, but if people will pay it, they'll charge it.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Eh, this game was never in the cards for me anyway. I decided years ago to never give Rockstar another dime when they didn't release any single player DLC for GTA5. Fuck that noise.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Wut? We're mad now about not getting DLC? GTA V was a great game that's still a blast today. I spent many evenings in front of my PS3 playing the single player for years, never touched GTA: O once and never felt the need to and still believe I got my $60 back in 2013 out of it.

Similar story with RDR 2. Unless GTA 6 is a huge step down from both those games in single-player playability (I'll wait for reviews obv), I'm not going to lose much sleep over spending $20 more than I spent 13 years ago for the previous game.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dantheclamman@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

I will wait until GTA 6 has been out a few years lol. I have a long enough backlog already. Still haven't started Witcher 3, Cyberpunk, Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon Forbidden West, and about 30 other games I mean to play. Patient gaming is the best way

[–] Skyline969@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago

Go ahead. I’m back to piracy where needed and patient gaming where possible. These clowns played themselves. AAA games are unreasonable nowadays.

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Yet again proves that capitalism is a cancer, and they’ll never be happy with anything, except for endless exponential growth

[–] Slab_Bulkhead@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

if rockstar really wanted to win over all gamers, even the ones not planning to play gta, they announce base gta 6 at 50. and then have the 'early/access-10 min early-uber shark complete edition with a unique purple skin at 100 or whatever the fuck they think the whole things worth.

load more comments
view more: next ›