Another factor I think is in play is publishers believe it's perfectlyThere definitely seems to be a general impression amongst gamers (at
fine to charge you £60 for a game where they ripped out parts of the
contents so they can make them into DLC's and just in-case you haven't
handed over enough money here's a bunch of stupid cosmetics you can get.
least those I've talked to) that modern games give you a lot less bang-for-the buck these days. Either because so much content is siloed
off as DLC or 'season packs', or because there is just much less
originality, or because games are artificially lengthened through
grind and over-sized open worlds. I'm not sure this is really true, if
only because my huge library lets me look back at older games and see
how shallow, grindy, short and unoriginal those games were too.
Because as much as it pains me to admit it, I do think triple-A games
in general do give you more content these days than they used to, with
an overall polish that is superior to many games from the 90s and
2000s. And these new games are --after inflation is taken into
account-- often less expensive than what we paid for our games decades
ago.
But that comparison only works in modern AAA game's favor if you
compare them to AAA games of the past, and the problem is that Indies
(and free games) have changed that equation. "Call of Duty" in 2002
looked absolutely amazing and a terrific value when all other games of
its quality (or near to its quality) cost the same amount, and the
cheaper games (say, something like "The Great Escape") were noticably
poorer experiences even though they were only $10 less.
Yet nowadays you can get some damn good games for $15 dollars, and a
game that costs four times that amount isn't four times better. So
AAA-priced games just don't seem to have the same value.
On 18/09/2026 20:22, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Another factor I think is in play is publishers believe it's perfectlyThere definitely seems to be a general impression amongst gamers (at
fine to charge you £60 for a game where they ripped out parts of the
contents so they can make them into DLC's and just in-case you haven't
handed over enough money here's a bunch of stupid cosmetics you can get.
least those I've talked to) that modern games give you a lot less
bang-for-the buck these days. Either because so much content is siloed
off as DLC or 'season packs', or because there is just much less
originality, or because games are artificially lengthened through
grind and over-sized open worlds. I'm not sure this is really true, if
only because my huge library lets me look back at older games and see
how shallow, grindy, short and unoriginal those games were too.
Because as much as it pains me to admit it, I do think triple-A games
in general do give you more content these days than they used to, with
an overall polish that is superior to many games from the 90s and
2000s. And these new games are --after inflation is taken into
account-- often less expensive than what we paid for our games decades
ago.
But that comparison only works in modern AAA game's favor if you
compare them to AAA games of the past, and the problem is that Indies
(and free games) have changed that equation. "Call of Duty" in 2002
looked absolutely amazing and a terrific value when all other games of
its quality (or near to its quality) cost the same amount, and the
cheaper games (say, something like "The Great Escape") were noticably
poorer experiences even though they were only $10 less.
Yet nowadays you can get some damn good games for $15 dollars, and a
game that costs four times that amount isn't four times better. So
AAA-priced games just don't seem to have the same value.
I think that's the difference, do you get more 'value' from triple-A
titles than you did twenty years ago,
On 9/12/2026 10:39 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
"OH! Ubisoft!" (Preferably in a sultry woman's husky whisper voice. ;) )
I frequently point out Ubisoft's less complimentary activities with
posts titled, "Oh, Ubisoft". But what do I title a post when they
actually do something good? (Asking for real, because it's never
happened before! ;-)*
I'm not proud of my wastrel tendencies!
On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 13:19:57 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 9/12/2026 10:39 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
"OH! Ubisoft!" (Preferably in a sultry woman's husky whisper voice. ;) )
I frequently point out Ubisoft's less complimentary activities with
posts titled, "Oh, Ubisoft". But what do I title a post when they
actually do something good? (Asking for real, because it's never
happened before! ;-)*
I think they would have to change their name to Boobiesoft for the full effect.
The true tfosibU hO moment is when GOG turns evil and starts bundling everything with Denuvo (even DOOM!) and Boobiesoft says it will react by championing DRM free games and release the source code for all its server software for discontinued games. Then they will open source The Crew.
Then they invent the Guillemotine and start slashing prices to reasonable levels. Then they buy EA from the Saudis to free gaming from oil money.
That's what I think. The sultry woman's voice and obligatory favors are nothing compared to that fantasy.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,142 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 125:26:19 |
| Calls: | 14,706 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,498 |
| D/L today: |
5,391 files (1,452M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,552,635 |
| Posted today: | 1 |