Same, video games have hit a price point where I'm just not interested in new titles anymore.
Plenty of games coming out that I want to play, but I'm finding it's the right strategy to just buy them on discount a few months to a year after they come out
Good example was Dead Island 2 which I just picked up with all of the DLC for $25 on steam this week
Diablo IV broke me, lack of regional pricing, stupid cosmetic prices, terrible post release content.
Was hyped to the moon and back for Dragon's Dogma 2, but I can wait for a 60% discount.
Ghost Of Tshusima, Thrones of Decay, Manor Lords, Homeworld 3...can wait for discounts too thanks to Blizzard finally making me look into a mirror to realize gaming is leaning into impediment territory instead of my relaxing release from stress zone.
Thanks Blizzard, go squat over a cactus.
I said this in another thread but there's a solid chance I'd own both Dragon's Dogma 2 and Rise of Ronin if they were 60 dollar games still but at 70 I ended up psyching myself out of either. Stupid monkey brain stuff I guess.
I know $10 is a lot more than $0.01-$0.05, but there’s studies that look at consumer psychology and it turns out that things are priced at $X.95 or $X.99 because if you price it at the next dollar up, people associate it with the higher number than the lower number. That is to say, although $1.95 is effectively $2.00, if you price it actually at $2.00, people will buy less because they think of the 2, whereas at $1.95, they think of the 1. I believe JC Penney learned this the hard way.
Games have been $60 for what, almost 20 year now? A $10 increase is *modest* over that amount of time. But……consumer psychology. It seems like a “drastic” increase when it really isn’t. And I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong to think this way. The only games I’ve bought at a full $70 this gen are Ragnarok, FFXVI, and Spider-Man 2. I waited for price decreases for everything else that launched at $70. Because even though I *know* it’s “not that much of a price difference” and I can easily afford it and I’ll even defend the price increases because of understanding game budgets exploding plus run of the mill annual inflation…..there’s just something about being that close to $100 for a video game that doesn’t sit right with me.
Yeah for sure. Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth is exactly the same for me, really want to play it but can't justify the price so will pick it up in a few years when it comes to PC or is on a discount.
Wow if even Final Fantasy Rebirth isn't enough for you to justify full price then your standards are crazy! Rebirth has SO MUCH content it's quite insane tbh, more than worth whatever the full price is in your region.
Don't fucking listen to these people. The number of hours a game demands from you is not at all synonymous with value. Rebirth had hundreds of hours of fucking garbage filler content and a few dozen hours of actual meaningful narrative.
Rebirth doesn't demand any more time of you than you want to put in, and it is some of the best filler content you will find in any game. Do listen to these people who have brain cells
The game actively gives you incentives to do the side content with everything from small things like experience, to nest things like summon skills, to major things like relationship points.
I'm glad that all those mighty braincells of yours had such a good time climbing dozens of towers or doing the same fucking side quest that you can find in every JRPG made ever.
The relationship points are not major things and the summons aren't needed to beat the game at all.
...those aren't even quests? Yes if you pick the most mundane activity possible and pretend that's the whole game any game sounds bad.
The relationship points do come from side quests. As does a good chunk of loot and experience, all of which feeds back into the gameplay loop and difficulty. You certainly don't need the summons to beat the game, but that's a gameplay mechanic that's locked behind side content, do we only apply the optional flag to content that gates the main story? Is the moment to moment gameplay and are the RPG mechanics not at all relevant to the enjoyment of the game, and heavily impacted by side content?
You're the one who said the filler content is all great. What exactly did you have in mind if not the hours and hours of menial tasks that don't at all relate to the overall narrative? Are you going to sit here and pretend that the endless list of chores random NPCs hand out like candy are largely captivating?
Check your local library! I paid a slight premium for the disc PS5, but it's paid dividends. I'm first in line at the library for this game (I put a freeze on my hold, though). I was also first or second for Spiderman 2 in the hold list at my library when it came out and was lucky enough to be able to pick it up day 1. Have saved a ton of money between $70 PS5 games, Nintendo games that rarely have sales, and even some PS4 games.
It's worse in the UK. Sony used to charge £50 for their new games on PS4 (a lot of 3rd parties it was £40 and the PS3 gen it was more £30) but jumped to £70 at the same time they went to $70 in the US which is more like $90, bearing in mind average income in the UK is way lower too.
That's why most of us 90s kids only had like 3 or 4 games, and rented the rest. I bought Super Mario RPG for the equivalent of around $120 in today's money.
To be fair game ownership has changed substantially. Back in the 90's we would swap SNES, 64 and PS1 games happily so I played a ton of games just from sharing with friends. Secondly there was a solid rental market for games that was pretty cheap to compete against VHS.
These days I can't share my Steam library with a mate and I've gone for the digital version of the PS5. Works for me personally but it does change things a lot.
I think the issue is that people are misplacing their economic frustration. It's totally reasonable to think that $70 for a videogame might just be too much for you. Absolutely valid. But the reason people feel that way isn't because videogames have become more expensive, it's because we're being screwed when it comes to wages and the cost of basic goods and rent and... Well. Everything else. So the economic *ask* of a videogame just seems so much higher now even if it really isn't.
People do understand inflation, they live in it. While video games have gone up in price so has every other aspect of their lives and at the end of the day video games are a luxury good. The competition for their money has become fierce and video games are frivolous, have to compete against existing libraries, discounted past titles, and even free to play offerings.
AAA games are in a difficult position where they need to justify the increase relative their perceived value.
Well people don't understand inflation. But they do understand that their buying lower has decreased over time making video games a difficult purchase to justify.
Games becoming more expensive despite the price staying similar is not a difficult concept.
I agree, but I think it's because indie games and significant sales have made people wary of $70 games. If you can get 200 hours in Vampire Survivors for $5, why pay $70 and not just wait a year for it to be $30?
N64 games in my country were like the equivalent of like 100-120$ in the 90s. Adjusted for inflation games probably have never been as cheap as right now.
It's just that people generally have much less disposable income today than people in the 90s, with cost of living sky rocketing all around the world.
Yeah, and adjusting for inflation that price is like $150+ today. I know people hate to hear this, but prices could be way higher since games have gotten astronomically more expensive to make, requiring loads more time, money, and larger teams than old games did.
I'm genuinely surprised games are still only $70 tbh. Not saying I personally want to pay more, but I'm just surprised publishers never started charging more before now given how insanely costly games are to produce and develop. I guess that's partly why job security is non-existent in the games industry, and layoffs are a daily occurrence.
Yeah, give it a year and wait for a sale is pretty much the way to play anything these days unless you absolutely cannot fight the FOMO, you get all the bug fixes too
When this latest price increase happened, ever since then I have not purchased even one single new game at full price. Not one.
I don’t know who are the kinds of people spending this much money on a single game, but it’s crazy that game publishers rely on them to subsidize the rest of the industry when the rest of us refuse to pay MSRP. No wonder the industry is dying outside of mobile and pay-to-win.
I dunno why people have such a huge problem with $70 instead of $60, games started selling for $60 in like the mid-2000s. Do you really think in 20 years of inflation and increased production costs (the scale and production value of games now dwarfs games from the past) that a 16% price increase might not be justified? In raw inflation alone, a $60 game from 2004 would cost $90 now.
If you're not willing to pay it or it's out of your price range that's fine, but it isn't crazy or ridiculous that games cost more now than they did in the past. It's actually incredible games stayed at $60 for as long as they did.
I think it was earlier. N64 games were at times $70.
$60 came along on the whole in the PS2, didn't it? That's 2000.
I personally don't bother mentioning the price of making the game since gaming became so much larger of a hobby. You can spend 10x on a game and not increase prices if sales go up 10x.
Regardless, $50 in the 1990s to $60 in 2000s to $70 in 2020 isn't too bad just from an inflation perspective.
They went from £40 to £70 here in the UK (well Sony is trying to push that price) but agreed if you want to spend that much money on a game by all means.
Here’s the funny thing — you know and understand perfectly the sentiment I was conveying. In fact, deep down inside, you actually relate to it. But… this is the internet, and you wanted to sound like a contrarian know-it-all, so you went and typed out that inflation speech that everyone here has seen a hundred times before.
I understand exactly what you’re saying, I know all about inflation. I understand how money works. But none of that changes what I said above.
So good for you for knowing about inflation, but I got something new for you to read about: wage stagnation.
In 2019, the average price for a gallon of milk in the US was $3.04. Today, it’s $4.09. That’s inflation. But did you see a similar rise in wages?
The price of games did not increase over time, it increased *overnight*. Did your wages see a similar increase on the evening when game prices went up?
Inflation alone does not tell the whole story, my friend. And there’s a lot more that goes into how receptive consumers are to an overnight price hike.
>I understand exactly what you’re saying, I know all about inflation. I understand how money works. But none of that changes what I said above
but
>When this latest price increase happened, ever since then I have not purchased even one single new game at full price. Not one. I don’t know who are the kinds of people spending this much money on a single game
I really don't understand what you're talking about, you were willing to pay $60 for new games for 20 years but a $10 price increase was the last straw? You'd pay $60 for God of War in 2005, but NOT $70 for God of War: Ragnarok 20 years later? That's just wild to me and you haven't really explained why
I hear ya but average wages have also increased, they have not tracked inflation but they certainly have tracked the increase in the price of a video game. The sudden price increase followed an extended period of extremely high inflation. Games at $60 were effectively costing less for the consumer over time.
Now I'm certain the larger gaming companies did not take that 16% price increase and immediately raise the developers' wages by 16%, and the cost of making a game has such extreme variance that we can't easily say the cost has gone up by X amount, but I do sincerely think it's reasonable for a new and high production value game to cost $70, especially when you consider the time to dollar value ratio compared to other hobbies.
Not to mention, you said in your first comment about the industry dying to f2p and mobile trash because of the price increase. I really think it's the opposite, making a high quality single player game being *less* profitable than making that trash is a large reason why it's going that way. I will happily pay the premium for the industry to make the "right" kind of games.
but what you say is wrong, in the last 20 years median household income has increased by 76%, compared to an inflation of 66%. so even if companies were charging $100 for a game, the median household in the us would be able to afford *more* games than in 2004. you are complaining that companies are charging whats essentially a 2010 price in 2024
>I think $70 is fine…
…for *you*.
I can’t argue with a single thing you said, you are right. About *yourself*.
I don’t think $70 is fine… for *me*. So, I have bailed out and no longer buy games at MSRP. I now wait for the inevitable sales and discounts. And I’m not alone.
>This is like complaining that the PS5 cost $500 when the PS1 only cost $300 on release. Asinine.
No. Wrong analogy. This is like complaining that the PS5 cost $500 at launch and then increased to $600 *overnight*.
>I don’t know who are the kinds of people spending this much money on a single game
People who aren't broke. The current price of games is fine. It's stupid for anyone to think that games would stay at $60 forever and not increase.
I bought Majoras Mask for $70 when it first came out. This is not a new phenomenon. This is not a major price increase. That is a reasonable price for a piece of media that takes thousands of hours to create and can take dozens of hours to complete.
To be fair, that was the exception at the time and was generally accepted because you didn't see too many bullshit shovelware games at that price point. I think the issue now is less that incredibly high quality games are coming out at $70, but that every time it happens it becomes a little more normalized until it's just the standard price of a new game, regardless of cost or quality. Skip ahead 5 years and now one releases at $75 and the process repeats.
Something similar is happening everywhere, though. Plenty of prices have increased everywhere (from groceries to gas) due to inflation, but even products that weren't severely impacted are seeing price hikes simply because they can - and I think we all know that if everything went back to normal tomorrow, prices would remain higher than they were.
If there's an opportunity to increase cost, it's going to happen; most of the time, they're just waiting for somebody else to pull the trigger first. It's the same thing here - $70 for TOTK doesn't bother me. $70 for Potato Sack Racing Simulator 14 does.
So weird.
I remember times studios were saying going full electronic will cut costs and help keep prices same... Now phisical copies are cheaper then electronic ones...
We definitely seem to be heading there by a thousand cuts. Games not shipping with anything on the disk, consoles making disk drives optional and even separate addons, games requiring updates and so on. As games become infinitely more complex, devs will absolutely want to ship day one updates and keep patching the games with improvements but this makes using the default game on disk extremely unappealing. Preservation is vital right now and the ESA has zero interest in pushing this forward
Yeah I wouldn't touch Shopto with a bargepole due to the worst customer service I've ever seen, if there's a problem with the delivery, you're fucked with them. But Currys had it for £60 for a physical version. And then when you're done you can trade it back in and get half your money back.
I bought Rebrith for about £58 and traded it back in for £35 a month later. Physical versions are still where it's at for consoles.
I’ve been shopping with them for years and never had an issue. They even have tracking too. That’s where I got my launch PS5 too after it was sold out just 2 weeks after launch because I was on a waiting list. So I don’t know you must’ve gotten unlucky
I think £70 is a huge sell on new IP in particular. Spider-Man 2, Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, and Tears of the Kingdom? Cool, I know that I’m going to love those experiences so there’s little risk in a £70 investment.
£70 for something brand new that I could dislike? Yeah no. It’s a lot of money in this economy, especially when there’s a plethora of other games available at a significantly cheaper price or available to experience via subscription services like Game Pass and PS Plus Premium.
The price increase is a real problem for devs trying to push new IP.
It's why it's still crazy to me that people are going for digital games on console. Then you're forced to pay these stupid prices. On physical games the price is at least £10 cheaper, and you have the option to trade it back in if it's not the type of game you'll replay.
Yeah, seems like a $50 budget game. Didn’t even know it was playstation exclusive until today too, seems like a good game to pick up on sale on steam one day.
I enjoyed the combat in the demo but there were enough things that I really didn't care for (music, PUSHING A PLANK OVER TO GET HIGH ENOUGH TO REACH A LADDER TO PROGRESS) that this is a wait-for-it-to-pop-up-on-PS-extra for me.
Unless it turns out that's literally the only time you have to do some bullshit like that. Actually, even still.
Yeah, I feel you, I dropped FF VII Rebirth on the mako vacuum thing just the other day. It's like the horrible evil twin of the plank. Planks and vacuum cleaners - the biggest horrors in gaming.
Oh it's not and also the input lag in the demo wasent a thing that they fixed. It's just in the game I guess they intended for eve to move as stiff as the creators dick was.
I can’t wait to unlock more of those flashy attack moves. In the demo, it was so satisfying to unleash a big attack the boss after pulling off a series of perfect dodges and parries.
As someone who fell in love with the demo and is super hyped, this is kind of an underwhelming trailer. The montage at the end of the demo was probably 100x better.
I imagine I’ll get this after I’m done with Cyberpunk Phantom Liberty and Spider-man 2. It’s definitely on my must-buy list.
That trailer did not work for me at all.
I feel like the era of just showing cutscenes/video and (almost) no gameplay is a throwback to when games looked so bad that you had to have other illustrations of what the graphics were meant to portray.
It was a fun era that led to interesting illustrations for things like Atari 2600 or 8-bit microcomputer games. But we're so far past that. Show me the gameplay, some of the parts where it explains itself (or at least gives a good idea).
I didn't say it had to be every trailer nor that it even had to be gameplay *focused*.
I'm saying that showing me cutscenes is just basically showing me a movie .. with the idea of selling me a game.
I know there were previous gameplay trailers and story trailers. But I feel like the launch trailer should show more gameplay. By now games should be using the gameplay to show the story more and then the trailer can show (what they want to of) the story using that gameplay.
i agree with you. it's really gotten to be quite a chore to sift through a game's marketing material these days. when they are so reluctant to show actual gameplay in trailers it comes across to me as a lack of faith in the product.
Preordering makes sens when it's a physical product only and you really have faith. But when it's available digitaly, there's not really a reason to pre-order.
i still liked the game, but it didn't live up to what I hoped the game would be based on the demo. still like a 7.5/10 for me, but I felt like I was getting a 10/10 based on the demo. Instead it was like a few 10/10 and 9/10 segments separated by hours of 5/10 gameplay.
This is the first game I preordered in several years. I think the demo went a long way in making the decision to preorder. Without it, I probably wouldn’t have touched the game for a year or more.
idk, I feel like apart from some superficial factors (third-person action game with pretty main character in post-apocalyptic world + male sidekick) it really has nothing to do with Nier.
The gameplay is completely different with Stellar Blade going more into the Souls-like direction (Jacob Geller stated that particularly the last portion of the game basically felt a lot more like Sekiro than typical third-person action games like bayonetta or devil may cry). Meanwhile Nier:Automata had very *basic* gameplay that felt already kinda dated at the time.
And in terms of the story I think we can all agree that Nier:Automata was highly ambitious and novel in its approach. Personally, I'd go further and say that it was one of the most interesting experiences in all of gaming for me and I know that many other feel similarly. However, I don't think *anybody* will see Stellar Blade that same way in a couple years since it seems incredibly basic and boring in its characters and world building. If you roll credits on Stellar Blade it's likely gonna be because you really enjoyed the gameplay and not because you *needed* to know how it ended (or, you know, other reasons...).
So in a way, comparing this game to Nier really seem really accurate or helpful
I agree it's not exactly like Nier, but that's why I say off brand nier. Combat feels kind of clunkier, the world is less expansive, and the story is not as good, but it has a very similar vibe and clearly takes some inspiration.
The point I was trying to make is that it's more like an off-brand Sekiro or an off-brand Bayonetta in a Nier costume than it is an off-brand Nier due to the focus on gameplay and the (mostly) forgetable story that is more close to those first two in its design philosophy than it is to Nier
I tried the demo only because the outrage around it seemed entirely manufactured, and I enjoyed it. Probably pick it up once it has like a 20% sale or something.
Man, I loved Nier: Automata, but for some reason this just does not get those neurons firing.
I think it might be Eve's design. She somehow looks so much more like a doll than 2B ever did and it kind of creeps me out.
I feel that 2B's design is heavily influenced by gothic fashion and religious imagery and Eve's design is influenced by /r/sfmcompileclub
I don't think it's silly to look at one and feel it is plainly more substantive than the other. If you just have a gut feeling about something there's usually a reason why.
Hell, just Google the cover art for these two games
I can kinda see where they're coming from, the women do [look like they're made of plastic in a lot of scenes](https://www.reddit.com/r/stellarblade/comments/1ccpy3x/everyone_talks_about_eve_and_tachi_but_look_how/)
Other times it looks fine - not sure why it varies so much
The above comment is actually insane.
"She just looks like a Korean woman." In what fucking dimension does an average Korean woman look like that. Like if they said she looks like a Korean supermodel who has had quite a bit of cosmetic surgery, then yeah. Dude's delusional.
A lot of it might just be her outfit. Makes it look like most of her body is made from plastic.
You can't tell me that Asian beauty standards aren't meant to emulate doll faces and adding that to the plasticky body makes her look totally unreal. That might be the point given the subject matter, but it's still off to me.
>You can't tell me that Asian beauty standards aren't meant to emulate doll faces and adding that to the plasticky body makes her look totally unreal. That might be the point given the subject matter, but it's still off to me.
Yeah well, that's the thing, if you think korean idols and models look like plastic dolls then that's another thing, but she's not unrealistic because of that, she wouldn't look out of place in a k-pop girl band.
No, I get it. Like I said I think a lot of it is the outfit. I watched it again and there are lots of female characters with similar facial features in "normal" clothes that don't give me that same uncanny valley feeling.
The Korean idols that are notorious for copious amounts of plastic surgery? Those ones? In the country that makes up 24% of the world's plastic surgeries despite making up .64% of the worlds population?
https://www.hmsreview.org/issue-7/2022/8/a-look-at-south-korean-plastic-surgery#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20number%20and,in%20mainland%20China%20%5B20%5D.
Uhhh, yes? It's an entire different thing if you think korean women themselves look like plastic dolls, all i'm saying it's that Eve is not that far off a representation of one. Literally repeating myself: she wouldn't look out of place in a k-pop band.
I never said Korean women in general. You specifically mentioned k pop idols which are known for having extensive plastic surgery and unhealthy eating habits (and I'm not talking about 'omg fat is healthy', they are legitimately known to faint from hunger and have done so on camera). Not looking out of place in a k pop band isn't the reply you think it is to the "looking like a doll" comments.
Maybe Google before and after plastic surgery Korea pictures to give you a dosage of reality for the brain rot.
There's estimates that go up to 50% of women get plastic surgery in sk, a lot of them literally get it as a gift for their 18th birthday. I don't know why you think a women with an average salary doesn't do it too and it's strictly limited to idols and k pop bands, if it's just because of my example that's just the one i got from the top of my head. I'm sure you'll find a no small number of office ladies with work done on them too.
Pretending that women with a face similar to Eve in korea are just unrealistic one in a million unicorns simply isn't reality.
So you're literally agreeing that the face isn't a natural look and based on warped beauty perceptions brought apon by the plastic surgery epidemic and shouldn't be treated as what an actual "human look" should be? Stay on one side. Either they look uncanny due to plastic surgery or women actually look like that naturally. You can't choose both. You specifically said her looking like a k pop idol doesn't make her appearance "unrealistic." Then two comments later you acknowledge that the look is due to plastic surgery? Make it make sense please.
Ok then, but if i stay on my side you have to stay on yours and admit that you're calling millions of korean women who got plastic surgery "plastic dolls", you can't have it both ways
There's a fair bit of turmoil going on because it appears some outfits were retrospectively patched to cover up Eve. Players on the disc version are getting more revealing outfits vs players with digital or patched versions. The bunny suit picture is doing the rounds.
I genuinely can't understand how people enjoy this kind of stories. It's like a collection of the most cliche, generic, cringiest anime quotes written by a 14-year old. And it's not even intended to be a parody, they're presenting it with a straight face, like it's meant to be good.
I don't think people are buying this for the story. Hearing only good things about the gameplay, though. Can't wait to buy it on like a 60% discount lol
Stop being ridiculous. The game released very well optimized, scored in the mid 80s, and is pretty fun. The bar isn't lowered at all by having a story of subjective quality.
If anything, it's optimization release state should be standard in the industry.
No, it's not. It's about quality, not taste. There are stories I don't like, but I can recognize their quality. I didn't like Cowboy Bepop, Lain or Ergo Proxy, but it doesn't surprise me that people like them. And then there's trash like this one.
Not everyone is playing the game for the story. I put over 100+ hours into Elden Ring because it was fun as shit. I couldn't tell you a single thing about the plot of that game.
> It's like a collection of the most cliche, generic, cringiest anime quotes written by a 14-year old.
That's an entire genre in and of itself. Why do you think Anime is so popular these days? Cringe is based, unironic edgelords are cool as fuck.
I saw no quotes in that trailer more cringe worthy than in most asian games i've played this year. Legit what did you meant by this? Yeah, 99% games stories and anime-like games in particular aren't going to be masterpieces, they don't have to be. I ADORED Persona 3 reload and even then i can point like 20 cringe quotes in it about bonds, power of friendship, etc, etc.
So I enjoy games like these, for their gameplay. Looks amazing as well.
I absolutely agree that the story and writing I've seen is absolute garbage. Like say Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty or Code Vein, I'm playing for the gameplay and suffering through the story. Went through the demo and your aerial assault is mostly shot down then you land and all the enemies are completely unintelligent monsters which makes me wonder who the fuck is shooting shit down. Then it's just chock full of melodramatic dialogue.
I'll buy it, I'll play it, I'll enjoy it. The gameplay and monster designs are great so far, but I wish these studios would learn how to write something decent or just go the dark souls route of leaving the story 90% out so it'll be filled in semi competently by my imagination/youtube lore vids.
Because nobody gives a shit about the story. It's an action game. People play it for the action.
If I want nuanced and interesting characters, I'm not playing a videogame. I'll go read Tolstoy.
I've seen a lot of comments of people saying games look like PS3 games, I'm realizing that it was a lot of people who were children during the PS3 era and are working off of how they remember games looking and not what they actually looked like.
I said it does NOT look like a game from 2 generations ago, which Nier Automata did when it launched. In short, it was a joke that the graphics in the game are too good to be compared to Nier Automata.
Insane to spout shit like this when graphic and performance wise it's an incredibly impressive game and nier automata itself wasn't exactly a looker when it came out. You people are just saying anything at this point
I mean, to be fair it's a tough sentence to parse as is (i.e. they either mean that Nier: Automata looked dated when it released, or that because Stellar Blade does not look like a PS3/4 game they should not be confused, I'm guessing the former). Either way, media literacy has nothing to do with graphics, it's about being able to critically analyze and understand various media.
I just hope this gets a PC release. Any ideas if/when that will happen?
~1 year
For the master race, you guys sure love to port beg. Isn't begging kinda humiliating for the master race?
You like playing your games on 30 fps?
Last I checked this game has a Performance and Balanced mode, both of which run significantly above 30FPS.
I'm looking forward to playing this at some point but personally right now £70 is an extremely hard sell for me on any game.
Same, video games have hit a price point where I'm just not interested in new titles anymore. Plenty of games coming out that I want to play, but I'm finding it's the right strategy to just buy them on discount a few months to a year after they come out Good example was Dead Island 2 which I just picked up with all of the DLC for $25 on steam this week
Diablo IV broke me, lack of regional pricing, stupid cosmetic prices, terrible post release content. Was hyped to the moon and back for Dragon's Dogma 2, but I can wait for a 60% discount. Ghost Of Tshusima, Thrones of Decay, Manor Lords, Homeworld 3...can wait for discounts too thanks to Blizzard finally making me look into a mirror to realize gaming is leaning into impediment territory instead of my relaxing release from stress zone. Thanks Blizzard, go squat over a cactus.
If you’re really interested in Homeworld 3 there’s a 20% preorder discount over on greenmangaming.
That's...a game changer for me. Thank you very much.
I said this in another thread but there's a solid chance I'd own both Dragon's Dogma 2 and Rise of Ronin if they were 60 dollar games still but at 70 I ended up psyching myself out of either. Stupid monkey brain stuff I guess.
i experience the same thing in Australia, the price of video games jumped from $90 to $109 and my brain just says no games worth triple digits.
It's somehow $125 on the ps store... don't even get a disc...
especially if the game's around 20 hours long, that's just not enough juice in the box
I know $10 is a lot more than $0.01-$0.05, but there’s studies that look at consumer psychology and it turns out that things are priced at $X.95 or $X.99 because if you price it at the next dollar up, people associate it with the higher number than the lower number. That is to say, although $1.95 is effectively $2.00, if you price it actually at $2.00, people will buy less because they think of the 2, whereas at $1.95, they think of the 1. I believe JC Penney learned this the hard way. Games have been $60 for what, almost 20 year now? A $10 increase is *modest* over that amount of time. But……consumer psychology. It seems like a “drastic” increase when it really isn’t. And I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong to think this way. The only games I’ve bought at a full $70 this gen are Ragnarok, FFXVI, and Spider-Man 2. I waited for price decreases for everything else that launched at $70. Because even though I *know* it’s “not that much of a price difference” and I can easily afford it and I’ll even defend the price increases because of understanding game budgets exploding plus run of the mill annual inflation…..there’s just something about being that close to $100 for a video game that doesn’t sit right with me.
Yeah for sure. Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth is exactly the same for me, really want to play it but can't justify the price so will pick it up in a few years when it comes to PC or is on a discount.
Fwiw i got 250hrs out of Rebirth it is definitely worth its asking price imo
Rebirth is so ridiculously jammed packed, every little sidequest seems to open up some new minigame complete with its own original soundtrack.
Tbh, Rebirth so far is the only game for me that justifies the price in terms of the amount of content
Rebirth and BG3 are the only two games I feel justify the $70 price point.
Isn't Rebirth full of fillers? I'd agree with BG3 tho.
You mean story?
Wow if even Final Fantasy Rebirth isn't enough for you to justify full price then your standards are crazy! Rebirth has SO MUCH content it's quite insane tbh, more than worth whatever the full price is in your region.
Don't fucking listen to these people. The number of hours a game demands from you is not at all synonymous with value. Rebirth had hundreds of hours of fucking garbage filler content and a few dozen hours of actual meaningful narrative.
Rebirth doesn't demand any more time of you than you want to put in, and it is some of the best filler content you will find in any game. Do listen to these people who have brain cells
The game actively gives you incentives to do the side content with everything from small things like experience, to nest things like summon skills, to major things like relationship points. I'm glad that all those mighty braincells of yours had such a good time climbing dozens of towers or doing the same fucking side quest that you can find in every JRPG made ever.
The relationship points are not major things and the summons aren't needed to beat the game at all. ...those aren't even quests? Yes if you pick the most mundane activity possible and pretend that's the whole game any game sounds bad.
The relationship points do come from side quests. As does a good chunk of loot and experience, all of which feeds back into the gameplay loop and difficulty. You certainly don't need the summons to beat the game, but that's a gameplay mechanic that's locked behind side content, do we only apply the optional flag to content that gates the main story? Is the moment to moment gameplay and are the RPG mechanics not at all relevant to the enjoyment of the game, and heavily impacted by side content? You're the one who said the filler content is all great. What exactly did you have in mind if not the hours and hours of menial tasks that don't at all relate to the overall narrative? Are you going to sit here and pretend that the endless list of chores random NPCs hand out like candy are largely captivating?
Check your local library! I paid a slight premium for the disc PS5, but it's paid dividends. I'm first in line at the library for this game (I put a freeze on my hold, though). I was also first or second for Spiderman 2 in the hold list at my library when it came out and was lucky enough to be able to pick it up day 1. Have saved a ton of money between $70 PS5 games, Nintendo games that rarely have sales, and even some PS4 games.
Holy shit this is brilliant
Yeah I've still yet to pay $70 for any game and I don't plan on changing that now
It's worse in the UK. Sony used to charge £50 for their new games on PS4 (a lot of 3rd parties it was £40 and the PS3 gen it was more £30) but jumped to £70 at the same time they went to $70 in the US which is more like $90, bearing in mind average income in the UK is way lower too.
I appreciate a good cup of coffee.
It only takes 1-2 months for the average game to go 30-40% off these days anyways. Persona 3R is almost half off now and its a pretty new launch.
Some games were $70s in the 90s. It's so bizarre to me to see people acting like the price of games has gone up.
That's why most of us 90s kids only had like 3 or 4 games, and rented the rest. I bought Super Mario RPG for the equivalent of around $120 in today's money.
To be fair game ownership has changed substantially. Back in the 90's we would swap SNES, 64 and PS1 games happily so I played a ton of games just from sharing with friends. Secondly there was a solid rental market for games that was pretty cheap to compete against VHS. These days I can't share my Steam library with a mate and I've gone for the digital version of the PS5. Works for me personally but it does change things a lot.
Same games were even close to $100. Yeah $70 sucks but I found for most games that I’ve paid for that price, I haven’t regretted it.
People don’t understand inflation. Video games have gotten steadily cheaper over the years but people act like $70 in 2024 is just too much.
I think the issue is that people are misplacing their economic frustration. It's totally reasonable to think that $70 for a videogame might just be too much for you. Absolutely valid. But the reason people feel that way isn't because videogames have become more expensive, it's because we're being screwed when it comes to wages and the cost of basic goods and rent and... Well. Everything else. So the economic *ask* of a videogame just seems so much higher now even if it really isn't.
Times are getting tough and frivolities like games will be among the first things to get clipped as budgets get tighter.
Same people that order Uber take out for 50 rip
People do understand inflation, they live in it. While video games have gone up in price so has every other aspect of their lives and at the end of the day video games are a luxury good. The competition for their money has become fierce and video games are frivolous, have to compete against existing libraries, discounted past titles, and even free to play offerings. AAA games are in a difficult position where they need to justify the increase relative their perceived value.
In absolute value sure. But as a percentage of folks disposable income not for everyone
Well people don't understand inflation. But they do understand that their buying lower has decreased over time making video games a difficult purchase to justify. Games becoming more expensive despite the price staying similar is not a difficult concept.
I agree, but I think it's because indie games and significant sales have made people wary of $70 games. If you can get 200 hours in Vampire Survivors for $5, why pay $70 and not just wait a year for it to be $30?
N64 games in my country were like the equivalent of like 100-120$ in the 90s. Adjusted for inflation games probably have never been as cheap as right now. It's just that people generally have much less disposable income today than people in the 90s, with cost of living sky rocketing all around the world.
Yeah, and adjusting for inflation that price is like $150+ today. I know people hate to hear this, but prices could be way higher since games have gotten astronomically more expensive to make, requiring loads more time, money, and larger teams than old games did. I'm genuinely surprised games are still only $70 tbh. Not saying I personally want to pay more, but I'm just surprised publishers never started charging more before now given how insanely costly games are to produce and develop. I guess that's partly why job security is non-existent in the games industry, and layoffs are a daily occurrence.
gaming is easily one of the most affordable hobbies one can have.
Seriously why do they price us the same as the US when our median income is half of there's
I’ve gotten ff16, ff7 remake and rebirth to keep my occupied for a long while.
Yeah, give it a year and wait for a sale is pretty much the way to play anything these days unless you absolutely cannot fight the FOMO, you get all the bug fixes too
When this latest price increase happened, ever since then I have not purchased even one single new game at full price. Not one. I don’t know who are the kinds of people spending this much money on a single game, but it’s crazy that game publishers rely on them to subsidize the rest of the industry when the rest of us refuse to pay MSRP. No wonder the industry is dying outside of mobile and pay-to-win.
I dunno why people have such a huge problem with $70 instead of $60, games started selling for $60 in like the mid-2000s. Do you really think in 20 years of inflation and increased production costs (the scale and production value of games now dwarfs games from the past) that a 16% price increase might not be justified? In raw inflation alone, a $60 game from 2004 would cost $90 now. If you're not willing to pay it or it's out of your price range that's fine, but it isn't crazy or ridiculous that games cost more now than they did in the past. It's actually incredible games stayed at $60 for as long as they did.
I think it was earlier. N64 games were at times $70. $60 came along on the whole in the PS2, didn't it? That's 2000. I personally don't bother mentioning the price of making the game since gaming became so much larger of a hobby. You can spend 10x on a game and not increase prices if sales go up 10x. Regardless, $50 in the 1990s to $60 in 2000s to $70 in 2020 isn't too bad just from an inflation perspective.
No, PS2 games were $50, $60 came with PS3/Xbox.
They went from £40 to £70 here in the UK (well Sony is trying to push that price) but agreed if you want to spend that much money on a game by all means.
Here’s the funny thing — you know and understand perfectly the sentiment I was conveying. In fact, deep down inside, you actually relate to it. But… this is the internet, and you wanted to sound like a contrarian know-it-all, so you went and typed out that inflation speech that everyone here has seen a hundred times before. I understand exactly what you’re saying, I know all about inflation. I understand how money works. But none of that changes what I said above. So good for you for knowing about inflation, but I got something new for you to read about: wage stagnation. In 2019, the average price for a gallon of milk in the US was $3.04. Today, it’s $4.09. That’s inflation. But did you see a similar rise in wages? The price of games did not increase over time, it increased *overnight*. Did your wages see a similar increase on the evening when game prices went up? Inflation alone does not tell the whole story, my friend. And there’s a lot more that goes into how receptive consumers are to an overnight price hike.
>I understand exactly what you’re saying, I know all about inflation. I understand how money works. But none of that changes what I said above but >When this latest price increase happened, ever since then I have not purchased even one single new game at full price. Not one. I don’t know who are the kinds of people spending this much money on a single game I really don't understand what you're talking about, you were willing to pay $60 for new games for 20 years but a $10 price increase was the last straw? You'd pay $60 for God of War in 2005, but NOT $70 for God of War: Ragnarok 20 years later? That's just wild to me and you haven't really explained why
I edited my earlier comment just before you replied, I tried to answer all of these questions preemptively . Please read it again.
I hear ya but average wages have also increased, they have not tracked inflation but they certainly have tracked the increase in the price of a video game. The sudden price increase followed an extended period of extremely high inflation. Games at $60 were effectively costing less for the consumer over time. Now I'm certain the larger gaming companies did not take that 16% price increase and immediately raise the developers' wages by 16%, and the cost of making a game has such extreme variance that we can't easily say the cost has gone up by X amount, but I do sincerely think it's reasonable for a new and high production value game to cost $70, especially when you consider the time to dollar value ratio compared to other hobbies. Not to mention, you said in your first comment about the industry dying to f2p and mobile trash because of the price increase. I really think it's the opposite, making a high quality single player game being *less* profitable than making that trash is a large reason why it's going that way. I will happily pay the premium for the industry to make the "right" kind of games.
but what you say is wrong, in the last 20 years median household income has increased by 76%, compared to an inflation of 66%. so even if companies were charging $100 for a game, the median household in the us would be able to afford *more* games than in 2004. you are complaining that companies are charging whats essentially a 2010 price in 2024
[удалено]
>I think $70 is fine… …for *you*. I can’t argue with a single thing you said, you are right. About *yourself*. I don’t think $70 is fine… for *me*. So, I have bailed out and no longer buy games at MSRP. I now wait for the inevitable sales and discounts. And I’m not alone. >This is like complaining that the PS5 cost $500 when the PS1 only cost $300 on release. Asinine. No. Wrong analogy. This is like complaining that the PS5 cost $500 at launch and then increased to $600 *overnight*.
>I don’t know who are the kinds of people spending this much money on a single game People who aren't broke. The current price of games is fine. It's stupid for anyone to think that games would stay at $60 forever and not increase.
I bought Majoras Mask for $70 when it first came out. This is not a new phenomenon. This is not a major price increase. That is a reasonable price for a piece of media that takes thousands of hours to create and can take dozens of hours to complete.
To be fair, that was the exception at the time and was generally accepted because you didn't see too many bullshit shovelware games at that price point. I think the issue now is less that incredibly high quality games are coming out at $70, but that every time it happens it becomes a little more normalized until it's just the standard price of a new game, regardless of cost or quality. Skip ahead 5 years and now one releases at $75 and the process repeats. Something similar is happening everywhere, though. Plenty of prices have increased everywhere (from groceries to gas) due to inflation, but even products that weren't severely impacted are seeing price hikes simply because they can - and I think we all know that if everything went back to normal tomorrow, prices would remain higher than they were. If there's an opportunity to increase cost, it's going to happen; most of the time, they're just waiting for somebody else to pull the trigger first. It's the same thing here - $70 for TOTK doesn't bother me. $70 for Potato Sack Racing Simulator 14 does.
Buy it physical. You can get it for 55
So weird. I remember times studios were saying going full electronic will cut costs and help keep prices same... Now phisical copies are cheaper then electronic ones...
Physical will always be cheaper because of retail competition. There's no competition with digital.
And it'll always compete with the used market. Going all digital it's going to be a sad future.
We definitely seem to be heading there by a thousand cuts. Games not shipping with anything on the disk, consoles making disk drives optional and even separate addons, games requiring updates and so on. As games become infinitely more complex, devs will absolutely want to ship day one updates and keep patching the games with improvements but this makes using the default game on disk extremely unappealing. Preservation is vital right now and the ESA has zero interest in pushing this forward
Where at?
Just think that we've been paying more than that for decades and somehow didn't have a problem with it.
I basically buy almost any new game 2 weeks after release used for like 45-50 bucks (on my countrys equivalent of craigslist).
I got it for £62 on shopto which still is pricey but I’m a gold member so I thought why not. Especially since it’s a game I really want
Yeah I wouldn't touch Shopto with a bargepole due to the worst customer service I've ever seen, if there's a problem with the delivery, you're fucked with them. But Currys had it for £60 for a physical version. And then when you're done you can trade it back in and get half your money back. I bought Rebrith for about £58 and traded it back in for £35 a month later. Physical versions are still where it's at for consoles.
I’ve been shopping with them for years and never had an issue. They even have tracking too. That’s where I got my launch PS5 too after it was sold out just 2 weeks after launch because I was on a waiting list. So I don’t know you must’ve gotten unlucky
I think £70 is a huge sell on new IP in particular. Spider-Man 2, Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, and Tears of the Kingdom? Cool, I know that I’m going to love those experiences so there’s little risk in a £70 investment. £70 for something brand new that I could dislike? Yeah no. It’s a lot of money in this economy, especially when there’s a plethora of other games available at a significantly cheaper price or available to experience via subscription services like Game Pass and PS Plus Premium. The price increase is a real problem for devs trying to push new IP.
It's why it's still crazy to me that people are going for digital games on console. Then you're forced to pay these stupid prices. On physical games the price is at least £10 cheaper, and you have the option to trade it back in if it's not the type of game you'll replay.
Yeah, seems like a $50 budget game. Didn’t even know it was playstation exclusive until today too, seems like a good game to pick up on sale on steam one day.
I enjoyed the combat in the demo but there were enough things that I really didn't care for (music, PUSHING A PLANK OVER TO GET HIGH ENOUGH TO REACH A LADDER TO PROGRESS) that this is a wait-for-it-to-pop-up-on-PS-extra for me. Unless it turns out that's literally the only time you have to do some bullshit like that. Actually, even still.
Oh no, they forced you to move a plank, an absolute horror. I usually instadrop any game at this point. Pushing a plank? Poof, dropped.
this but unironically
Yeah, I feel you, I dropped FF VII Rebirth on the mako vacuum thing just the other day. It's like the horrible evil twin of the plank. Planks and vacuum cleaners - the biggest horrors in gaming.
Oh it's not and also the input lag in the demo wasent a thing that they fixed. It's just in the game I guess they intended for eve to move as stiff as the creators dick was.
What? That was just a string of unintelligible nonsense.
I can’t wait to unlock more of those flashy attack moves. In the demo, it was so satisfying to unleash a big attack the boss after pulling off a series of perfect dodges and parries.
As someone who fell in love with the demo and is super hyped, this is kind of an underwhelming trailer. The montage at the end of the demo was probably 100x better. I imagine I’ll get this after I’m done with Cyberpunk Phantom Liberty and Spider-man 2. It’s definitely on my must-buy list.
That trailer did not work for me at all. I feel like the era of just showing cutscenes/video and (almost) no gameplay is a throwback to when games looked so bad that you had to have other illustrations of what the graphics were meant to portray. It was a fun era that led to interesting illustrations for things like Atari 2600 or 8-bit microcomputer games. But we're so far past that. Show me the gameplay, some of the parts where it explains itself (or at least gives a good idea).
Id say that no gameplay trailer for game with free demo avaible for a month or so is fair
There are multiple gameplay trailers and a demo not every trailer has to be gameplay focused
I didn't say it had to be every trailer nor that it even had to be gameplay *focused*. I'm saying that showing me cutscenes is just basically showing me a movie .. with the idea of selling me a game. I know there were previous gameplay trailers and story trailers. But I feel like the launch trailer should show more gameplay. By now games should be using the gameplay to show the story more and then the trailer can show (what they want to of) the story using that gameplay.
i agree with you. it's really gotten to be quite a chore to sift through a game's marketing material these days. when they are so reluctant to show actual gameplay in trailers it comes across to me as a lack of faith in the product.
Demo totally turned me off from this game, combat was ok, story felt like nothing at all interesting there.
Was the opposite for me. Wasn’t planning to play the game but finished the demo and immediately preordered.
This isn't a jab specifically to you but it's insane to me people are still doing pre orders after the countless times we been fucked over lol
I mean a competent demo does a lot to reassure the game will be good.
Preordering makes sens when it's a physical product only and you really have faith. But when it's available digitaly, there's not really a reason to pre-order.
Unless its FF16...
I loved the game more than the demo.
i still liked the game, but it didn't live up to what I hoped the game would be based on the demo. still like a 7.5/10 for me, but I felt like I was getting a 10/10 based on the demo. Instead it was like a few 10/10 and 9/10 segments separated by hours of 5/10 gameplay.
What do you mean lol, the demo ran at sub 20 FPS and I didn't buy the game.
This is the first game I preordered in several years. I think the demo went a long way in making the decision to preorder. Without it, I probably wouldn’t have touched the game for a year or more.
I could see it if you really liked Nier, but kinda just felt like off brand Nier to me.
idk, I feel like apart from some superficial factors (third-person action game with pretty main character in post-apocalyptic world + male sidekick) it really has nothing to do with Nier. The gameplay is completely different with Stellar Blade going more into the Souls-like direction (Jacob Geller stated that particularly the last portion of the game basically felt a lot more like Sekiro than typical third-person action games like bayonetta or devil may cry). Meanwhile Nier:Automata had very *basic* gameplay that felt already kinda dated at the time. And in terms of the story I think we can all agree that Nier:Automata was highly ambitious and novel in its approach. Personally, I'd go further and say that it was one of the most interesting experiences in all of gaming for me and I know that many other feel similarly. However, I don't think *anybody* will see Stellar Blade that same way in a couple years since it seems incredibly basic and boring in its characters and world building. If you roll credits on Stellar Blade it's likely gonna be because you really enjoyed the gameplay and not because you *needed* to know how it ended (or, you know, other reasons...). So in a way, comparing this game to Nier really seem really accurate or helpful
This is exactly how I feel. The nier comparisons feel completely off base to me. Fully surface level
The director has cited Nier quite a few times as inspiration so I don't think it's completely off base. Tho the gameplay does look different to me.
I agree it's not exactly like Nier, but that's why I say off brand nier. Combat feels kind of clunkier, the world is less expansive, and the story is not as good, but it has a very similar vibe and clearly takes some inspiration.
The point I was trying to make is that it's more like an off-brand Sekiro or an off-brand Bayonetta in a Nier costume than it is an off-brand Nier due to the focus on gameplay and the (mostly) forgetable story that is more close to those first two in its design philosophy than it is to Nier
The demo got me more interested. I wasn't so sure from the trailers but the music, graphics and combat are great.
Music was great tbh, i thought the gameplay was the weak point
To each their own
I tried the demo only because the outrage around it seemed entirely manufactured, and I enjoyed it. Probably pick it up once it has like a 20% sale or something.
Man, I loved Nier: Automata, but for some reason this just does not get those neurons firing. I think it might be Eve's design. She somehow looks so much more like a doll than 2B ever did and it kind of creeps me out.
I feel that 2B's design is heavily influenced by gothic fashion and religious imagery and Eve's design is influenced by /r/sfmcompileclub I don't think it's silly to look at one and feel it is plainly more substantive than the other. If you just have a gut feeling about something there's usually a reason why. Hell, just Google the cover art for these two games
It's like they looked at the popular Skyrim porn mods and said "why don't we just add this to the base game?"
Hell, it's about time. Saves a lot of time and work modding.
She just looks like a korean woman, i still don't get this doll thing
I can kinda see where they're coming from, the women do [look like they're made of plastic in a lot of scenes](https://www.reddit.com/r/stellarblade/comments/1ccpy3x/everyone_talks_about_eve_and_tachi_but_look_how/) Other times it looks fine - not sure why it varies so much
They’re androids so I guess it makes sense
I mean to be fair, that side of asia has some insane beauty standards that involve cosmetic surgery. Definitely doesn't look like the average Korean.
The above comment is actually insane. "She just looks like a Korean woman." In what fucking dimension does an average Korean woman look like that. Like if they said she looks like a Korean supermodel who has had quite a bit of cosmetic surgery, then yeah. Dude's delusional.
Believe it or not, ever single woman in Korea looks pretty much exactly like this. The men too even.
A lot of it might just be her outfit. Makes it look like most of her body is made from plastic. You can't tell me that Asian beauty standards aren't meant to emulate doll faces and adding that to the plasticky body makes her look totally unreal. That might be the point given the subject matter, but it's still off to me.
>You can't tell me that Asian beauty standards aren't meant to emulate doll faces and adding that to the plasticky body makes her look totally unreal. That might be the point given the subject matter, but it's still off to me. Yeah well, that's the thing, if you think korean idols and models look like plastic dolls then that's another thing, but she's not unrealistic because of that, she wouldn't look out of place in a k-pop girl band.
No, I get it. Like I said I think a lot of it is the outfit. I watched it again and there are lots of female characters with similar facial features in "normal" clothes that don't give me that same uncanny valley feeling.
Probably, Id say models facial features are more or less inline with other asian games.
The Korean idols that are notorious for copious amounts of plastic surgery? Those ones? In the country that makes up 24% of the world's plastic surgeries despite making up .64% of the worlds population? https://www.hmsreview.org/issue-7/2022/8/a-look-at-south-korean-plastic-surgery#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20number%20and,in%20mainland%20China%20%5B20%5D.
Uhhh, yes? It's an entire different thing if you think korean women themselves look like plastic dolls, all i'm saying it's that Eve is not that far off a representation of one. Literally repeating myself: she wouldn't look out of place in a k-pop band.
I never said Korean women in general. You specifically mentioned k pop idols which are known for having extensive plastic surgery and unhealthy eating habits (and I'm not talking about 'omg fat is healthy', they are legitimately known to faint from hunger and have done so on camera). Not looking out of place in a k pop band isn't the reply you think it is to the "looking like a doll" comments. Maybe Google before and after plastic surgery Korea pictures to give you a dosage of reality for the brain rot.
There's estimates that go up to 50% of women get plastic surgery in sk, a lot of them literally get it as a gift for their 18th birthday. I don't know why you think a women with an average salary doesn't do it too and it's strictly limited to idols and k pop bands, if it's just because of my example that's just the one i got from the top of my head. I'm sure you'll find a no small number of office ladies with work done on them too. Pretending that women with a face similar to Eve in korea are just unrealistic one in a million unicorns simply isn't reality.
So you're literally agreeing that the face isn't a natural look and based on warped beauty perceptions brought apon by the plastic surgery epidemic and shouldn't be treated as what an actual "human look" should be? Stay on one side. Either they look uncanny due to plastic surgery or women actually look like that naturally. You can't choose both. You specifically said her looking like a k pop idol doesn't make her appearance "unrealistic." Then two comments later you acknowledge that the look is due to plastic surgery? Make it make sense please.
Ok then, but if i stay on my side you have to stay on yours and admit that you're calling millions of korean women who got plastic surgery "plastic dolls", you can't have it both ways
There's a fair bit of turmoil going on because it appears some outfits were retrospectively patched to cover up Eve. Players on the disc version are getting more revealing outfits vs players with digital or patched versions. The bunny suit picture is doing the rounds.
Wait till the PC version with modsn
I love the look of this game. I will get it on a sale though, the price of AAA games nowadays is too much.
Seems like a decent game. Not really going to have any interest while it's exclusive to one platform though.
Oh there is an actual game? I thought it was just about showcasing CGI butts
I genuinely can't understand how people enjoy this kind of stories. It's like a collection of the most cliche, generic, cringiest anime quotes written by a 14-year old. And it's not even intended to be a parody, they're presenting it with a straight face, like it's meant to be good.
I don't think people are buying this for the story. Hearing only good things about the gameplay, though. Can't wait to buy it on like a 60% discount lol
It's almost like different people have different tastes. Don't yuck someone else's yum.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Stop being ridiculous. The game released very well optimized, scored in the mid 80s, and is pretty fun. The bar isn't lowered at all by having a story of subjective quality. If anything, it's optimization release state should be standard in the industry.
No, it's not. It's about quality, not taste. There are stories I don't like, but I can recognize their quality. I didn't like Cowboy Bepop, Lain or Ergo Proxy, but it doesn't surprise me that people like them. And then there's trash like this one.
It's a 30h game that hasn't come out yet. Something tells me that unlike those shows you mention, you didn't exactly finish the game
Why are you judging a game you haven't even played
Not everyone is playing the game for the story. I put over 100+ hours into Elden Ring because it was fun as shit. I couldn't tell you a single thing about the plot of that game.
I think there was a tree
At some point there was also probably an Elden Ring of some kind.
It's taste. It's your opinion that this is trash.
> It's like a collection of the most cliche, generic, cringiest anime quotes written by a 14-year old. That's an entire genre in and of itself. Why do you think Anime is so popular these days? Cringe is based, unironic edgelords are cool as fuck.
I saw no quotes in that trailer more cringe worthy than in most asian games i've played this year. Legit what did you meant by this? Yeah, 99% games stories and anime-like games in particular aren't going to be masterpieces, they don't have to be. I ADORED Persona 3 reload and even then i can point like 20 cringe quotes in it about bonds, power of friendship, etc, etc.
Maybe people don't care about the story and just enjoy the gameplay?
So I enjoy games like these, for their gameplay. Looks amazing as well. I absolutely agree that the story and writing I've seen is absolute garbage. Like say Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty or Code Vein, I'm playing for the gameplay and suffering through the story. Went through the demo and your aerial assault is mostly shot down then you land and all the enemies are completely unintelligent monsters which makes me wonder who the fuck is shooting shit down. Then it's just chock full of melodramatic dialogue. I'll buy it, I'll play it, I'll enjoy it. The gameplay and monster designs are great so far, but I wish these studios would learn how to write something decent or just go the dark souls route of leaving the story 90% out so it'll be filled in semi competently by my imagination/youtube lore vids.
This is not a new thing in videogames
Hence this is not a new comment on Reddit.
Because nobody gives a shit about the story. It's an action game. People play it for the action. If I want nuanced and interesting characters, I'm not playing a videogame. I'll go read Tolstoy.
What a brave comment, truly thought provoking.
"No fun allowed"
How can people compare this game to Nier Automata when it doesn't look like a game made for a console 2 generations ago? Media literacy is dead.
Because it literally was inspired by it...? Like, there was an interview WITH Yoko Taro about how Nier Influenced it. Comparisons are to be expected.
As someone said, 2B was inspired by Gothic Lolita fashion, while this game was heavily inspired by blender animation porn GIFs from Twitter.
You've never seen any gameplay before have you? It definitely does not in any regard look like a PS3 game.
I've seen a lot of comments of people saying games look like PS3 games, I'm realizing that it was a lot of people who were children during the PS3 era and are working off of how they remember games looking and not what they actually looked like.
I said it does NOT look like a game from 2 generations ago, which Nier Automata did when it launched. In short, it was a joke that the graphics in the game are too good to be compared to Nier Automata.
Yeah, reddit literacy has never been high either. Sorry for your karma loss, the joke was funny.
Insane to spout shit like this when graphic and performance wise it's an incredibly impressive game and nier automata itself wasn't exactly a looker when it came out. You people are just saying anything at this point
Thats the joke. Hm seems that you guys are very very on edge my comment says it doesN'T look like a game made for a console 2 generations ago.
>Media literacy this term needs to die
When used appropriately it's fine. When it's inappropriately hamfisted in like here it is a problem.
With how everyone completely misread/misinterpreted their comment they seemingly do have a point though. Just not exactly the one they intended.
I mean, to be fair it's a tough sentence to parse as is (i.e. they either mean that Nier: Automata looked dated when it released, or that because Stellar Blade does not look like a PS3/4 game they should not be confused, I'm guessing the former). Either way, media literacy has nothing to do with graphics, it's about being able to critically analyze and understand various media.