this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
198 points (98.5% liked)

RetroGaming

20685 readers
168 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Gonna get lynched for admitting to this here, but I've stayed away from Shovel Knight because of how premium they take themselves to be. I have gotten Hollow Knight and plenty of other Castlevanias on discount, though, even though I'm not a fan of the genre. I think this statement coming from them is a bit ironic consider how they treat their product, although they aren't the only one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

Game bad because no sales is a weird take. Not really sure why you're ascribing a "holier than thou" attitude to Yacht Club Games because I don't really see it but different perspectives I guess. I'd argue comparing anything to Hollow Knight will make it come up short. That game is a masterpiece and it still only costs $15. You should try Shovel Knight. It's not really a Metroidvania so the comparisons to Hollow Knight and Castlevania isn't wholly accurate. If you don't like it you could refund it. Disagreements aside, Silk Song looks like it's going to be fire when it finally releases, but it's been so long I'm not going to keep the hype up anymore Happy gaming, homie

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I'm SO confused by what you're saying. And I think what is happening, is you're saying something so outragous that my brain REFUSES to process the information. Leaving me bewildered by recent developments.

Let me get this straight......you think that the studio behind shovel knight doesn't deserve to state their opinion on how to mske good retro games??? And this is based on the fact that they don't discount their games, and they take the genre too seriously.........just to make sure I understand you. That's what you're going with?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I mean, we can wait for them to clarify, but the way I read it is that... it's bad that they don't sell their game for cheaper?

I profoundly disagree there, too. There's this notion that pixel art games are inherently low-end, cheap stuff and that's just not true. Plus games are too cheap these days anyway. I bought Shovel Knight full price (several times, actually), and while it's not my favorite 2D platformer it always felt like good value. I mean, the soundtrack alone is worth the price of admission, and all the expansions are fun and worth playing. Even if they weren't, the franchise now includes more interesting games I am glad their success was able to fund.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I agree with the sentiment. People think that non 3d graphics should be cheap because they don't understand the amount of work that can go behind them.

Take chained echoes or sea of stars, two modern pixel jrpgs with "premium" prices. If someone thinks those games shouldn't cost their full price, they are out of their minds.

Same with shovel knight. I bought the treasure trove and the amount of fun it has give to me puts so many 80€ games to shame.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

Shovel Knight is flipping huge. I mean, sure, Treasure Trove includes what? Five full games in there, given their DLC structure. But even if it didn't, I don't think people realize how big these "retro games" are.

Shovel Knight is probably three, four times larger than Duck Tales, both in terms of assets and playtime. If anything, a pet peeve of mine with modern retro games is they all feel this compulsion to give you a five hour playthrough at least and that's often too much for the older mechanics they're leaning on.

Castlevania will last you an hour on a blind run and that's perfectly fine, even if you get to that bar by having more content instead of being obtuse and difficult the way an older game would due to memory and budget constraints.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Not that they don't deserve their opinion, just that it is somewhat hypocritical to use nostalgia to put the game on a pedestal and prevent it from being as accessible. Most devs don't take it as a personal attack to their character to make their games more accessible to players and get more of a fan base going, and frankly, ease of access for a lot of kids of free retro games on their emulators is what has compelled them to later become loyal fans of the franchise. It is not a commentary about the value of games itself, and I will not shed a tear for indie devs that are already millionaires keeping prices high on their games as if it was necessary. Also not a fan of IP laws that are just an excuse of profitting way beyond the cost of development of something.

This would not be acceptable anywhere outside this particular sub-industry, and it does not even make sense once sales have dropped down low enough since the benefit you get from advertising is greater. This only makes sense if you see any sense in huffing and puffing and taking it as a personal aggression having to consider selling your product that has already profited its development costs several times over for less.

Personally, I will not buy it because it is not a genre I particularly like. But I would not mind buying it to see what all the fuss is about on discount. Take that as you will, but the outcome is that I will probably play something made inspired by the game before I play the game itself. Counterexample for me is Tunic, would not have bought it, in fact, I haven't even finished it, but the devs didn't put it in a pedestal so high that I didn't mind giving it a try and adding it to my library. Doesn't mean it isn't a great game, specially for those into the genre. I'll let you get right back to getting offended now.

Actually, a better counterexample: Bastion. Not a fan, but aspects like the quality, the way the game handles replay-ability, and other aspects of the game like the narrator, now has made me a fan of Supergiant Games and anything else they make, even if I'm generally not a fan of the genre. Also why I supported them with Hades on early access and why I played Pyre when I generally wouldn't have.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

........wow.

You realize that every single product in capitolism, whether it's a Mercedes-Benz car, a Coca-Cola beverage, a Kensmore washing machine, a video game, all of it......it's all sold based on what the people selling it think they can afford to charge.

Look at Nintendo. They could have a game out for 10+ years, and they'll still charge $60. Why? Because people will pay it. I fault Nintendo for almost every business decision they make. Especially the lawsuits. But their pricing model isn't something I fault them for. From a business perspective, making money is the whole point.

These other retro games that don't charge much is because they just throw the game together, with no care. Then sell it cheap because it was made by 1-2 people in a short amount of time. The price is the hook.

For shovel knight it was developed, and added to, for almost a decade, by a full development team. It's like the difference between getting a hand crafted knife, made by a professional who's world renouned for his bladework, vs going to walmart and getting a cheap knife. Yeah, they do the same thing, but one is so much better quality and it shows.

Why would they discount it now, after giving people 8 years worth of free DLC?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

Last year there was a sale with 50% off, if that is what you're upset about?