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

RetroGaming

20701 readers
219 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] -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