320°

'Reviewers should PAY for games'- Renaud Charpentier, Creative Assembly

Taking douchebaggery to a whole new level in the midst of the full on 'perfect storm' that has engulfed Youtube following their recent 'Copyright Blitzkreig', a lead developer at Creative Assembly has gone on record to take the lunacy and bitter reactions one step closer to the edge of madness by claiming ALL videogame journalists should actually PAY the developer for their review copies, or is it just the ones who delivered a negative score?

Read Full Story >>
gamesmediapro.co.uk
Mikelarry3781d ago (Edited 3781d ago )

buhahahahahahahahah..... oh wait he was actually being serious BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT: you see what i find really funny is the ps4 and xbox one were created with the idea of sharing game videos with friends and the internet by making sharing easier and now is the time these so called developers want to kick up a fuss REALLY !!!!!

jimbobwahey3781d ago

I think making reviewers pay for the games they review might actually improve the review process. I mean the expected result is that because they paid for the game, they'd be more critical? I sometimes feel that reviewers give games too easy a ride just because they got the game for free, so they excuse problems that anybody who paid for the game would not.

Besides, it would also put reviewers in the position of then having to deal with whatever launch day problems the game has, rather than playing games in a closed environment where the multiplayer works flawlessly because it's via LAN rather than online servers.

I think it's far too common these days that because of my above points, games get scores that are far too generous.

Mikelarry3781d ago (Edited 3781d ago )

while i see where you are coming from and your suggestion makes sense this same logic would then need to be applied to alot of other consumer goods we currently make use of that would mean only the well known will be reviewed as no-one will be willing to give the unknown brands a chance since they can only review a few now have to pay for the product.

Bigpappy3781d ago

I believe that if they pay for the games, you should get a better review. Their is something about paying for things that makes you feel more attached. Plus it feels less like their are trying to please publishers.

admiralvic3781d ago

"I think making reviewers pay for the games they review might actually improve the review process. "

Fun fact and completely off the record, a lot of sites don't get every game for free and rarely know what or when we will get a game. When I was working for a decent / good site (100,000+ views a month), we had games come at completely different rates.

Ni no Kuni came a week after release.
Neverdead was a week after release.
Mugen Souls came 2 months before release.
We never got Twisted Metal, Starhawk, New Super Mario Bros. U, Animal Crossing, PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, Persona 4 Arena, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 Plus, and many many many more games.

"I mean the expected result is that because they paid for the game, they'd be more critical? I sometimes feel that reviewers give games too easy a ride just because they got the game for free, so they excuse problems that anybody who paid for the game would not."

Sadly, it doesn't work that way. What typically happens is one of two things. Either the game gets more "genuine" praise, because the person reviewing it had to buy it out of pocket. At the same time, it's also possible it will get more hate because they had to pay for it. So while it might not have been a 2 - 4 out of 10, the simple act of buying it left such a bitter taste in their mouth that they had to take it out on the game and the score is so much lower. In the end, you will never find a fair line, nor will you find people (consumers or reviewers) willing to overlook massive problems because they like one or more aspects of the game.

admiralvic3781d ago

"Besides, it would also put reviewers in the position of then having to deal with whatever launch day problems the game has, rather than playing games in a closed environment where the multiplayer works flawlessly because it's via LAN rather than online servers. "

Most reviewers, at least the people below the "professional" IGN level, play largely the same game as everyone else. I reviewed for a site and got many review copies and I can tell you I rarely saw a game before release and if I did, it was extremely rare to see it more than 5 days before release. All of these games were retail games (more or less) and played no different than a copy I could buy in stores.

"I think it's far too common these days that because of my above points, games get scores that are far too generous."

The issue is how the community acts towards people that think contrary to them. Case in point, I thought Tearaway was way too short, needed more levels / content and probably should have been a $15 - $20 digital title. However, there are many people that agree with the 8+ review scores being accurate, even though they paid $40 dollars for it, versus the reviewer probably paying nothing. I am also sure there will be people who disagree with this comment simply because I didn't praise Tearaway, which many Vita gamers consider to be the Vita GOTY and some consider it the best title on the actual platform. I mean, the game is about 2 - 3 hours long with almost no replay value with a $40 dollar MSRP, yet it is averaging an 87 on Meta with a 9 average across 162 user reviews.

We're getting to a point where smaller websites don't want to step on toes (because that cost them views, money, status, and perks), which is enough to kill the site. The average site, not places like IGN, but a place like NowGamer (they're on Metacritic) don't offer writers a lot of perks. I've been doing this for 3+ years and outside of free review copies here and there, I've easily lost $1,100+ dollars writing for a gaming news site. There isn't a lot of money to be made and it's something people typically do because they enjoy doing it. This is why you see a lot of garbage editorials about top 10 this or flame bate articles, because these sites need to turn some sort of profit.

Even when I was working for my last site, you had to be the top contributor of the month to make a cent. Even then, which on average was 60 - 80 articles, the reward was a mere $60 dollars. This is roughly 1 day of work at minimum wage and it was entirely possible I could be 2 articles short of the minimum and end up with nothing.

SilentNegotiator3781d ago (Edited 3781d ago )

Jim Sterling made an episode on why that is a completely ridiculous suggestion:
http://www.escapistmagazine...
Reviewers could never afford that.

It would be great to see less reviewers give every game an 8+ because they paid for it themself and have realistic expectations, but then reviews would be infrequent from the same great reviewers, day one and beyond only, and less frequent.

Wingsfan243781d ago

As a reviewer myself, I can't say I agree with you. When you look at it from our perspective, readers want reviews of a lot of games ha, and with the amount of games some sites review, that'd be a ridiculous amount of money to spend and in the end, it wouldn't work and there'd be a lot less reviews and games being missed because of money issues.

I do see your point in thinking that way, but I'd be careful to generalize all reviewers in the same boat. Personally when I get a review copy I look at my readers as customers and want to be as honest about a product as I can be and want them to take our opinions credibly. That way they come back to read our other reviews and know we provide honest feedback, and more often than not, the developers really appreciate the feedback on their games so they can improve next time. Although, that's normally the way smaller developers look at it.

And as other comments said, we normally get the same game the consumers get, with the same bugs and patches you have to install.

So, all in all, it's really based on which reviewers you trust and opinions matches up with yours I guess. Obviously there's always different opinions, but as I've said numerous times, reviews should be about the quality of a game over whether you liked it or not.

CoryHG3781d ago

not me. i started out reviewing by paying for the games. i don't give good scores for the simple fact i received the game. Credibility is important to me.

Prime1573780d ago

I agree. If they get a game for free they go easy on it. If they have to pay they feel the pain of all of us, but they are jaded because it wasn't free.

Median income in America (#1 @ $14bill market) is ~36,000 a year... if you had to buy a game on that income you'd appreciate it more...

I don't know, I think part of it is that people need to learn to "shop" reviews to find their own interests...

At the same time, you get well received games like journey that cause a studio to falter...

Edit: I'm talking to myself.. I screwed up as I contradict myself... I guess this is complicated...

Anon19743780d ago

I'm not sure this is necessarily the answer, but it certainly beats the trend of reviewers demanding free copies and money for their review "services". Paid reviews are the norm for mobile game sites (trust me on that one).

Personally, I think if your review site is worth anything you don't need to charge for reviews.

Runa2163780d ago

Clearly you've never, ever been a game reviewer.

Athonline3780d ago

If they start paying for their games, be more transparent what they bought, what they got for free it would be great for me.

Reviewers should get a couple of days for single-player in advance and only review multiplayer games post-launch.

Over the last years I kept coming across more and more "professional" webpages, biased, exploiting console wars and trends, misinforming people. Such sites in my opinion just hurt the communities, as they split gamers and report news/ review based on personal believes.

Even this article is extremely biased. Journalism should be neutral, stating facts and not personal opinions. For personal opinions, there are blogs, Facebook, Twitter and your good-old grandma, who will agree with you whatever you say.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 3780d ago
snipermk03781d ago

@AdmiralVic: Excellent post. I totally agree with you. I used to work for a gaming publication too and more often than not, we had to pay for games out of our pockets. I don't know why everyone of the common folk think that game reviewers are just sitting on a bed of free games.

Eonjay3781d ago

Thank God for PS4 streaming. Now I can get reviews from actual people and not just a select group of people who decide what to hype.

MidnytRain3781d ago

You could do that before PS4 streaming...

admiralvic3781d ago

"not just a select group of people who decide what to hype."

Indeed, the select group of people with $100 or so dollars to spend to buy a HDPVR.

Prime1573780d ago (Edited 3780d ago )

I noticed you got more disagrees. I really don't think those people understand what $100 means to the median (edit: 50% Mark, yes, I do think i have to explain median to a "large" minority of people) household income.

I've lived on both sides of that line... the <40k line sucks, especially when supporting another human. You have to decide if you want that hdpvr or that $800 tv, or that game, or that sofa, or those phone accessories, or that phone plan, cable plan, which console you want, which graphics card (all similar to your monthly rent and expenses, and equal to 2% of your yearly income).

TheGamingHeretic3781d ago

Unfortunately, This fight is as old as time. It also is amazing to me how developers can be so short sighted to think that reviewers are out to get them. I understand the emotion that is tied to putting your heart and soul into something. However, if it's bad - it's bad. That's just the way it is. Even reviewers like 'Angry Joe' (from The Angry Joe Show) aren't out to destroy games. You can truly tell he loves it when a game is awesome.

Also, speaking on behalf of a brand new Game Review Website - we have to buy the majority of the games we review. Only the really really big ones get it free, especially from AAA titles.

Hicken3781d ago

Well, if you're already paying, it's nothing different, right? What would be your complaint, since it would put bigger sites in the same boat as you?

Some reviewers aren't out to destroy games... but some are. Tom Chick is one, William Usher is another(though I think he's just a massive troll), so's Arthur Gies over at Polygon, and I'm sure there are plenty of others that could be named.

To me, too many reviewers have become opinionated and full of themselves. They think they're more important than they are, and it's led to a rather crappy reviewing ecosystem(which is pretty in-line with gaming journalism, in general). Sessler's ranting prior to the PS4 release is indicative of that attitude.

Let em pay for the games. What's it gonna hurt them? Maybe, as someone else said, they'll be more critical- and thus, more fair- since they have to invest in these games just like us normal people.

TheGamingHeretic3781d ago

I would counter that the reasoning is that by allowing free games, then critics are able to do more reviews and give more press to both good and bad games. It doesn't limit their ability to expand.

The only people that requiring full payment of games would hurt are the smaller critics that most people consider to be 'honest'. IGN would not be to badly impacted by this, nor would any other major outlet. However smaller outlets (such as The Gaming Heretic) most assuredly would and you would just have even less 'true journalism'.

It decreases the ability of smaller organizations to do reviews and thus hurts gaming overall as only bigger outlets can afford to give their reviews because they can afford it.

Prime1573780d ago

I think there is an issue we aren't seeing. Very, very few critics get THE MAJORITY free.

In that being said, wouldn't you go into a game with a bias because said publisher or studio made you buy to review?

@thegamingheretic, "The only people that requiring full payment of games would hurt are the smaller critics that most people consider to be 'honest'. "

I disagree simply because those smaller critics already pay for most of their games. Time, money, and notoriety...

XiSasukeUchiha3781d ago

WTF damn what wrong with this world , it's going upside, 180 , and over the top hopefully if this true make it good pay.

B1663r3781d ago

Reviewers should disclose if they got their game and hardware for free in addition to how they get paid.

In addition to that, PS4 game reviewers should indicate if they went to the PS4 press only launch event, and received a 3 night vacation in a 5 star hotel, and the monogrammed PS4, basically if they took part in the extravagant gifting that Sony engaged in right before the launch of the new consoles.

Show all comments (65)
140°

Keoken Interactive lays off majority of team after failing to find funding at GDC

Deliver Us Mars developer Keoken Interactive has laid off the majority of its staff after struggling to secure funding …

Read Full Story >>
gamesindustry.biz
mastershredder2d ago

The industry model and standards and who's in place to approve/disapprove have changed ^ what Keoken is feeling now is much like the Mobile burst 15 years ago. Expect more to come out of your own finances. Investors are treating games like movies and now (thank$ a lot for involving yourself hollywood) only the big (and money blind) investors get involved, effectively killing a lot of content that would come out with proper non-gate-kept and/or with incentivized funding.

Markdn2d ago

And when you only make a fraction of your games worth on gamepass you suffer

Tacoboto1d 23h ago

Palworld and Manor Lords are so suffering.

RiseNShine1d 15h ago (Edited 1d 15h ago )

Sorry but i couldn't care less, Deliver us Mars was as woke game as they come, climate change disaster, all female cast plus only a comic relief indian guy (it takes only 5 minutes into the game for the main female character to say how smart she is compared to the guy), evil white guys, ugly females, then add generic gameplay and puzzles (how many times do you have to cut things with a laser for gods sake), you can't change anything in how the events develop so 0 agency in the story, sub par graphics even while using UE4. So well, go woke go broke, that's how it works.

Miacosa1d 11h ago (Edited 1d 11h ago )

That stinks but with a 68 average critic rating on their games probably made it difficult for people to invest considering there is a bloat of games getting made these days.

ROCKY281d 7h ago

You guys will be back with team strength and funding !

210°

PS5 Was The Market Leader In Unit & Dollar Sales For Q1 2024 And March In US

Mat Piscatella of analyst firm Circana has revealed that the PS5 was the market leader in North America for both unit and dollar sales during not only March 2024, but the first quarter of the year as a whole.

Writing on Twitter, Piscatella revealed that spending for video game hardware in February 2024 dropped 32% in comparison to the same period last year, totalling $391 million. In addition, spending for PS5, Xbox Series X/S and Nintendo Switch each fell a minimum of 30% year-on-year.

Cacabunga2d ago

What will happen when Sony announce a new Uncharted, Killzone, Tsushima or Horizon ..

ChronoJoe2d ago

Ah yes, Killzone that'll light the world on fire.

I'm joking but I do wish it were likely or more popular.

shinoff21832d ago

I'd rather an upgrade over some fps personally. Like a true rpg not some action game with a couple of rpg lite mechanics in it.

Jingsing1d 20h ago

To be fair Sony usually know when to let a franchise go dormant, They gave Killzone over 6 different games and it never reached that summit. You end up in a situation like Microsoft if you just keep hammering out Halo and Gears and Forza etc. Microsoft should be smart enough to let them games go.

Demetrius1d 14h ago (Edited 1d 14h ago )

I thoroughly enjoy my open world games, but highest interest will always be the shooter genre lol it's just something about a good well crafted shooter with lore to it something like the Max payne series

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1d 14h ago
ravens521d 7h ago

Lmao. Perfect example of the denial.

Hofstaderman2d ago

But PS5 and Switch still outsells XBOX embarrassingly even with overall consoles sales decline.

Giga_Gaia2d ago

At this point, I think PS5 and Switch sell more in one month than Xbox does in an entire quarter...

Ironmike1d 22h ago

Stop being sad mt just enjoy ur console of choice and just accept there's not only ps5 in the world

2d ago
Elda2d ago

This is not surprising in the slightest. The song will continue to remain the same.

romulus232d ago

And in other news wet is water.

Show all comments (22)
280°

AAA Games Will Get More Expensive And That Might Not Be Entirely Bad

Najam from eXputer: "The norm of $60 AAA games is no more as developers now charge more for their games. Here's why this might not be a bad thing for gamers."

Kaii2d ago

*Elden Ring type games, yeah sure. (scoring 8+)
(AAA/quadruple A) slop can shove it up their discounted ass

In recent yrs my purchasing In Indies has increased and its decreased for major IP's because I cba with the lack of innovative gameplay.

Focusing on the topic, why not mention Take-Two CEO getting his pay increased while axing 500 staff? I'm getting annoyed that those practices get ignored by the "gaming" media because ya don't want to burn potential bridges but seriously, gtfo.

fsfsxii2d ago

Im not contesting that triple a games are not innovative, but most indie games are 2D side scrollers with pixel art, fompletely lacking in innovation

CantThinkOfAUsername2d ago

Agreed. 99% of indie is metroidvania, rogue-lites and visual novels.

Sgt_Slaughter2d ago

That shows me you know don't anything about indies if that's the conclusion and generalization you managed.

Tacoboto2d ago

"I'm getting annoyed that those practices get ignored by the "gaming" media because ya don't want to burn potential bridges but seriously, gtfo"

What exactly is gaming media going to do that it's not already doing?

Welcome to capitalism and corporatism - every industry has this problem, it's not a gaming one.

Sephiroushin1d 12h ago (Edited 1d 12h ago )

They can start by saying the price increases is not good especially with all the micro transactions publishers put on games we pay for; but instead they tell people that the price increase on games is actually a good thing 🤦🏻

thorstein2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

It's a bad thing for gamers and for in the chair game devs. We just heard of massive layoffs across the industry.

I'd pay more if I read articles about how they were hiring. I'd pay more if I read articles about how the people who made the game scored record setting pay raises and CEOs were no longer given 1 year bonuses that could sustain a small studio for 10 years.

But that's not what happened.

Crows902d ago

Yeah there's only so much people are willing to pay for entertainment. Especially in the form of games at the same time that there are free to play games and cheaper in the titles that compete with triple A. You're not going to be able to keep increasing pricing and get the same amount of sales. I already don't buy games at the new price or even at $60. I wait for $40 or less. And I don't believe I'm alone in that department. If you don't have any other expenses you can probably continue to afford buying games at the top price but many people eventually have other things that take priority and you're just not going to spend it that much money on a video game.

Heck if I have to play one game for the rest of my life I'd probably end up playing Warframe or Counter-Strike. These are all either free games or were paid games and now are free.

The AAA industry is a threat to the gaming industry. They're trying to continue to ride the way and keep increasing prices. They're trying to get all of the money as long as they're able to.

anast2d ago

Good point. I usually wait unless it's a favorite, but there are only 3 publ./dev. teams I can say that about, and 1 out of 3 gets day 1 treatment.

As for F2P, I'm a Path of Exile fan myself. I would just start hitting that hard and wait until prices drop.

Crows902d ago

Path of exile would be an also pretty good alternative. I probably choose path of exile 2 since it'll be fresher and will receive more content most likely. I don't know

I did grow tired of path of exile after a while

Software_Lover2d ago

It's bad. People just want good games at decent prices. Not everything has to be super realistic with 200 voice actors. Look at Palworld.

Ironmike2d ago

Terrible article game prices go up any more u can kiss this industry goodbye

TiredGamer2d ago

The industry will and is already imploding due to double standards relative to prices everywhere else in society. Just as with food, housing, transportation, and other forms of entertainment, costs will increase even if only due to the constant rise in inflation.

Inflation is a fact of our modern world, and is a consequence of normal (usually healthy) economic activity. It is a result of a slow and continuous growth due to increasing money supply, and the complex relationship between consumer supply and demand. Inflation leads to the eventual increase in wages, whether through cost of living increases, yearly increases, minimum wage increases, or a higher demand of workers than there is supply.

The fact that the game industry has managed to keep game prices at or near the $60/70 range for DECADES is amazing in its own right. The buying power of a dollar has dropped in half in the last twenty years, so each year that prices don’t increase, it is essentially a price decrease for the previous year. Think about that.

Part of the problem is that games have been arbitrarily held at such a low price for so long that it has created a psychological ceiling in peoples’ heads that can’t be exceeded. MTs and other schemes have been created to try and mitigate this discrepancy, but those don’t work with every game/genre and have also received their own significant consumer blowback.

If games can’t exceed the $60-70 barrier even though that $70 is economically a lower “true” price than the cost of games even a decade ago, publishers will do what they can to make up the difference before eventually running out of options and exiting the industry.

I don’t like to pay more than I have to just like everyone else, but you have to be fair in comparing price increases (or lack thereof) in the game industry with the price increases across the rest of society.

anast2d ago

..."$60/70 range for DECADES"

This is false. Incomplete games have been this price for decades. For at least a decade or two, complete games have been $100 or more. They sell games as standard version and complete version, but now is some kind of version of deluxe, gold, complete, and ultimate. The tiers tell you that the standard version is not complete. It's explicitly stated. If the 60 game is sold for 70 and doesn't have tiers, micros and live service elements, I understand, but we most publishers aren't doing that.

"Part of the problem is that games have been arbitrarily held at such a low price for so long"

The have been held at a relatively low price, but gaming has never been cheap.

"If games can’t exceed the $60-70 barrier even though that $70 is economically a lower “true” price than the cost of games even a decade ago, publishers will do what they can to make up the difference before eventually running out of options and exiting the industry."

Most publishers need to leave the industry. This would actually be a good thing, but they won't because games complete games haven't been $60 for decades. It's usually $100 or more for the complete games and extra for the live-service elements, which rounds it out to a $50 game in the 80s, plus all of the micros and live-service fees and on top off this games are gravitating to being for rent in perpetuality via digital only releases. I would say they have more than already made up for it.

Ironmike2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

U should work with government mt nobody will pay 100 or even 80 for a game I do t how amazing u think it is that they kept prices down it not sustainable and only thing they kept down is the state they release have these games have
microtranscations this industry is going to hot Brickwall ppl already sick of prices then they release half finished games

TiredGamer2d ago

Everyone should have to study macro and microeconomics in HS so that they understand how a market economy works. I don't really hold college degrees with any reverence, as I feel that many degrees are outright scams, but I have studied economics for many years and at the graduate level. It's fascinating stuff and helps explain so much of the world we live in even since ancient times.

Not sure what you're going on about with complete vs. incomplete games. DLC and expansions are not a requirement for most (all?) games. I rarely buy expansions outright (unless part of a GOY edition) and never feel like I'm missing anything significant. Core games are still "complete" experiences for what they are. The digital landscape has just made extra content more viable. In older generations, when games were not massive development projects taking years to make, a successful game would be followed up with an "expansion" sequel a year or two later. Microtransactions are certainly a way that publishers are trying to pay their bills, and I understand that not everyone needs/wants them. Developers are more apt to make a DLC expansion today because the act of creating a true sequel to a game is just a monumental task. When a sequel is made, it's a whole new multi-year investment and a higher level of expectations.

I've been buying games since the 16-bit era. I remember when R-Type for the TurboGrafx was $69.99 at Toys R Us... in 1991. Most new games were in the $50-60 range. The N64 era commonly had titles ranging in the $70 range. So yes... prices haven't budged in decades, but the dollar has dropped by at least half in as much time. So that N64 Turok game was more like $140 in today dollars.

I don't disagree that some publishers should leave the industry. But the economics of the industry aren't and won't just affect some publishers... it will affect all of them, and it will lead to less risk-taking and a retraction from the blockbuster AAA games we are seeing today.

anast1d 11h ago (Edited 1d 11h ago )

@Tired Gamer

If people need an advanced degree to understand the difference between complete version and standard version, we are all in more trouble than I thought.

Example, AC Valhalla has a standard version, a complete version , and so on. Other companies hide this via other names. It's an actuality. There is not an amount of appealing to authority that can change this.

The fact that you have been doing something for a long time doesn't make your argument sound. This would be a fallacy of which we don't need an advanced degree to know either. If the games have tiers where the complete version is sold at a separate cost, then the standard version is not the complete game. Of course you can play an incomplete game, people have been doing it for decades.

Iron Mike

Your words do not mean what I say is not an actuality. You are not offering any evidence.

TiredGamer1d 10h ago

An advanced degree is absolute not necessary to understand basic tenants of a market economy that have been practiced since ancient times. A basic HS course or even a competent YouTube video would likely suffice.

It's clear that we are now dealing with stoic perspectives and a general anger with the industry trends that are largely out of our/your control. We can argue semantics all day about complete and incomplete games, and we can probably make valid arguments both ways. I will submit that GOY, "Premium", or "Battle Pass" editions of titles do not invalidate that the standard editions are not whole experiences on their own. I won't accept that every bit of DLC, paid or unpaid, is required for me to feel like I have been cheated out of my game experience. If I look at the PSN storefront now and look at God of War Ragnarok, for instance, the standard edition has everything I would expect from a complete game. The Digital Deluxe Edition for $10 more gives me a couple of cosmetic items, a digital art book, the soundtrack, and an avatar set.... this sounds like a "limited edition" set with a few extras to sweeten the deal for true fans, which is a practice that has existed for decades in all sorts of industries. Nothing there is essential in any way to the core/complete game experience.

As far as game prices being far higher (in current dollars) than today, there is no argument. Games of all types have been priced at the $50-70 mark since the early 1990s, and any AAA game today is made on a budget at least 100x higher than those early 90s titles. That's a pretty dramatic statement that needs no explanation. When expectations exceed the capability of the industry to deliver at certain price point, you can either increase prices, reduce quality, or go out of business. You can't go into a grocery store/restaurant and buy a Prime Steak Dinner and expect to pay 1990 prices for it.

anast1d 1h ago (Edited 1d 1h ago )

@Tired Gamer

I agree that people have knee jerk reactions, but we can't let such paint a picture that is not actual. Companies are in the business of exploiting as much as humanly possible, if not then they aren't a successful business. Therefore, it is also understandable that people are going to cry foul when they quote "the economy," something they know that hardly anyone understands, as the main reason why they are asking for more money.

It's always going to be suspicious when billionaires ask for more. I was curious myself after returning to gaming after a long break that spanned generations and I noticed a lot of shady practices and I was actually shocked how all of this stuff is unregulated, such as gambling in the form of loot boxes, cut content sold as "DLC", live-services and list goes on.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1d 1h ago
Show all comments (57)