this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
211 points (92.4% liked)

Games

16798 readers
1789 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Fans have taken to the likes of X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok to question NetherRealm's decision to market Mortal Kombat 1 as a $70 Switch release. It has been called "robbery" and "disrespectful" to users.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, manufactured might have been the wrong word. Pointless? Uncalled for?

[–] elbarto777 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

But why would it be pointless or uncalled for? $70 for a rather old game?

Edit: I've been schooled. Is a brand new game with a confusing name. Still $70 for a console game; yikes.

[–] Vamanos 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Others have already replied with this info but I’m just spelling it out for anyone who is not familiar like me:

They fucking named the brand new game mk1. Is it a remaster? No. It’s not a remaster. Is it a recreation of mk1? No. It’s an alternate timeline game given the worst name in the history of naming things. It’s genuinely a brand new game.

[–] elbarto777 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Holy shit. They really fucked up with that name.

[–] Vamanos 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sometimes I wish I could have a job where companies just say “hey should we make this decision” and I tell them “that’s so fucking stupid no one will actually like that” and get paid well for it.

That’s my dream.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I've had some similar roles before, but more often than not companies just do it anyway, even if you have a lot of data to the contrary. It's stupidly easy for someone in management to push some of this through despite the data, choose an arbitrary metric to define their success, get their bonus, and then bail for another company. Meanwhile, folks left at the company have to then try and fix all of the nonsense. It blows that we value failing forward. I've seen a few decent products just tanked this way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I mean… we live in the timeline where we had the Xbox One being the third Xbox, and Battlefield 1 not being the first Battlefield.

I would not be surprised if we start seeing “[Game Title] One” for rebooted games.

[–] Sanctus 8 points 1 year ago

Its not an old game, MK1 is the latest release. The people getting served this are running it on hardware that was weak last generation. At a certain point you simply cannot push these devices any further. MK1 for Switch was never going to look beautiful, the current gen Switch can't do it. I'm okay with devs making their games available, I mean at least you can play it. Theres a reason a Switch 2 is in the works.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

This is a brand new game, they just gave it a confusing name

[–] VonCesaw 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's standard price for new games from EA, greater Microsoft (id, Bethesda, Obsidian, 343, etc), SqEnix, and WB

[–] elbarto777 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Which is bullshit. It reminds me of when web email services offered ridiculously small inbox sizes, such as 25MB or 50MB. Then in came Google and offered 1GB, and all of a sudden all those companies found the way to match Google's offering.

But I guess if people are willing to pay for those ridiculous prices, and deal with in-game payments..... shrug.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because you have the full choice to not buy and support it, if you think the price is unreasonable. It's not a vital need, and nobody's forcing customers to buy it. Housing, food, healthcare, we don't have a choice. Buy or die. A video game? Not so much. The issue is not game publishers overcharging, it's players who moan and whine... AND THEN BUY IT ANYWAY, thus ensuring the publishers will continue the practice

[–] elbarto777 3 points 1 year ago

Sure, but are we talking about people who buy the game, or people in general bashing at the price? They're not necessarily the same group.

It's like when Apple announced that $1000 monitor stand. It was laughable. Even if I won't buy one, I bashed it to no end, because it was fun.