this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
867 points (97.1% liked)

Gaming

20055 readers
37 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

While this was true in a pre-Steam world, it hasn't been true for a while.

See Terraria (which didn't suck, but was lackluster compared to how the game is now), No Man's Sky, Cyberpunk 2077.

[–] Sheeple 4 points 1 year ago

There's also a recent trend of "forever games", where it's clear that the goal is to keep you playing it perpetually. It has both upsides and downsides. These games tend to change intensely over the years. Minecraft is such an example.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't have a problem when small studios do it for games like Terraria and No Man's Sky. It keeps them solvent without having to attach themselves to a big publisher.

I do have a problem when a giant, established company does it, as is the case for Cyberpunk 2077.

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

Whenever I hear this quote I also think of the developers/publishers. They need to have a good reputation so people buy their games.

I think that's why EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft, Activision, etc sales have gone down. I will not say that gamers react fairly when it comes to unfinished game releases, but it takes one bad game to ruin a developer. Especially when you consider how small the margins are or if they are publicly traded. Even developers with good games have recently been going out of business because it's not sustainable.

I also think of their legacies. Especially in a post-steam world, a game with a good legacy will continue to sell for much longer. I don't think a game like Watch Dogs ever got rid of the stink surrounding it, even though it isn't a bad game to go back to nowadays.