• wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    $50-60 based on what? Adjusted for inflation in 1982, it’s more like $33 and distribution costs are way lower than back then. Truth is you just need to find a compelling gameplay loop but companies don’t like taking risks- not every game needs to be a massive endeavor like skyrim. Look at games like slay the spire and see how a cheap game can be compelling without having to be a AAA behemoth. And at that note, is there even anything wrong if a game only takes your attention for a hundred hours? I don’t see the need to extend the player’s attention with poor side quest grinding. These things add unnecessary cost

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      The $10 games were trash in 1982. You’re going to spend 30 on something like Q-bert https://www.polygon.com/2014/6/4/5779048/atari-et-ads-commercials-videos-1982

      https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

      in 2025 Money, that’s $99, assuming you got it used I gave you 50-60

      is there even anything wrong if a game only takes your attention for a hundred hours

      I don’t think so, but you’re the one who mentioned it :)

      but I got hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay out of Qbert. Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?

      • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Wow, shift goalposts much? You said “$10 in qbert days” which was the 80s and now it’s not $10 it’s $30. You can just admit you got it wrong and it was never $10 (though I do think prices right now are actually well aligned at $60 because of the far lower costs in distribution and marketing). Also I’m NOT the OP who played thousands of hours on qbert. Great job quoting someone else.