If it's a game I'm going to get hundreds, or sometimes thousands of hours from, then I'll pay more. If you look at price per hour spent on entertainment, it's hard to compare. However, you often have to wade through a bunch of shitty overpriced games to find those gems.

Okay, back to EU4 now ;)

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm kind of in a different boat with this. I'm paying for quality, not quantity. Especially since I don't have as much free time as I did 20 years ago.

So if I can play through a phenomenal story within a couple months over a 20 hour game (which usually takes me 30 hours) at the height of the hype when people are still talking about it, I love it. Give me efficient storytelling.

In fact, if it's something longer, it kind makes me rethink it whether I want to pay full price. Why rush?

[–] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am the same. Game could take 60 hours to complete, and 50 of them are dogshit. Then it’s not a fun game. It’s all about the overall quality of the entire experience.

I would gladly pay $100 for Subnautica 2 if they could pull off another amazing adventure. Would do the same for another Larian studio game.

[–] Corigan@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

While I agree with the mind set, I don't feel the industry is set up to allow consumers to make such informed decisions.

We have review embargos (hey just don't preorder bro), paid for reviews, blatant lies or mis representation in ads. Demos are few and far in-between. It's hard to want to pay for more than 60 these days given the constant anti consumer practices that happen in the gaming industry. Why would I pay you more when you clearly don't respect your customers (most publishers)

I'm at the point where I don't buy a game until it is on sale and has a ton of reviews. I have such a huge backlog, it doesn't bother me to not play the latest thing.

[–] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

I do the same, follow my patient gamer philosophy.

Until that time I can play guitar and likely have more fun repeatedly failing to learn a new rift. It’s sad that sucking at a guitar is more fun than most modern games.

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I will only do this for games I know I will like, from studios I want to support.

I literally will wait until a sale ends to buy a game made by Yoko Taro or FromSoftware at full price.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sits back in porch chair, Back in my day you could get a fully complete console game wið online multiplayer and all ð bells and whistles, for just ÞIRTY DOLLARS

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

hell yeah, þorn and eð user in the wild!

alþough I stand by the opinion þat þe voiced-voicless distinction between þorn and eð is someþing superimposed onto English later on, as eð and þorn were used interchangeably for a time and it was more a question of time period raþer þan voicedness

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean ð distinction is well and truly ðere now, so a spelling reform ðat tries to reinstate a spelling convention from a period when it wasn't is really just slapping a coat of paint on the same kinds of historical spelling issues ðat English still has.

To me bringing ðem back isn't a matter of restoring old spelling, it's a matter of using what once was to make something ðat works for the here and now.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

My point is more þat we don't really need þe distinction, a lot of other phonemes are ambiguous in English, and þey've not coexisted for a long time historically. Early English mostly used eð, middle English mostly þorn. Not faulting you for using boþ at all, I þink þat's also valid