Digital distribution (especially Steam) has shaved off a lot of cost on that end. Just a different perspective mate, don't take it personally!Įdit: I also forgot to mention that packaging and distribution used to cost a lot of money back then, even for PC titles.
Asking for games to cost $2 is like saying to a game developer "your labor is worthless." "Different people, different earnings" and all that. In the context of video games themselves, saying that $20 is too much is not only a historical anomaly but is harmful to developers trying to earn a living. But skilled labor (and sometimes advertising) will always be a big component of making such an artistic & technical product. Thankfully since then free and accessible game engines have come out, like Unity and Unreal, which has driven the cost of making a game down a bit. It's actually much worse when you account for inflation - that $60 USD back then is worth about $100 in the USA now. Here's what they were in the middle 1990s.
I hear you, but video games have always been expensive. Anyone else feel the same after playing it? I actually think the devs for XCOM can learn a thing or two from the game. It was the midgame that was always the most fun, when you were still encountering new enemies and unlocking gear/promotions. With XCOM, I always felt like that the early game was an exercise in frustration and the late game was an exercise in rolling the right enemies to match your gear (LW2). The game also has a much more natural difficulty and complexity curve. There is no RNG whatsover in how engagements happen, and you know exactly how things will behave. But the final game only resembles XCOM in geometric layout, but plays more like chess. Turns out that the devs were heavily influenced by XCOM and that many of the alpha builds were very XCOM-y. I had no idea what it was about, but just that "it was a good game". While waiting for WOTC, I started playing Invisible Inc as it was the free PSN+ game awhile back.
0 kommentar(er)
